agree with Joshua – in fact WUWT, Realclimate, Skeptical science, Stoat, Sou, etc, Climate Audit, Bishop Hill, all of it – are all outliers as far as the general public are concerned. The ‘climate concerned’, also try to extrapolate from the outlier climate bubble, to the general public…
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Barry Woods
↧
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by rls
Kim
Reminds me of an experience in 1961, riding a bus across Texas. The bus pulled off the highway and drove across the desert; in the distance a small building. As we approached the building things got clearer, it was a small general store and there was a cowboy outside waiting for us. He threw his saddle on the bus and we drove back to the highway and continued the trip to California. Why did this come to mind? The experience seemed to me a possible move scene and your words seem to me a scene from a novel.
Happy NewbYear
Richard
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Brandon Shollenberger
Don Monfort:
If I remember correctly, the number of abstracts in the that were deemed to be explicitly endorsing AGW with humans causing >50% of recent warming was 64.
Yup. It was first reported (by me) as 65, but that was because their searchable database includes a few hundred papers which were filtered out for their analysis (for things like not being climate related).
Steven Mosher:
In short, you continue to misconstrue how language works and what experiments tell us about “meaning”
If you would ever do anything to show I’m actually wrong, rather than consistently make things up about me and what I’ve said to claim I am wrong, I might actually consider your input. As it stands, I’m not going to do your work in figuring out what an argument is just because you say it shows I am wrong.
This is especially true given how often you tell me to read sources I’m quite familiar with, and thus know don’t say what you claim they say. Sort of like how you say:
You’d do much better if you avoid the arguments like
“that’s meaningless” or “that has no coherent meaning” Precisely because you don’t have a theory of meaning to back up these types of claims.
Which is just a baseless claim you use to dismiss me without having to address anything I say. You could say the exact same thing no matter what the truth is, and it wouldn’t affect anyone ability to your argument because you provide nothing with which is can be justified.
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Don Monfort
Yes, it’s Relativism applied with progressive discrimination. When it’s convenient, everything is relative. Morals and ethics are situational. It’s all spelled out in the Soviet Apparatchik’s Handbook. The only constant truth is that progressives are morally and intellectually superior to the untermenschen. Putzes.
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Brandon Shollenberger
Ugh, typos. The phrase “know don’t say” should be “know they don’t say” and “anyone” should be “anyone’s.” I hate the lack of a preview/edit feature.
(This is about a comment that may be stuck in moderation for the moment.)
↧
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Wagathon
Renown global warming expert shares greatest fear: ‘Children Aren’t Going to Know What a Goose Bump Is.’
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by R. Gates
Donny Boy,
Those charts that the Capt. shared show a high degree of correlation between CO2 and ocean pH. Are you unable to properly understand this data?
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by rls
Kim
The experience seemed to me a possible movie scene and your words seem to me a scene from a novel.
Happy New Year
Richard
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Don Monfort
I know what captd’s charts show, phony skeptic clown. They show the up-to-date data portrayed in a straightforward, undramatic way. On the other hand, you tried to frighten us with that cherry-picked IPCC propaganda mill Chicken Little dramatization of the data that you keep on file, just for such purposes. And you lecture us on rational skepticism. You are a phony little clown.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by R. Gates
This simpleton statement: “We don’t know CO2 increase is from humans…” gives a perfect example of how SKS can be so useful. This faux-skeptic argument has been given a great review here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm
The argument that we don’t know that human fossil fuel use and land use changes are causing the increase in CO2 doesn’t even rise to the level of pseudoscience, but is simple nonsense.
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by R. Gates
“And you lecture us on rational skepticism…”
_____
Someone needs to Donny Boy. Seems a lot of faux-skeptics and pure pseudoscientists running around the blogosphere thinking that being a skeptic means simply denying anything and everything that does mesh with their point of view. Gives real skepticism a bad name.
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Shub Niggurath
Yes Barry, both camps do it. But it is quite evident the general public doesn’t care for climate that much. Climate cannot win elections or prop up presidents or prime ministers. In not caring for the climate issue, they are more akin to skeptics than climate activists.
↧
Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by Max_OK, Weird Citizen Scientist
Rob said “God only knows what Maxy’s ideology is. I doubt that it is even conventionally progressive – it seems all seen through a strange lens of personal advantage.”
