Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by Rob Ellison
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by Barry Woods
What do you mean ‘even’ .. Barry Woods
As soon as I saw it couldn’t believe Anthony had read it properly, he hadn’t he was on the road travelling, smartphone, and had a number of issues going on at the same time, and I said it was dumber than dumb (and really offensive and irrational, deception, conspiracy theorising , motives) and worthy of deletion (with an explanation as to why, not to just vanish it).
I also said this to Richard and Tamsin (that Anthony could not have read it properly, and I’d asked to get it removed and hoped they could provide a response (Anthony asked if I could ask as well, a bit later on)
I was critical of James Delingpole over 3 years ago (for labels like Watermelon, and generalised rhetoric. I had an argument with him (and half of Bishop Hill regulars) about it at Bishop Hill (70:30 disagreeing with me )
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/9/28/dellers-on-reason.html
I mention that because Dr Tamsin Edwards added a comment there about no longer using ‘deniers’ because of chatting with Andrew and myself.
so ‘even’ sceptics like Barry Woods is a bit irritating..
(also I’m not a sceptic, I’m a member of the public, a lukewarmer if you must assign a label)
This was 3 years ago: (see 14th comment)
Tamsin Edwards:
“So give them a chance. Barry has won me over to you with respect, goodwill, and true listening. Please follow his example if you want to engage with climate scientists. Bish’s too. ”
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/9/28/dellers-on-reason.html?currentPage=3#comments
longer extract:
“Right. At Barry’s request I’ve just read all of this thread on my phone. And it’s probably a bad idea to comment because I’m tired and have had a couple of beers (which explains why I haven’t just got up and got my laptop and modem to read and comment!).
As many of you know I’m @flimsin the climate scientist. When you start sentences with (paraphrasing here) “the science is just…” or “CAGW is…” remember that behind the science are people like me. Kids who liked maths, read Stephen Hawking, worked hard during undergrad while the arts students had lie ins, trained to be a scientist in a different field (eg particle physics) then became climate scientists. I’m just a nerd who likes to understand stuff!
I haven’t read Watermelons or watched the clip. A few thoughts….
Shub, I am an example of a consensusist who has stopped using denier directly because of Barry, Bish and this forum.
“Name calling is ever so counterproductive. Today I was defending you lot to (particle physics) friends, yesterday to climate/stats friends, saying that denier offends and there is a spectrum of opinions anyway.
Scientists usually end up saying denier because they only really hear about those denying CO2 is a GHG and that the earth is warming, and they don’t like skeptic (because they are themselves skeptical) and other terms haven’t stuck. Some soften it with “denialist”. They really don’t intend it to echo Holocaust denier I don’t think. They think of it more as equivalent to creationism.
But this is only because of an important reason…
Most. Scientists. Don’t. Know. You. Exist.
Really! They are not aware that a significant part of people trying to prod science for weak spots actually are fine with AGW but not sure of magnitude/timing/impacts/policy. When I explain this they say “oh, that sounds perfectably reasonable!”. After all we argue about the first two or three in conferences and the literature ourselves! They agree Mann analysis was wrong, and would agree on lots of other things like “All models are wrong” (“but some are useful” :) )
So give them a chance. Barry has won me over to you with respect, goodwill, and true listening. Please follow his example if you want to engage with climate scientists. Bish’s too.
I am a modeller. My personal hygiene is not too questionable and I’m proud to be called one :) But not watermelon.
Name calling is a surefire way to homogenise and depersonalise a group.”
—————–
and I mentioned Lew, not because I care what he thinks, but to be sarcastic to all the other commenters , spouting rubbish, without any selfawareness.
final comment about it at WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/27/a-big-goose-step-backwards/#comment-1800032
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by jim2
As someone at Reddit said, graphene can do everything except make it out of the lab.
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by jim2
11/28 5:30 PM ET
OIL________66.15_____-7.54
BRENT_____70.02_____-2.56
NAT GAS___4.088_____-0.267
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by Tonyb
Barry
I didn’t see the original article but we were amongst the first to express our support for tamsin and Richards article. I think wuwt has changed as it has become more popular, with many more increasingly right wing sceptics with limited knowledge of climate science and far fewer from the consensus side appearing in the forums to present an alternative view.There are a lot of posters there these days expressing conspiracy views
I also think the nesting format doesn’t work well there as there are too many articles to foLlow to be able to hold a sensible extended conversation when viewpoints can be explored in depth.
It was good to meet up with you in Bristol and hope we can get together again, perhaps with Richard or tamsin in exeter or Bristol.
I think it was unfortunate that the original article was posted as I very much got the impression during our meeting with Anthony that he genuinely wanted to have a discussion with such as Richard and tamsin and was tired of all the shouting from both sides
Tonyb
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by Not Randy Gates Simpson
Sorry. Typo. NOT this guy
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by beththeserf
Euro-bureau-crassiticy leads ter loss of liberties, loss of
wealth, loss of productive innovation, loss of livelihood.
