Steve Zwick walked back his comments about letting skeptics’s houses burn down and tries to clarify the point he was trying to make. I have further comments in a new Forbes article here. An excerpt:
Steve Zwick has posted an update to the post I wrote about last week and has decided the house-burning analogy was unproductive. Fine. I have written a lot of dumb stuff on a deadline. In his new post, he has gone so far in the opposite direction of balance and fairness that I am not even sure what his point is any more — the only one I can tease out is that people who intentionally bring bad information to a public debate should be held accountable in some way. Uh, OK. If he wants to lock up the entirety of Congress he won’t get any argument out of this libertarian.
Here is the problem with Mr. Zwick’s point in actual application: Increasingly, many people on both sides of the climate debate have decided that the folks on the other side are not people of goodwill. They are nefarious. They lie. They want to destroy the Earth or the want to promote UN-led world socialism. If you believe your opponents are well-mentioned but wrong, you say “they are grossly underestimating future climate change which could have catastrophic effects on mankind.” You don’t talk about punishments, because we don’t punish people who take the wrong scientific position — did we throw those phlogiston proponents in jail? How about the cold fusion guys?
However, when the debate becomes politicized, we stop believing the other side is well-intentioned. So you get people like Joe Romm describing the people on the two sides of the debate this way:
But the difference is that those who are trying to preserve a livable climate and hence the health and well-being of our children and billions of people this century quickly denounce the few offensive over-reaches of those who claim to share our goals — but those trying to destroy a livable climate [ie skeptics], well, for them lies and hate speech are the modus operandi, so such behavior is not only tolerated, but encouraged.
This is where the argument goes downhill. When one group believes the other side is no longer just disagreeing, but “trying to destroy a livable climate” and for whom “lies and hate speech are the modus operandi,” then honest debate is no longer possible. If I honestly thought a group of people really, truly wanted to destroy a livable climate, I might suggest letting their houses burn down too.
It is foolish to think that climate realists hate their grandchildren and want them to experience a catastrophe !
The alarmists don’t either and for one side to believe that of the other is mentally challenged.
You know – such behaviour is just this side of evil. It’s tinged with fanaticism.
This is what Zwick is actually saying folks. Mr. Meyers is distorting his message:
“On Friday, I posted an intentionally provocative piece that I thought would bypass this loop but spark an insightful debate about one of the most complex issues facing us today: namely, who should bear the costs of adapting to climate change if the scientists are right? After all, if they are right, this mess is going to drive up food prices around the world, and it’s going to hit indigenous people in Africa, Latin America, and Asia the hardest, and that’s not fair.
“To make these distant people more immediate, I channeled my inner Michael Sandel by throwing out a left-field analogy. Remember those Tennessee firefighters who refused to put out house-fires when the owners hadn’t paid their service fees? I compared that dilemma to the climate-change dilemma: if the scientists are right, do we save the people who caused the problem, or do we save the victims first?
“Well, instead of a challenging debate on a sticky issue, I found myself accused of telling people to go out and burn down houses. I said no such thing, but after reading my piece with fresh eyes, even I have to admit that the analogy is more of a distraction than a point of departure for debate.
“The issues, however, remain – and if the scientists are right, we will have to deal with them sooner or later. What’s more, I suspect if we frame the discussion right, we will find that we have common ground on some basic principles – beginning with the principle that you don’t go burning people’s houses down, which is a corollary of the larger principle of justice.”
Waldo did defend Zwick despite having called him a “Dick” earlier.
There is and will be no catastrophic warming so there will be no burning houses.
Since there has been no warming this century and CO2’s effect is logarithmic so warming will decrease the later you go.
No netdr, you need to pay closer attention. I said he sounded like a Dick earlier. That was when I had only read Mr. Meyer’s post. Then I read his column and found that Mr. Meyer had misrepresented him, so I changed my mind. That’s the difference between us—I am capable of finding new information, assimilating new information, and then critically analyzing it. Unlike you. And that is why you are a denialist.
How’s the peer review coming, by the way? Still faking it here in the shallow end with the other kiddies?
Waldo,
Zwick walked back his repugnant hateful rhetoric, but here you are saying Warren “misrepresented” it.
