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

Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Willard

0
0

> Judith is a climate scientist.

So is Jack Kerkovian.


Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Willard

0
0

So is Kerkovian a scientist, that is.

Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Willard

0
0

> there are plenty of skeptics that do their own damn science:

A paper that could be used by contrarian to bolster their ‘but it’s the Sun” claptrap does not entail a sceptic wrote it, Ordvic.

Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by GaryM

0
0

Blaise Pascal, Benjamin Franklin and James Burgh?

I am deeply offended by this homage to dead white males. It is one big micro-aggression. It should have been started with a trigger warning for my delicate sensitivities. Where’s Al Sharpton? Cornell West?

Oh, and there’s nothing new in the climate debate.

Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Willard

0
0

Judy’s is not your property, Don Don, so this day dream may not be appropriate.

Have you ever wondered about the distinction between to persuade and to convince?

Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by Vaughan Pratt

0
0

I was on the committee that voted for this money to be spent.

Was the vote unanimous?

You do know that now they are predicting cold weather due to the sun, which is supposed to balance the warming we can observe from 1700?

I can’t take that seriously, Tony. Let me demonstrate.

You Brits have started trusting Met Office forecasts? That’s a bit of a sea change, isn’t it?

But if it’s true that the Sun is doing something to cool things down in Britain, that should arrest global warming because the sun never sets on the British Empire.

Maybe they don’t believe that today in the East Indies, but they sure do in the West Indies: the Sun sets in the West but the British Empire is to the East.

Seriously, I should resist these temptations you place in my path, Tony.

Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Jim D

0
0

Here’s something a skeptic can discover simply. If the red and green lines in this graph are somewhat parallel, AGW is correct to the tune of 2.4 C per doubling as an effective sensitivity over the last 60 years.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.01/offset:-3.25/plot/gistemp/mean:12/plot/gistemp/mean:120/mean:240
Seeing this however is more likely to lead a skeptic into cognitive dissonance because they believe these lines to be correct, but not what it implies. They say that AGW can’t be right even though it gives a pretty good imitation of being correct. It’s just luck, they will say, that AGW looks so good with the actual data. They will say don’t use 60 years even as evidence for AGW being somewhat correct. This is why Pascal is overly simplistic about what it takes to persuade. Evidence in support of a theory doesn’t persuade some. They are on a neverending search for alternatives because they can’t handle the consequences of the theory being even close to true. They won’t look at this graph and discover or even concede anything from it except an innate dislike of what it implies.

Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by richardswarthout

0
0

Mosher,

My previous comment said: “In that comment I was only saying that this skeptic could, yes, be convinced if …”. – Is it not obvious that this was not an effort to repeat what had already been stated, but rather a effort to clarify what had been stated?

“in comment 2: you said you’d be convinced by a report that contained information how it reached its conclusions. I read that chapter. it did contain information how it reached its conclusions.”. Yes, I did find some stuff and will do some more work.

Have a great evening.

Richard


Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by beththeserf

0
0

Sorry Tony (

‘ E =mc2.’

Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Don Monfort

0
0

You are usually just obtuse and harmless, willy. You should check yourself. Is that something you would have said to a gracious lady hosting a blog that you haunt, before you enlisted in the climate crusade and were issued your little axe? I bet your little moderator over on kenny’s blog wouldn’t tolerate that kind of crap directed at one of his own. Would you, willy?

Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Don Monfort

0
0

Thanks, yimmy. I am sure somebody will read that. But Mosher says you are wasting your time. Skeptics got to do it for themselves. You can go now.

Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Don Monfort

0
0

Incoherent again, willy. And pointing out to me that this is Judith’s property is not only not connected to my little story, but it is what little joshie would call unintended irony. I didn’t just insult Judith, willy.

Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Willard

0
0

> pointing out to me that this is Judith’s property is not only not connected to my little story

Of course it is, Don Don:

We have had coyotes and mountain lions in the neighborhood. My wife is more afraid of the bugs and she hollers for me when she sees one. I go out and squash it. I don’t even attempt to persuade it to leave.

This is not your property. Neither is it your hunting ground. It’s not even your turf.

You’re not the new sheriff in town. Not yet. You need more persuading to do.

Try to be convincing, for a change. Use arguments. You know what’s an argument, right, Don Don?

Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Willard

0
0

> Is that something you would have said to [Judy]

Whenever she appeals to her own authority I do, Don Don. Haven’t you noticed?

Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Mike Flynn

0
0

jack smith4tx,

I’m actually on the side of facts. No danger of running out of them any time soon, I hope.

As to financially solvent US coal miners, why should I care? The U.S. has about 5% of the world’s population. I presume a few US coal miners are more or less irrelevant in the general scheme of things.

Even less do I care what the misguided folk of California say or do. The state is running out of water, I hear. It might face bigger problems than worrying about coal soon.

Good luck with your smart meter. I don’t have one. I do know about smart meters, which is why I don’t have one. If I use electricity I pay for it. If I can’t afford it, I don’t use it. Same with water.

So far, so good. Threats of the effects of global warming leave me cold, so to speak.


Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by thomaswfuller2

0
0

I wonder about non-scientists (like myself) who are skeptics (unlike myself) because they trust well-credentialed and respected scientists such as Lindzen, Dyson and Happer.

They are convinced by others. They have not done the work themselves. They simply place their faith in a different group than that trusted by most alarmists.

Alarmists 20 years ago elected to trust Al Gore–not an absurd proposition at the time. He is intelligent, articulate, has access to the best and the brightest thinkers and he cited mainstream science ranging from Hansen to Lonnie Thompson.

That was not an irrational decision for those unable or unwilling to do science themselves. It’s a bit lazy and alarmists have been forced to move on from Gore for a variety of reasons, but it was not irrational.

I would argue that it is not an irrational decision for those unable or unwilling to do the science themselves to place faith in Freeman Dyson or Richard Lindzen and further that it is less irrational and less lazy than trusting a politician of whatever stripe.

As it happens I don’t think either Dyson or Lindzen has looked far enough into the future to see the impacts of what our energy consumption will bring–but I would not criticize non-scientists for leaning heavily on what they bring to the table.

Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by maksimovich1

0
0

But if it’s true that the Sun is doing something to cool things down in Britain, that should arrest global warming because the sun never sets on the British Empire.

Certainly seems that cooling is reaching the furthest parts of the BE,where NZ has experienced 3 of the top ten minimums in the last three days including -21c

Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by GaryM

0
0

I don’t have to do my own science.

I know the consensus doesn’t understand clouds because their science tells me so.

I know the consensus doesn’t understand water vapor because their science tells me so.

I know the consensus doesn’t know what “Global Average Temperature” is to any reasonable degree of precision because their science tells me so.

I know the consensus doesn’t understand and can’t predict the PDO or AMO because their science tells me so.

I know the consensus doesn’t understand the hiatuspause because their science tells me so.

I know that the consensus’ absurd claims of certainty in the AR5 are really just subjective ‘expert’ opinion because the AR5 tells me so.

Given all that the consensus tells me it does not understand, I can decide for myself that they are incapable of modelling global climate sufficiently to predict/project/guess what “Global Average Temperature” will be in 20, 50 or 100 years with sufficient precision to justify decarbonizing the global energy economy.

Why should I do my own science when I can read theirs?

Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by beththeserf

0
0

…said cunning old Fury.

Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Jim D

0
0

Skeptics don’t have to do it for themselves, but obviously no one will listen to them if they have no science of their own to show. If they dislike the science, do a replacement then argue.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images