_______
I do try to do what’s best for me, but I do not believe it’s ok to achieve goals through evil means. Apparently, your favorite economist, Hayek, believed otherwise, and I suppose you do too.
I don’t have an ideology, unless doing what promises to work regardless of ideology is considered an ideology.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Don Monfort
“It was first reported (by me) as 65″
I am not sure you were the first to report it, Brandon. I mentioned it very early on, if I recall correctly, on the blackboard, Bart V’s blog, and maybe that wottsup withthat POS. Anyway, great minds think alike. I don’t see how anyone could argue convincingly against any major substantive criticisms you have made regarding the Cook et al POS. I mean it’s such an obvious POS.
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Steven Mosher
Brandon
“If you would ever do anything to show I’m actually wrong, rather than consistently make things up about me and what I’ve said to claim I am wrong, I might actually consider your input. ”
You are wrong that their definition of consensus doesn’t have a coherent meaning.
You are wrong because you fail to define in a rigorous manner what you mean by “coherent meaning” and fail to back up that notion with any
kind of real data about how words/phrases/ have or dont have a a property called “coherent meaning”
You are wrong because you don’t show any understanding of how meaning is determined, measured or communicated.
So I am advising you as a practical matter that IF you want people to take your GOOD arguments ( and they are for the most part good) to heart,
that you would do better if you
A) dropped your insufferable attitude.
B) dropped all arguments that rely on your gross misundertandings
of “coherent meaning”, “meaningless” and other terms like this.
In short, drop the “my opponents make no sense” approach
in short, drop the “I will only listen to you under my conditions”
or get your asperbergers treated
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Danny Thomas
R. Gates,
“The argument that we don’t know that human fossil fuel use and land use changes are causing the increase in CO2 doesn’t even rise to the level of pseudoscience, but is simple nonsense.”
Suggest if you said:”causing some/an increase” might get you further than “causing the increase”.
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Don Monfort
Just what we needed, another lecture on faux-skeptics, from the phony skeptic. Oh, the unintended irony! Joshie will lurve this one.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Rob Ellison
‘Although data on the natural variation in the seawater CO2 system are emerging, nearly all high-resolution (e.g. hourly) time series are based on pCO2 sensors, with comparatively few pH time series found in the literature. From a research perspective, the absence of information regarding natural pH dynamics is a critical data gap for the biological and ecological arm of the multidisciplinary investigation of OA. Our ability to understand processes ranging from physiological tolerances to local adaptation is compromised. Specifically, laboratory experiments to test tolerances are often not designed to encompass the actual habitat exposure of the organisms under study, a critical design criterion in organismal physiology that also applies to global change biology [27]–[29]. It is noted that neither pH nor pCO2 alone provide the information sufficient to fully constrain the CO2 system, and while it is preferred to measure both, the preference for measuring one over the other is evaluated on a case-by-case basis and is often dictated by the equipment available.’
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0028983
There are many questions. One is what exactly is being measured.
I always find that Randy the video guy lacks much intellectual depth and always manifests an air of superiority. On it goes without saying is not warranted.
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Brandon Shollenberger
Don Monfort, I wasn't trying to take credit with that statement so much as to acknowledge my error, but I'm pretty sure I was the first one to say 65. I wrote a <a href="http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/on-the-consensus/" rel="nofollow">post</a> the day after the paper came out which said (quoting at length since its relevant to David Appell's question):
<blockquote>If we use the system’s search feature for abstracts that meet this requirement, we get 65 results. That is 65, out of the 12,000+ examined abstracts. Not only is that value incredibly small, it is smaller than another value listed in the paper:
Reject AGW 0.7% (78)
Remembering AGW stands for anthropogenic global warming, or global warming caused by humans, take a minute to let that sink in. This study done by John Cook and others, praised by the President of the United States, found more scientific publications whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are primarily to blame for it.
The “consensus” they’re promoting says it is more likely humans have a negligible impact on the planet’s warming than a large one.</blockquote>
I don't deserve much credit for it though. It was an incredibly easy find. I probably just happened to hear about the paper/searchable database before others who would have found the same thing.
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Don Monfort
You should try harder to ignore Brandon’s Asperger’s, Steven.
What consensus did they allegedly measure, Steven? Was it their stated intention to measure an ill-defined, amorphous consensus? What are we missing?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
