Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion thread by Danley Wolfe

0
0

Rhetorical and false arguments eventually become hollow … just listen to the air escaping the balloon. Invoking the 97% is an excellent example. If the question is differently / properly worded the answer is vastly hugely different … for example “do you believe the greenhouse effect of GHGs is largely scientifically based and supported; and do you believe that empirical trends in global warming are >95% due to the effect of greenhouse gases? Not simply “do you believe that global warming is occurring?” GHGs represent a fraction of the forcing / cause of observed mean temperature response, many climate scientists believe the fraction is on the order of half and that other factors are important and have not been in the focus of discussion because the IPCC committed (15 years ago ?) to greenhouse gases/CO2. It is not too late / now is the time for this propaganda to be corrected. You still here the 97% propaganda being invoked but mainly by politicians and media including the New York Times. Often they realize the faux nature of their mistake but do it anyway … to keep the chatter and saying “something” rather than enter into the real debate about the science.


Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion thread by Pooh, Dixie

Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion thread by David Wojick

0
0

His idea seems to be that ideologies cause beliefs when actually they are just categories of beliefs. The suggestion is thus that ideologies make us irrational and that is false.

Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion thread by David Wojick

0
0

I do not see psychological analysis as a way to understand policy problems, quite the contrary.

Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion thread by Joshua

0
0

As for the first part – AFAIK, he doesn’t think that ideologies “cause” beliefs so much as he thinks that ideology influences how people reason. Do you think that isn’t true?

As for the second part, and I’m pretty sure about this – he doesn’t think that ideologies make us irrational. That’s a pretty fundamental misreading on your part – likely, ironically enough, the product of motivated reasoning (because we both know that the view that beliefs are irrational is a bit of a pet peeve of yours).

You really should be more clear about what he says before passing judgement on what he says. Again, making that kind of judgement suggests some motivated reasoning on your part – (although it doesn’t suggest that you doing so is irrational. It could be considered to be entirely rational to filter information so as to confirm a bias).

Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion thread by John Smith (it's my real name)

0
0

quote from a famous political speech from my part of the world…

“my opponent is a known thespian”

:)

Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion thread by David in TX

0
0

There are many skeptic blogs where warmists aren’t censored.

Are there any warmist blogs where skeptics aren’t censored?

Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion thread by freeHat

0
0

I’d say blogs like this one are becoming ever more like the bulletin boards of the 90s, with tight-knit topics and participants.


Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion thread by Joshua

0
0

==> ” It’s a term used by those who can’t argue their belief based on facts and their merits. ”

Who uses the term “warmist?” How about “alarmist?” “Warmista?” “Warmunist?”

And when Judith calls people “deniers,” is that because she can’t argue her belief based on fact and their merits?

==> “Obviously, there ain’t any such thing as a deniar.”

Is a “deniar” a French “skeptic?”

Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion thread by David in TX

0
0

I made two comments on ATTP. The second was a short laundry list of evidence which is contrary to catastrophic global warming as the owner/moderator made a claim that only warmists have evidence on their side. No hostility by me. Items as simple as asymmetric warming (winters, at night, over land, higher latitudes) which extend growing seasons and limit killer frosts, faster plant growth and lower water usage with increased CO2. I also mentioned long term natural warming/cooling cycles which appear driven by changes in the sun.

It was deleted and replaced with a statement “standard skeptic talking points which have no place here”.

Conclusion: andthentheresphysics.com is a useless group-think.which fears contrary evidence or counter-arguments.

Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion thread by David in TX

0
0

Pekka is speculating, and presenting it as fact, about the time it takes for changes in mixed ocean layer to propagate into lower ocean layers.

Just an FYI to take everything Pekka posts with a grain of salt. His facts are often no more than guesses made to bolster his beliefs.

Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion thread by Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

0
0

I want to thank everyone on this thread for their comments and wish them a Merry Christmas. Planning Engineer I wish you good health and success in dealing with the insomnia.

Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion thread by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

0
0

David in Texas, I think the “standard” skeptical talking points are forbidden since they have all been soundly refuted with vigorous arm waving. .

Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion thread by Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

0
0

Indeed, there are. Cap, I wish you a Merry Christmas.

Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion thread by David in TX


Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion thread by Tonyb

0
0

Freehat

That’s an interesting observation. Yes, there are a hard core of regular participants with a small number of those making up a disproportionate amount of the comments..

However it is notable that when certain specialist subjects are discussed there are always new participants or a return of those who come infrequently.

Tonyb

Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion thread by David Wojick

0
0

Your saying that ideologies influence our reasoning is just what I mean by their causing it. Everyone’s ideology (and everyone has one) is simply what they believe placed in a category. That category names their beliefs, it does not influence them. For that matter, motivated reasoning is also a non-explanation, along the lines of Aristotelian physics. I have studied Kahan’s work fairly closely.

Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion thread by David in TX

0
0

Not loss in every way. Knowledge and wisdom increases. You’ll discover that in the unlikely circumstance you survive long enough to become eligible to enroll in AARP.

Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion thread by David in TX

0
0

This is a very rare moment. I agree with Michael. JCH nailed it.

Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion thread by Joshua

0
0

David –

==> “Your saying that ideologies influence our reasoning is just what I mean by their causing it. Everyone’s ideology (and everyone has one) is simply what they believe placed in a category. That category names their beliefs, it does not influence them.”

There is certainly no mutual exclusiveness there. Ideology can name/categorize beliefs as well as influence them.

That’s really quite an astonishing claim – to say that ideology doesn’t influence one’s reasoning process, and thus their beliefs.

==> “I have studied Kahan’s work fairly closely.”

If you’ve read him fairly closely, then it seems odd that you characterize him as “suggesting” that ideologies make us irrational. He doesn’t.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images