Jim,
Really? To quote the Holy Grail,
Well what's <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2015/03/31/criticism-tolerance-and-changing-your-mind/#comment-689107" rel="nofollow">that</a> then?
<blockquote>
...
Global warming alarmism showcases the self-defeating and anti-American intolerance that is symbolic of the tyranny of the Left. Americans have many rights: some are specifically enumerated and some are acknowledged to have been granted to all of humanity by God, a Judeo/Christian God—i.e., human rights that are personal to free individuals that cannot be diminished by contractual fiat.
</blockquote>
Don't you think that counts as characterizing the Left as evil?
It was probably easy to miss that example ;) it was on my thread.
Comment on Criticism, tolerance and changing your mind by Mark Bofill
↧
↧
Comment on Criticism, tolerance and changing your mind by jim2
Mark – one swallow does not a summer make.
↧
Comment on Criticism, tolerance and changing your mind by jim2
You have to demonstrate that the majority of the time “In these threads, on a daily basis, you will see many rightwingers characterizing “the left” as profoundly selfish and evil.”
↧
Comment on Criticism, tolerance and changing your mind by Mark Bofill
I’m thinking I explained my point poorly.
It doesn’t matter if they are wrong about AGW. I’ve got problems with the AGW situation that I’m pretty confident are not subject to subjective distortion. It doesn’t matter. It’s not an issue of figuring out which side is right about AGW, it’s about figuring out what you may be overlooking. It may have nothing whatsoever to do with the truth or falsehood of the AGW proposition.
↧
Comment on Criticism, tolerance and changing your mind by oldfossil
Well spoken Michael. Your first paragraph could be slotted straight into a textbook on ethics and morality.
To me the essence of being a skeptic is to recognise, as you do, the difference between climate science and climate politics.
A large number of skeptics deny the science of the greenhouse effect, earning us all the epithet “deniers.” On Dr. Curry’s page at least, almost all the commenters accept the GHE.
But the GHE is very, very basic physics and completely unable to bear the heavy load of all the policies implemented and moral condemnations uttered in its name.
The warmist position makes me think of the basic chemistry student who learns that table salt is a compound of two dangerous elements, sodium and chlorine, and embarks on a misguided quest to ban salt.
It would seem that the best skeptic strategy would be to teach the CAGW faithful that the basic GHE theory does not support all the conclusions that supposedly follow from it.
As you said, Michael, this will not work with activists who use CAGW as a cloak or casus belli for their agendas.
So I like your suggestion that we should concentrate on the broader population, with the aim of separating “settled” climate science from climate politics.
↧
↧
Comment on Criticism, tolerance and changing your mind by mosomoso
Here’s an idea. When the tide has turned and we are dismantling the whirlygigs, building the dams and nukes, modernising the coal power generation etc…then let’s listen earnestly and intently to all our Green Betters have to say. They can scold away and I won’t say a word to contradict or question. I’ll be the very model of tolerance. Me!
↧
Comment on Criticism, tolerance and changing your mind by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
Joshua, “In these threads, on a daily basis, you will see many rightwingers characterizing “the left” as profoundly selfish and evil. In fact, such a characterization drips out of virtually all your comments about “the left.”
?
Gullible, comical, and minions would be more common I would think.
↧
Comment on Criticism, tolerance and changing your mind by David Small
I spent over 10 years working for little money studying aspects of climate change because I thought it was important. After careful consideration, I changed my mind about the science, realizing that it was far from settled. When I let my questions about the science be known, I had my career and my life threatened. I realized I would never be able to work in the atmospheric/environmental sciences given my thoughts about global warming. I took my taxpayer funded PhDs to the financial industry. I wish I could have stayed in science, but you can’t criticize catastrophic global warming if you don’t have tenure. So it goes.
↧
Comment on Criticism, tolerance and changing your mind by Mark Bofill
Jim,
That’s true enough. I’m not searching. Nor do I know (or care, really) whether or not this be so with respect to you:
In fact, such a characterization drips out of virtually all your comments about “the left.”
It’s valid with respect to me. :)
I haven’t finished sorting it out yet, but I think a lot of my values fundamentally conflict with the values of the Left. But I’m not sure. Maybe it’s not values and it’s just ingrained ideology. Until yesterday I didn’t care at all. Frankly, I’m not sure how much I care today, but it’s disturbing to think it probably compromises my objectivity.