Here’s what he said,
“We know who the active denialists are – not the people who buy the lies, mind you, but the people who create the lies. Let’s start keeping track of them now, and when the famines come, let’s make them pay.
How does it feel to be an apologist for fascism?
Waldo
You were right the first time. He is a “Dick”.
Waldo
Zwick said
“let’s make them pay. Let’s let their houses burn. Let’s swap their safe land for submerged islands. Let’s force them to bear the cost of rising food prices.”
And you defend him ?
You are as crazy as he is !
When you use hyperbole to get a reaction, you must assume responsibility for the extreme position you have advocated AND the reaction it brings. It is disingenuous to say, they are destroying our nation, we should smash their windows, and then try to say you were just getting peoples’ attention and didn’t intend anyone to take you seriously.
Children say outrageous things and we let them retract them. Adults who say such things must stand by them or apologize clearly and specifically deny that what they said they stand for. We expect adults to behave according to their conscience and their understanding of facts. Politicians don’t do this, sure, but we hold them at a distance, with our noses plugged, because of that.
If Zwick thinks that we should discount his words, generally hold him in presumed contempt as a lying sack of sh–, a trouble-maker who says whatever is useful when he believes if it is inconvenient, then he needs only say the word. Then we can deal with him as we would any reactionary bigot who threatens the public peace and safety.
I appreciate Doug’s articulate response. But first he writes this:
“We expect adults to behave according to their conscience and their understanding of facts.”
And then he writes this:
“Then we can deal with him as we would any reactionary bigot who threatens the public peace and safety.”
Look at what he wrote!!! He wants to “deal with them”! Clearly he is advocating violence against anyone who disagrees with him!
Or am I taking his words out of context?
Deal with them doesn’t advocate violence !
Where did you get that idea.
If we spend tens of trillions of dollars and it turns out it was a waste of money will the climate alarmists pay the rest of us back ?
He said “deal with them”! What else is that supposed to mean?! I don’t care about the rest of his post or anything else he said; he said “deal with them”! Therefore he is advocating violently suppressing any dissenting opinion! I say this without any hype or hysteria.
How does it feel to be an apologist for brutality?
Waldo
Deal with them could mean asking them to pay for the wasted $$
It could mean scolding them sternly. Only the alarmists advocate violence.
I have had an alarmist propose sending me to a re-education camp to learn all about global warming !
This same alarmist did his best to silence me by banning my USA today and Hufpost accounts.
Climate realists welcome discussion climate pessimists ban it whenever possible.
They are afraid that people will realize how weak their case is. Bad news, people are figuring it out.
You’re walking back what he said. It’s right there; he said “deal with them”! How can you have any other interpretation?! You are as crazy as he is! He doesn’t say “ASK them to pay back the money,” he says “deal with them.” That’s coded language for inflicting violence upon someone—gangsters use that language. Nothing else he writes matters and I will refuse to examine further what Proctor says elsewhere in his post because I am certain that, being a Denialist, he is violent and irrational. Such behavior is just this side of evil.
Waldo,
“That’s coded language for inflicting violence…”
Nice try Waldo, except Zwick didn’t use any “code” he just openly advocated tracking people and inflicting harm and violence on them because they disargreed with him.
You were doing so well at first, acknowledging Zwick’s “dickishness”. You could earn back those credibility points by just acknowledging that he made threats to people becausethey disagreed with him and is now pretending he didn’t say that.
And boy, could your credibility use boosting.
Bwahahahaha!
Okay, I can’t keep doing this. It’s too easy. It’s also hilarious.
You noobs! Of course Doug Proctor isn’t actually advocating doing violence to people he disagrees with. Geeze. But clearly, if taken out of context, Proctor’s words can be manipulated to seem that he is. The same is true of Zwick, whether or not I agree with him (which I don’t necessarily). Read his post; he was making an analogy which, he admits, was counter-productive. It was a poorly written post that, typical of Meyer’s Minions, is a call to hype and hysteria.
I cannot think of a more ironic thread on a post overtly about how “broken” the climate “debate” is. Mr. Meyer is actually talking about people just like you, even if he doesn’t realize it.
