Yes. It has become harder for the elite to control the message.
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion thread by JustinWonder
↧
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion thread by Hugh Jass
So American schools are making Manchurian candidates. Explains a lot. mad, naked Emperor Moshpit. .
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion thread by A C Osborn
I haven’t read all the comments today, but for me one thing is very clear.
One of the biggest and best changes on the Climate Blogosphere is a certain Forum by a virtually unknown blogger 5 years ago.
The forum of course is CLIMATE ETC.
The virtually unknown blogger is of course Dr Curry.
Very well done indeed and a Happy Christmas to all on here.
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion thread by David in TX
Philosophy 101. The difference between absolute and relative moral codes. Maybe try taking an introductory course.
But back to the question. Monotheists believe that one transcendent God is the source of their absolute moral code. What is the source of the atheist moral code above – an ad hoc committee?
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion thread by John Smith (it's my real name)
jeez, Joshua
US policy on Iraq was the product of a government
many “conservatives” disagreed
no doubt some “neocons”
I can think of a few “liberal” members of Congress who supported it
and some “conservatives” who did not
your comment confirms Judith’s point about orthodoxy and rational thinking
↧
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion thread by RiHo08
Most of the wrapped presents have been opened save a few for those to come later today. Toys are are strewn about, parts missing require digging through the wrapping paper in the trash. Chanticleer ensemble sing classical Christmas and liturgical pieces from a new DVD player. Time for reflection from a position of quietude.
Like harkening angels announcing the coming of a new king, the blogosphere has announced the arrival of a climatological hiatus along with the misdeeds of those within the temple.
As true more than two thousand years ago as it is today, those who control the narrative direct the course of mankind’s making of history until of course leadership corruption necessitates a re-thinking of the paradigm. Offshoots along the way, like Sky Dragons develop their own gospel prompting derision by others who know their truth is right and righteous. Yet their audaciousness and tenacity prompts yet other offshoots and so on and so forth.
Today, as true as yesteryear, the building of relationships are the essential constructs for human progress in the caring of our fellow man. To me, the blogosphere facilitates relationship building amongst a diverse and hitherto never before amalgamation of curious and talented individuals. Relationship building requires trust and individual integrity; hallmarks I view as essential in science and its discussion.
Happy Holidays everyone. Thank you Judith Curry for this gift of your blog.
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion thread by David in TX
It’s not a concept. It’s a fact. You have a problem differentiating between the two? Or just unaware of the definition?
Let’s see if I can help improve your vocabulary:
cen·sor
ˈsensər/Submit
verb
past tense: censored; past participle: censored
examine (a book, movie, etc.) officially and suppress unacceptable parts of it.
“my mail was being censored”
synonyms: cut, delete parts of, make cuts in, blue-pencil, redact; More
My comment offering evidence contrary to catastrophic anthropogenic warming was censored. The moderator at andthentheresphysics.com examined my comment and deleted it.
Questions?
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion thread by michael hart
SoD certainly showed great patience when I used to read it. More than most. Similar to Ferdinand Engelbeen.
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion thread by Wijnand
Captdallas:”How about recommending that nuclear power be given a second chance since Jane Fonda is not a real scientist after all?”
Max_OK: Good luck convincing the public nuclear power is hazard free.
LOL at “hazard free”…
↧
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion thread by David in TX
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion thread by Joseph
Actually David the source for your moral beliefs comes from the <b> authors</b> that wrote the Bible and you <b>believe</b> that God is the true source.
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion thread by Joshua
David –
I don’t think blog comments should be moderated. I have expressed that opinion to Anders.
But your free speech has not been “censored.” you have been disinvited to comment on someone’s blog. Don’t be a drama queen. Censorship is a real issue. .don’t exploit it.
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion thread by David in Cal
R. Gates — your linked article misrepresents the Cook study, It says, “When it came to actual experts, about 97-98% agreed that we are warming and that it is mostly us (human activity is a significant contributing factor).” Well, “significant” doesn’t mean “most”. (In fact, if you look at Cook’s technique, I don’t think it even purports to show agreement that man’s contribution is “significant”, but only that it’s greater than zero.)