Who could ask fer anything less? (
Jane Jacobs in ‘The Wealth of Cities’ explores the
processes of wealth creation and its converse.
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by Rob Ellison
Graphene is a new material with extraordinary potential – and applications are emerging.
But the new and interesting idea – demonstrated in the lab – was the proton filter.
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by Peter Lang
By “mosh pit’ do you meant a bully pit, where bully’s like you roam free.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by freeHat
Open thread question, how much wiggle room is there in the interpretation of official temperatures. Or rephrased, how big is the range in degrees C., wherein the people that matter will accept your answer.
↧
Comment on Groups and herds: implications for the IPCC by steven
Jim, the skeptics don’t have to say it. That’s what scientists are saying as we have linked at you before, both I and Rob with different papers. I’d link a paper again but it seems to take me longer to find the link than the amount of time you remember it was linked.
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by freeHat
<strike>interpretation</strike>creation
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by Jim D
jim2, they have to pay enough in to receive the benefits. Everyone would agree to that part. Since most of those coming in have many working years left, they are a net plus to the benefits pool when they start paying taxes under this immigration agreement.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by Ragnaar
willb:
Best theory to me of glacial to interglacial transitions:
http://scienceofdoom.com/2014/04/14/ghosts-of-climates-past-nineteen-ice-sheet-models-i/
“..Our simulations suggest that a substantial fraction (60% to 80%) of the ice sheet was frozen to the bed for the first 75 kyr of the glacial cycle, thus strongly limiting basal flow. Subsequent doubling of the area of warm-based ice in response to ice sheet thickening and expansion and to the reduction in downward advection of cold ice may have enabled broad increases in geologically- and hydrologically-mediated fast ice flow during the last deglaciation.”
Basal sliding triggered by the accumulating mass of ice moves the ice in the direction of the equator where it melts. oz4caster’s graph showed a similarly sloped 5000 year run up of temperatures in all 4 cases. We think of icesheets as a kind of negative heat. They insulate and still have the ability fall downwards, flatten and move. We can look at it as the Earth had the unfortunate result of turning cold. It gets to work towards fixing that eventually, by making ice. We’ve discussed hydro power. I wonder how much of that is stored in the ice sheets?
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by Bob Ludwick
@ Max_OK, Citizen Scientist
“I object to relaxing safety regulations, but otherwise, I’m not strongly opposed to it.”
So if I understand, no matter the empirical rationality, who got the regulations implemented, or for what purpose (Could it be that the purpose of never ending ratcheting up of nuclear ‘safety’ regulations’, rather than enhancing ‘public safety’, is to make it impossible, from an engineering point of view, to meet them, thereby taking nuclear off the table completely? As has been the objective result of the safety rules and permitting process.), once a safety regulation is ‘on the books’, it should never be reviewed or revised downward? Ever?
Have any of those progressives so ostensibly obsessed with ‘public safety’ ever compared the public consequences of NOT having a plentiful supply of cheap electricity to the consequences of a slight relaxing of the regulations on power generation of all forms, not just nuclear? The question is rhetorical, of course, as can be deduced from the screams of outrage from them regarding the efforts of the heartless capitalists who are willing to poison/irradiate us all (including themselves, of course) for their own enrichment, every time a power plant–of any type–is proposed or any time someone suggests that the regulations may too stringent for our own good?
Oh well, I’m sure that the folks living in grass huts, cooking their (unrefrigerated) food over an open fire, using cow dung collected for the purpose at least go to bed (on their dirt floor) every night, thankful that the US/European progressives have, without even being asked, protected them yet again from the ravages of the Human Carbon Volcano and ensured that they won’t have to worry about their (starving) children glowing in the dark.
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by Don Monfort
They don’t have to pay enough in to get benefits, jimmy dee gruber. They allegedly will have to pay for ten years. What about their kids, jimmy? Do you think they won’t be eligible for SSI?
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-224.html
You don’t have a clue, jimmy.
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by Don Monfort
And jimmy gruber, it ain’t an immigration agreement. It is an unlawful immigration edict.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by Don Monfort
You are another gruber. Open borders pinhead.
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by Jim D
Everyone gets full benefits after only paying in for ten years. That would be treating them like everyone else. Some may have to pay back taxes too. This is all better than leaving them in the shadows not paying any taxes. I knew Republicans don’t like taxes, but I didn’t think that extended to letting illegal immigrants off.
↧
Comment on Open thread: Thanksgiving edition by Jim D
OK, let’s not call it an agreement, more of an understanding between the President and the illegal immigrants. We won’t deport you if you pay your taxes.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