Noob City, man. So my credibility here is not something I am particularly worried about, Lance. You may rate me however you feel.
Bwhahahaha!
Noobs.
The alarmists have threatened to put me in a concentration camp to learn the correct views on global warming.
No pressure ?
Waldo
Did that video advocate violence ? Of course it did.
WTF are U talking about?
netdr, I think you’ve lost a microchip, buddy. Take a breather.
Waldo Did you watch that video ?
It was no joke.
That is what alarmists want to do to us.
Waldo said
“This is what Zwick is actually saying folks
I found myself accused of telling people to go out and burn down houses.”
I read his statement and that is EXACTLY what he advocated and Waldo is defending !
netdr, didn’t you once post that you were a college professor of some sort?
I was.
I also was an engineer and programed computer models so I am aware of the challenges of creating one’s that work.
I am also familiar with positive and negative feedbacks and am certain that the climate is a negative feedback system. If it weren’t we would be living on a Venus like planet or it would be ice covered.
The alarmists are obviously incapable of doing this, but they claim to be able to make one which predicts 100 years in the future.
Uh huh…
Waldo,
We know that Zwick was not literally calling to burn people’s houses down or strand them on sinking islands, nor does he have the power to do so.
The point, my dense friend, is that he isn’t responding to arguments against his point of view. He is portraying people that have a different view of the facts as being evil. He is claiming that anyone that doesn’t agree with him is either a dupe or knowingly misleading others toward a deadly future on purpose for short term gain.
He is either a fool or a liar and you seem to be both.
Ummmmm….Laa-aance?
****”Zwick didn’t use any ‘code’ he just openly advocated tracking people and inflicting harm and violence on them because they disargreed with him.”
Then you write:
****”We know that Zwick was not literally calling to burn people’s houses down or strand them on sinking islands”
Duh.
Actually, Zwick was arguing that we let those who cause catastrophe pay for the catastrophe; more precisely, he was suggesting that if the catastrophe occurs, the people who cause it should be held accountable(I see nothing about “short term gain”—did you actually read his post?).
Nor is he “portraying people that have a different view of the facts as being evil,” you simpleton—he’s arguing that Denialists are using propaganda to contradict science.
Now he did a fairly poor job of making an argument since he unintentionally allowed the Denialists the chance to rend their clothes and tear their hair and claim the cult of victimhood toward which they are so apt, but he was suggesting neither of the things you contradict yourself with upstairs. Zwick makes all this perfectly clear. Analogy, folks, analogy. A bad one in political terms but a simple analogy nevertheless that seems to have clogged what little sophistication the Denialosphere has to offer.
And, by the way, there is absolutely nothing different in the tone and psychology of Zwick’s piece and the kind of denial propaganda at places like Nova’s or Watt’s or “No Frakkin”‘s site, including this one. But again, this kind of thinking takes a level of sophistication that places like CS are truly lacking, so why should we expect any different?
Earth is going to get hit with a civilization ending asteroid or comet. PERIOD ! The date is uncertain but it is going to happen. We should have at least 3 space ships on standby and a team practicing deflecting space objects right now. It would be cheap relative to CO2 taxes., mere billions of dollars.
I keep hearing the term “Hate speech” in various Left vs. Right contexts. In virtually every case i find it’s simply hyperbole. My question is; to what is Romm referring when he claims that skeptics are using “hate speech”?
To what are you referring, gerald? Link?
Waldo,
The public is no longer buying the poor science and catastrophic hype you hold so dear.
It’s over baby.
Lame attempt at a recovery there, Lance.
Actually, the Brookings Institute found that 62% of N. Americans believed in climate change—still lower than in the past but a rebound in recent years. The numbers are more complicated than that overall, of course, once you start to break down by exactly what people are thinking. The LA times has a comprehensible article about it:
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/29/local/la-me-gs-more-americans-now-believe-in-global-warming-20120229
Although I don’t actually expect you or anyone here to read it.
And for the record, I’m a climate “agnostic.” I don’t know where the climate is going. And neither do you or netdr or Mr. Meyer. But that doesn’t stop your big slow wheels from turning.
Now, go try and come up with an original thought. Baby.