Although the Cook study is bogus, I think its conclusion is essentially correct. There is overwhelming scientific support for the idea that man’s activity contributes some amount to global warming. However, look at all the things Cook’s study doesn’t show. Cook does NOT claim to show widespread scientific agreement that
1. Man’s activity causes rapid warming.
2. Man’s activity causes harmful warming
3. Man’s activity causes catastrophic warming
4. Various solutions being propounded by the UN, EPA, etc., are necessary to save us from catastrophe
5. Various solutions being propounded by the UN, EPA, etc., are sufficient to save us from catastrophe.
Unfortunately, many people, including President Obama, have represented Cook’s study as showing more than it claimed to show.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion thread by Wagathon
There’s the natural world and also the supernatural world; and then, there’s the paranormal world, not to be confused with the phony world (fictional world) of numerologists pretending to authority with their mathematical global warming long term weather models known as GCMs, all of which are pretty much the product of revelation grounded in anti-Americanism.
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion thread by Rob Starkey
Joshua writes- “IMO – if someone want to express disagreement on “realist” sites, it is easy to do so in ways that you won’t get moderated w/o altering the analytical disagreement.”
My experience at Scientific American and Discover would be examples completely contrary to your opinion.
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion thread by PA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10:10
Real video by real greens.
I find the current environmental movement is disturbing. They are so “right” that their “evil” opponents can be treated harshly merely for having the wrong opinion.
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion thread by R. Gates
I think SKS makes it clear what is it is “all about” in the subtitle to the blog. They are clearly not trying to deceive anyone. 30 seconds on the blog makes it abundantly clear what position they take. Overall, the term “skeptic” is not the reserved domain of any one group, and I myself used to go by the moniker of “Skeptical Warmist” here on CE, but it seemed to much of a tongue-in-cheek statement about skepticism for some to get the joke, so I dropped it. Those who doubt the validity of AGW do not own the title of Skeptic. It is quite valid to be a Skeptical Warmist, and indeed, the only truly valid position from a rational skeptical and pure science perspective is to be such. I’d better always be skeptical about everything, including AGW, but that does not mean that I might not think it is likely more correct than not overall. Being a skeptic is a tool, not a destination, and thus, even though I might think that AGW is likely generally true, it is always a provisional truth, and an honest skeptic is always looking for new data to help them evolve, modify, or otherwise abandon all their provisional truths. That’s the foundation of honest skepticism. It is s journey…a tool…never a destination or a badge you wear.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion thread by Tonyb
John
If you are interested, the ad in question was merely one in a long line of attempts at indoctrination of the British public by the uk govt. the uk govt have always been the leaders in the fight against so called man made climate change and this article I wrote back in 2009 explains how this became such a politicised subject and one in which the US was far behind uthe UK and Europe, as America had never signed up to the Kyoto protocol
The narrative drscribes how various green organisations had the ear of the govt at the very highest levels which eventually created the climate change act, the first legally binding attempt to reduce emissions and which has led directly to our chaotic energy policy and very high energy prices.
Apologies that after all this time many of the links won’t work
Tonyb
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion thread by Brandon Shollenberger
<blockquote>2. Regarding whether John Cook lied about posting a link to the Lewandowsky research questionnaire: I’ve got no opinion about this as I’ve not researched it, nor really have much interest in the topic. There enough good debunking of faux-skeptical claims on SKS to make the site useful to me for general information, though I rarely post there.</blockquote>
Remember folks, R. Gates, who likes to say he is truly skeptical, doesn't care if his sources are liars. He apparently doesn't even care if <b>they use lies to justify claims in work published in scientific journals</b>.
For those who don't know, the SI of the Lewandowsky paper used Skeptical Science traffic patterns to argue it had a reasonable proportion of responses from skeptics. While the argument has many issues, the fact Skeptical Science never posted a link to the survey means they don't matter. That means the Lewandowsky paper has absolutely no way to argue the survey had a representative audience.
That point, of course, ties into the fact the correlations Lewandowsky found were bogus, created entirely by him misapplying statistical tests. The tests he used requires the data being examined have certain properties, properties his data lacked due it having a skewed sample. The effect was to create correlations out of nothing. The exact same approach can be used to find "statistically significant" correlations between basically any two items, no matter how unrelated they may be. I've given several demonstrations of this, such as here <a href="http://hiizuru.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/rough-draft2.pdf" rel="nofollow">before</a>
In any event, I'll be more skeptical of everything said by someone I know to be a liar. That's especially true when the person uses lies to justify faulty arguments in scientific papers then tries to tell me what the scientific literature says. The way I see it, if a person lies about a topic, I have to assume he might well lie about it again.
On a final note, I should point out I don't deserve credit for catching this lie. Others caught him in it well before my post. My post just shows how obvious it is what he said was untrue.
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion thread by R. Gates
” It sounds like you aren’t very good at supposing and nit picking.”
_____
I can be good at both if I need to be, I simply don’t enjoy nit picking. I am definitely more of a “big picture” guy, but I can drill down to the “nits” when the need arises.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