↧
↧
Comment on Criticism, tolerance and changing your mind by Stephen Segrest
Dr. Curry — David is my favorite person in the OT. An important lesson drawn from the story of Goliath is how David’s older brother treated him before he slew Goliath. David was the youngest of his brothers — a pip-squeak kid. When David surprisingly showed up at the battle scene, his older brother criticized him — that he didn’t belong there, he wasn’t important, he didn’t know anything, he was crazy to think he could fight Goliath, and to just go home and tend the sheep.
↧
Comment on Is climate change a ‘ruin’ problem? by Eli Rabett
Give them a Vitamin A pill for example? Just to be clear Eli has nothing against Golden Rice, it's a fine idea sort of like nuclear fusion power but there are difficulties with implementation. You not only need rice with a lot of vitamin A, but the rice has to taste like what locals are used to farming and eating and have the same amount of other nutrients. As Eli said, there are issues
<b> Which means, pretty much, if there is an environmental advantage to any GMO, it is going to spread into the wild in about the time needed to grow up for college. So if we want to introduce something new, it had damn well better be something we want our grandbunnies to live with. Not saying that there are not such things (maybe Golden Rice, for example), but we better be prepared and ready for the spread.</blockquote>
↧
Comment on Criticism, tolerance and changing your mind by Mark Bofill
Oh. I think I missed your point Jim. Sorry.
What do their assertions about skeptics and Dr. Curry have to do with being able to figure out what I overlook because of my biases or intolerance?
The exercise I’m talking about isn’t for their benefit, it’s for mine.
↧
Comment on Is climate change a ‘ruin’ problem? by Eli Rabett
If you lived then you would be dead.
↧
↧
Comment on Is climate change a ‘ruin’ problem? by Eli Rabett
Try googling Long Term Capital
↧
Comment on Criticism, tolerance and changing your mind by Mark Bofill
Wait, what do you mean, what kind of swallow, European or…
Sorry. I couldn’t help it. :)
↧
Comment on Is climate change a ‘ruin’ problem? by Eli Rabett
The difference between now and the 1960s is that there are no storehouses of grain to get us through a bad year. Transportation has taken its place.
↧
Comment on Is climate change a ‘ruin’ problem? by Eli Rabett
Given time, crop cultivars will shift. Given time
↧
↧
Comment on Criticism, tolerance and changing your mind by Peter Davies
Personalities and issues should never be conflated (that C word again mwgrant) but in climate science it seemed never to be any different. It seems a bit like what happens when someone who normally is kind and rational gets behind the wheel of a car or onto a computer keyboard: a transformation happens with some people and its not pretty to watch.
I am puzzled too about the level of emotion that seems to be engendered on this blog and the acrimony that often arises in debate and can only suggest that blogging to many is indulging in an another form of road rage as a catharsis for their pent-up feelings.
↧
Comment on Is climate change a ‘ruin’ problem? by Bob Ludwick
@ Fernando Leanme
“Bob, I suppose NASA knows. But I do wonder why the models have such variable average initial temperature conditions.”
My actual point was that anyone, in particular, any scientist, who claims that they can list the years since 1880 in rank order of ‘Annual Temperature of the Earth’, with a precision that would statistically justify declaring one of them, ANY one of them, as the ‘warmest’ by a few hundredths of a degree is lying through their teeth. They are not mistaken. They know and any honest scientist knows that we do not have nor have we EVER had a worldwide temperature data collection system with sufficient accuracy and precision to justify publishing the ‘Annual Temperature of the Earth’ with hundredths of a degree resolution. A scientist of any stripe who declares with a straight face that they know the annual temperature of the earth for each year since 1880 with hundredths of a degree precision and can place them in rank order……is lying.
↧
Comment on Criticism, tolerance and changing your mind by Rud Istvan
Joshua, I had though Sophistry was long since discredited as a philosophical ‘school’ and persuasive argumentum. You have convinced me I was wrong. I have, in Gladwell’s spirit, changed my mind. You provided the new evidence. Sophistry is alive and well, in you.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