Flying a false pretense like that, telling lies, big lies, repeated lies, suppressing facts and doing everything possible to suppress or obscure the truth is a tactic deliberately embraced as a general matter of policy by the Socialist \ Progressive \ Communist \ social planner \ community organizer \ Fascist \ Obama Democrat Leftist, and their propaganda tool the main stream Presstitutes, and specifically resorted to here in the Trojan Horse of the man made CO2 based global warming fraud. Some of them have openly admitted it is not about science or climate at all. They don’t have the facts or the science behind them and know it and don’t care. It’s about money and power to them. For some it’s about a globalist “social justice” and the United States must be made to pay as “collective salvation”.
Cyclical changes in the magnetic output of the sun that provides our protective heliosphere are taking place. Climate consequences will follow. The sun gave us warming and now it is turning to a cooler cycle. As Svensmark has made so crystal clear, “clouds drive our climate and the stars give our clouds their orders” (via cosmic rays). When cosmic rays overwhelm due to galactic positioning of our system we get a snowball Earth. When cosmic rays are sparse we have the polar ice caps melt. When the situation is like our current one we get about 65% cloud cover and the battle of the sun light to reach the Earth surface allows us to have polar ice caps. The battling partnership between the cosmic rays and the sun swings the solar reflectivity of the clouds at the 2000 to 3000 foot level and climate goes warmer or goes colder. Climate in our current galactic environment follows our solar magnetic output. We are getting less magnetic output for a long time. Look to the clouds.
How is it that this site is suddenly attracting all the cosmic nut jobs?
Waldo,
We could play my poll is better than your poll all night but the fact is that climate change, or climate disruption, or what ever scary name you wish to give it, is not very high on the priorities of the public or even the Obama administration at the moment.
This post was about the “debate” and you are a shining example of people “talking past each other”. You are much more interested in scoring “gotcha” points than engaging in a discussion of the science. (Which is odd considering that about 100 people a month drift through this site, so one wonders why you bother.)
So you’re an “agnostic” eh? Well, I am a “lukewarmer”. There is certainly no empirical evidence that we face a “climate catastrophe” anytime soon. All of the real players acknowledge that doubling atmospheric CO2 probably will contribute about 1 degree Celsius of warming.
The real question is what are the magnitude and sign of the feed backs.
I’m glad to hear you say you “don’t know where the climate is going”.
You seem to at least acknowledge some degree of uncertainty, and since it hasn’t “gone far” I don’t see any reason to panic.
You can do as you wish of course.
Why don’t you try and increase your signal to noise ratio and maybe there would be some reason to respond to you other than returning a volley of snide insults?
Actually the “gotcha” game is both fun and informative, Lance. What I am interested in, and why I comment here, is because of the mindset I find on sites like CS. Very simply, dire statements such as “no empirical evidence that we face a ‘clime catastrophe’ anytime soon” and “I don’t see any reason to panic” are pretty funny when one considers climate scientists predict AGW on a timescale of something like a 100 years in the first place. In other words, no one is predicting tomorrow’s disaster but a planet dangerously altered for our grandchildren. And if AGW is correct, then we have been seeing increasing dangerous storm activity and weather changes worldwide.
And do you really know the science well enough to evaluate it?
I suspect you are simply looking for a reason to be nasty about the climate “debate” despite a limited ability to work the science. The “gotcha” game above is a perfect example of the CS mindset which you personify: you made some very inaccurate, cliched blanket statements about Zwick’s article based on Mr. Meyer’s distortions, contradicted yourself, and then flashed back with yet another adolescent, cliched, and inaccurate statement. I simply called you on this. All of which suggests it’s a long way from over baby.
Waldo,
You are making some very unpleasant assumptions about me based on very little evidence. I have degrees in Physics and Mathematics (in fact I teach both at a major university) so I think I can evaluate scientific studies and evaluate evidence, at least to the point of identifying the quality of the data, efficacy of the methodology and correlation of the conclusions of the studies relative to those items.
I did back off from holding Zwick accountable for his actual words. Not because I had changed my opinion that he was responsible for the hateful rhetoric of his article, but to try to lower the temperature of the discussion. After all he was lowering the tone himself.
You of course rewarded my change of tone by blasting me as “contradicting” myself. (Oh, how skillful!)
Your last post is more of the same.
I have extended the olive branch and you have slapped me with it.
I’ll try again.
Why, specifically, do you believe that climate feed backs are strongly positive? If not what do you believe.
Well, forgive me for slapping you again with an olive branch, but I don’t believe you teach math and physics at a major university (look at your syntax and mechanics above—the professor bon-bon is never gonna fly until you learn to use the comma).
And you did not “back off from holding Zwick accountable for his actual words.” You simply made a second, vague, melodramatic misstatement.
Other than that, I believe that studies of the climate should be left to the professionals, and I believe the kinds of conversations that we find at places like these simply politicize the dialogue with the same kind of hysterical thinking seen in any number of cultural disasters (see anything above).
If you are who and what you say you are, what are you doing here? This is not a place where science is discussed in anything but the most perfunctory, politicized, and, when occasionally cross-posted on a site with real scientists, incredibly inaccurate manner by rather odd people.
So, professor, why not peer-review your findings on feed-back?
Waldo,
“I don’t believe you teach math and physics at a major university(look at your syntax and mechanics above—the professor bon-bon is never gonna fly until you learn to use the comma)”
Well, you asshat I don’t teach English and I wasn’t aware that my posts where being graded for “syntax and mechanics”. Send me some proof that you’re a real human being with an actual email address and I’ll give you my real name and the university where I teach, jack ass.
“…I believe that studies of the climate should be left to the professionals.”
Do you have any freaking idea what science even is? It is a method not a priesthood. Even the most arcane and technical study can be understood by anyone with a desire to investigate the claims made and the data presented.
If not, the scientists have failed to present their case and should be made to demonstrate their conclusions in a way that can be understood and, even more importantly, verified by any intelligent and motivated investigator.
Oh, I see. You’re too stupid or lazy to do a little research, and learn a little math or statistics, but you are confident to tell people with these skills that you are correct, trumpeting your ignorance and lack of scientific acumen as a virtue.
You are nothing but a big mouthed sheep. Following the herd, so long as the shepherds make the right political noises.
“If you are who and what you say you are, what are you doing here?”
I stumbled upon Warren’s site some years ago when I Googled “climate change skeptic”. I don’t post here that often and I must admit that when I do it is usually in response to some arrogant drivel posted by hit and run provocateurs, such as yourself.
I should have learned years ago to ignore pissants like you.
Since you seem to be interesting in the syntax and mechanics of the English language here is how a pissant is described by Kurt Vonnegut in his novel, Cat’s Cradle:
“A pissant is somebody who thinks he’s so damn smart, he can never keep his mouth shut. No matter what anybody says, he’s got to argue with it. You say why you like something, and, by God, he’ll tell you why you’re wrong to like it. A pissant does his best to make you feel like a boob all the time. No matter what you say, he knows better.”
Man does that definition fit you to a “t”.
I hope all of Kurt’s commas where in the right place.
Actually Lance, I set up an account just for the good people here:
waldosayscall@hotmail.com
Whatever you say to me will be held in confidence.
Now, you have some definite feelings about “pissants.” But how are YOU different from the behavior you outline above? Are you not following the Denialist herd? Is not Ye Goode Shepard Meyer not calling you with a political goat’s horn? As for being lazy—you didn’t even read Zwick’s post before you began posting about “harm and violence,” and this is incredibly intellectually lazy.
As for this—
“the scientists have failed to present their case and should be made to demonstrate their conclusions in a way that can be understood and, even more importantly, verified by any intelligent and motivated investigator”
—certainly you realize that the IPCC makes all its information available online for free, just as one example. If you are, in fact, a college instructor in the sciences, you should be able to follow, and if you cannot, you might admit that the science is beyond you and let the scientists do their work without adding to the already broken dialogue of the blogosphere.
At least we can agree on one thing: I LOVE Vonnegut, particularly Cat’s Cradle, even more than Slaughterhouse 5, which is also a killer read.
Waldo,
I read Zwick’s article, in its entirety, before I came here.
Also, nice job of editing my comments to make them say something that I never said. You made it sound like my general comment on the scientific method was a specific criticism of the IPCC. It wasn’t.
It was a criticism of you, for not taking the time and making the effort to investigate the science yourself.
I have read the majority of the available IPCC literature since the 1995 SAR (Second Assessment Report). At least those that are not behind pay walls.
I also love Cat’s Cradle and since I live in Indianapolis have been a fan of local boy Kurt Vonnegut Jr. since my teens.
I’ll drop you an email but since it looks to be an anonymous address I won’t be telling you who I am until I know who you are. Fair enough?
Actually, it’s fairly easy to find out who I am since I comment on climate change frequently at various blogs and since you know I live in Indianapolis it shouldn’t be hard to figure out the university where I teach.
As to being a pissant, I try to respectfully engage anyone that wants to discuss science or politics or whatever, that is until they call me a liar or impugn my intelligence or integrity.
Then I can get testy.
You do not need to tell me who you are, Lance, nor will I try to find out. It matters little.
“I try to respectfully engage anyone that wants to discuss science or politics or whatever”
I have to disagree. I would respectfully submit that you are participating wholesale in the broken dialogue Mr. Meyer posts about upstairs (apparently unaware of the irony), as am I, as is virtually everyone who comes here.
Didn’t you post “Zwick walked back his repugnant hateful rhetoric” and “If Waldo appears, he will dance around the topic while hurling insults, as usual” and “How does it feel to be an apologist for fascism?”
Do these strike you as particularly rational discussion oriented responses? And what do you think you illustrated with your responses to Zwick’s post above? If you did read it, it certainly wasn’t apparent out here.
Now, I do not particularly care what people post to me or about me online (I’m always amused when people get excited about what they see on a computer screen), but you are as trollish as anyone here, including myself. You will be tempted to claim that you are perfectly rational until you get “testy,” but you seem to demonstrate the typical denial-oriented mindset, what Mr. Meyer characterizes as “we stop believing the other side is well-intentioned.” So ironic that he, of all people, posts that here. Pot meet kettle. You may not think you come off this way, but you do.
So, since you are well versed in the scientific literature, what are you doing here? Why don’t you publish your critique and find out how well you actually know the science?
Waldo,
“So, since you are well versed in the scientific literature, what are you doing here? Why don’t you publish your critique and find out how well you actually know the science?”
I am currently an adjunct math and physics instructor. I am not a professor. I also run a small business. I have not had the time or money to complete my PhD.
My wife is currently pursuing her education and when she finishes I may very well pursue a research fellowship in atmospheric physics.
But, and I don’t mean to sound “trollish”, you are missing the point. I don’t have to be a published researcher in climate science to have an informed opinion on the state of the science, or the likelihood that we face any catastrophic consequences in the near or distant future from human CO2 emissions.
The literature is fairly accessible to anyone with a basic understanding of physics and statistical mathematics. Contrary to what Zwick and others like him think, there is no great, fossil fuel industry sponsored, “denial machine”.
There are only people, like Warren, Steve Mcintyre, Jeff Id and Anthony Watts that have looked at the science and disagree with the alarmist interpretation being put forward by environmental groups like the NRDC, Sierra Club, WWF, Union of Concerned Scientists, GreenPeace etc.
Are there some groups that get money from fossil fuels interests? Of course, but so do many of the environmental groups listed above.
But this is a distraction. The evidence is there for anyone to evaluate.
I get that you enjoy stirring up people, hell so do I. I have been banned from many of what I consider the alarmist climate change sites for being a provocateur myself, But I provoke these folks with uncomfortable facts as much as insulting rhetoric.
I still post at some of the ones with more openminded moderators and thicker-skinned hosts.
If you just want to make hit and run snide remarks, have at it. But you might want to have a look at the science and gain some insight into the real questions underlying the semi-political diatribes. It isn’t as clear cut as you seem to believe.
And until you do, you are flying blind and just playing word games. But hey, you seem to be pretty good at it and having a good time, so…
carry on.
I guess this is the thing, Lance:
I get entirely the point that you think you know enough but I do not. Got that.
But I think you are missing a point here when you say “I don’t have to be a published researcher in climate science to have an informed opinion on the state of the science.”
Actually, I will disagree with you. Anyone can have an “opinion.” One can even think one has an “informed opinion.” But how do you know you are not simply deluded about your own abilities, sources, information, and conclusions?
If you do, in fact, have a valid, informed, scientifically accurate opinion, it should be able to withstand the scrutiny of the scientific community, no? There is no reason to debate this. But since it is so easy to have a misinformed opinion, wouldn’t it be wise to gauge your understanding by trying to critique the science, analyzing the evidence, and/or doing your own research?
If you are inclined to argue that somehow the PR circuit is fixed, remember that the Pielkes and Lindzen have had long, flush careers in the sciences.
No other words, if you really think you understand the science better than the scientists who actually do the science, prove it. I dare you.
The good peeps here have an extraordinary ability to rationalize why they will not step out of the blogosphere. Usually the reasoning runs along the lines of ‘blogs-serve-a-different purpose’ (to which I would answer: yeah, to give amateurs a safe place to feel like scientists) or ‘I do not have time’ (which is another way of saying one is an amateur) or ‘scientists-look-out-for-their-own’ (which is hilarious when one of these blogs posters cites a “peer-reviewed” literature) or ‘one-does-not-need-to-peer-review-to-have-a-valid-opinion’ (to which I would say, yeah you do—otherwise you could be talking out of your hat and not realize it….which is what I think CS is all about).
All in all, the good peeps here stay in the safety of the Internet and don’t dare go head-to-head with the actual pros. Armchair quaterbacks.
Then there’s your short list of source material overhead (Id, “Aeronautical Engineering BS and a partial Masters”; Watts, weatherman; Meyer, parks manager; McIntye, mining consultant), all of whom post on blogs rather than run the gauntlet of peer-review scientific evaluation which would most likely eat them alive. I do know that places such as Real Climate have challenged and debunked these folks ad nauseum. Appeal to authority? No more than anyone here at CS when they herd along with Mr. Meyer.
I do not mean to be trollish, just frank.
So, my friend, if you really have been reading IPCC reports (just as an example, mind you) and find them lacking, why not tell them? Science and Nature both have open submission policies, as do many other excellent journals. Now’s the time for action, not excuses. Or are you going to join netdr and Ted Rado in avoiding the real scientists?
And the “denial machine” is another story perhaps best left for later after Willie Soon has collected his paychecks and the Heartland has passed out denial-cards to grade schoolers.
I always thought the ‘denial machine’ was the boggy man invention of environmental eco-whackos. 😉
Actually I think the “denial machine” is Lance’s invention—I’d never heard of it before 4:00pm May 1st, 2012.
I suspect it is a pretty good name for the denial-whackos, however.
Waldo,
Actually I think the “denial machine” is Lance’s invention—I’d never heard of it before 4:00pm May 1st, 2012.
I thought you said you read Zwick’s article? The following is in the third paragraph.
Gotcha!
Seriously, I’m too tired to deal with your constant refusal to address anything of substance.
Goodnight.
I’d forgotten he’d written that. My bad. I was a little bit impressed that you’d come up with the term and thought you rather clever. Oh well.
But I must protest! I think I answered with some substance your previous post. I would suggest you just don’t like the taste of this substance.
Can you or can you not do the hard scientific work it takes to prove your informed opinion? Do not avoid the issue. Prove yourself, young man, take your stand at your Indy branch campus! No one else here has dared to stand up to the actual scientists unless I cross-post their comments on the open thread at RC, at which point they are generally proven egregiously wrong.
Goodnight Denialists.
Waldo,
(You’re drifting into pissant territory again.)
IUPUI is not a “branch campus”. IUPUI has more students from Indiana than any other campus in the state. While it is affiliated with Indiana University and Purdue University it is an independent university with a law school, a medical school (with research hospital) a dental school etc. It is Indiana’s premier urban university, with over 30,000 students in 20 schools and academic units which grant degrees in more than 200 programs.(You’re drifting into pissant territory again.)
I’ll address the “substance” of your post in the morning. I’m wiped from grading two sections of Calculus and Pre-Calc.
Good night.
Yeah, I said “You’re drifting into pissant territory again.” twice.
It bore repeating. (And I’m very tired.)