Tony Heller – What is a “climate action denier”? Someone who is possibly knowledgeable about climate but not the actions to take? I see the term has been used a few times before and I find it on odd choice, unless the word “denier” just has a huge appeal as a pejorative. Is Judith suspected of denying the existence of “climate action”? I’m thinking you mean “Climate action impeder”.
Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by aplanningengineer
↧
↧
Comment on Industry funding and bias by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3
“The system is broken.”
Nope, it just stuck in perpetual beta stage like pretty much else in life.
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by climatereason
Michael
I haven’t been following this thread so this may be out of context but according to the BBC those words were used here;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15538845
Or perhaps its two sets of quotes run together into one?
tonyb
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by Punksta
It’s easy to see why funding can “tarnish” research in the case of private organisations. Vested interest.
So why not in the case of the state – a far bigger and brutally self-interested organisation ? Especially when there is such a monumental and patently obvious vested interest as the added taxes and powers flowing from climate policy ?
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by climatereason
Michael
The update at the end of the BBC link should also be read for fuller context
tonyb
↧
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by Michael
captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3 | August 19, 2015 at 10:23 am |
“Don’t be a “Michael”, Michael, “scare quotes” aren’t the same as verbatim quotes. A bit ironic isn’t it?”
Fascinating cap’n – show us the difference.
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3
Michael, Scare Quote def :Scare quotes, shudder quotes, or sneer quotes are quotation marks placed around a word or phrase to signal that a term is being used in a nonstandard, ironic, or in another special sense.
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by Wagathon
The irony is that the author of the Black Swan had, in that seminal work, very clearly articulated the risks of confirmation bias, so his unwillingness to listen to other ideas or those who disagree with him is surprising and quite disappointing.
The byproducts of government-grown-too-large — including the out of control government-education complex — is the real black swan in the room! It’s no longer a matter of, public be damned: it’s become, the public is damned. The productive are being forced to pay for both sides of never ending arguments where the only winners are those who are cashing a government paycheck.
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by Michael
cap’n,
“Mike’s Nature trick to hide the decline”
Is this socratic irony or a “special sense”??
↧
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by climatereason
Captain Dallas
So how do you tell the difference between an actual quote using quotation marks/speech marks and one that is used ironically?
If I quote someone directly I would put speech/quote marks round it. Surely a scare quote should be shown in a different manner otherwise people will think it is attributable directly to the person concerned?
tonyb
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3
tonyb, “So how do you tell the difference between an actual quote using quotation marks/speech marks and one that is used ironically?”
Lack of accreditation.
Lets face it – “Mike’s Nature trick to hide the decline” means . . . “Mike’s Nature trick to hide the decline.”
No he/she/they said.
Michael, “Is this socratic irony or a “special sense”??”
A speceal Judithic ironic sense
↧
Comment on Industry funding and bias by nickels
When I see New age, alternate spiritual business nowadays I just have to think of Yuri Bezmenov’s tactic of getting people into as many nonsensical organizations as possible to help diffuse the stronger ties of tradition and church.
All part of the liberal collective in the end, though, so not surprised they side with the climate evangelists!
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by Michel
Confusion:
There is no climate science as other scientific areas are organised in various societies organising congresses and debating to exhaustion every issue like the taxonomy of the smallest fungus or the extension of the universe. Agronomy and plant biology have such societies, peer reviewed publications, and congresses.
None is claiming any scientific consensus, this would be deemed ridiculous since they argue all the time. Bodies of knowledge can be more or less settled ... until new insights are brought that activate new debates.
Climate science has been tamed by an <b>intergovernmental</b> organisation called IPCC working on the behalf of the UNFCCC whose objective is "<i>The ultimate objective of both treaties is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that will prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system.</i>" (Treaties: Kyoto and the UNFCCC itself).
Here the consensus is clear, but not scientific or rather <b>a</b>scientific, and probably wrong because futile in its efficacy and unjust for its social and economic consequences.
↧
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by douglasproctor
Yet the huge money and fame Gore, McKibben, Hansen and Nye garner from climate change activism generates no concern about objectivity.
Angels and demons: the definition of morals-by-cause creates circular reasoning. Evil is no longer an outcome of action but of attitude. You are a criminal simply by not shouting the party line.
It’s no wonder activists speak warmly of China. Ideological totalitarianism is the background of extremists.
Perhaps we misunderstand ALL extreme groups. Climate, GMO, Islam or White Supremists. Are they all outcomes of poor reasoning or the logical outcome of strict binary thinking, i.e. right vs wrong?
I have postulated a theory of the Unique Solution Syndrome common to engineers. There is only one right or best way (to build a bridge, for example). Once you have chosen the solution to your problem, by definition all other solutions are wrong or inferior. There is no longer a place for discussion. Finding a solution is finding THE solution. Others are impossible.
Error is not an option for those suffering from the Unique Solution Syndrome. Are we congenitally prone to this as a species?
Extremism may not create angel-demon thinking. Angel-demon thinking may breed extremism
↧
Comment on Industry funding and bias by Joseph
Punksta, so what aspects of climate science are not being funded and what’s the evidence for this?
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by Michel
In sciences around substances and their dangers, natural or synthetic, no prudent scientist will never claim that anything is generally safe, knowing that it depends on many parameters such as quantity and mode of use.
In various serious studies, not founded by any particular industry, the conclusion has been that no specific danger could be identified with GMOs, or with weak electromagnetic radiations (cell phones networks).
Nevertheless activists will smear anyone making reference to that absence of proof of danger. For them it is a good strategy to find and unveil any ties with any related industry can be unveiled.
Suspicion and witch hunting is as old as human societies.
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by Joseph
Grijalva witch hunts.
So how many “witch hunts” has he been on? I know he made a statement, but did anything come of it?
↧
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3
Just remember E. Coli is all organic.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by blueice2hotsea
Good points, Cap’n.
Lambda is a complex nonlinear transfer function. The assumptions of constancy, linearity and invariance are made for convenience. Reality is better modeled like this:
λ = Σ ΔTs(i) / Σ ΔF(i), i = 1 to N.
So, what happens to modeled Lambda if observed CO2 forcing is substituted for modeled CO2 forcing? Only the CO2 forcing term changes, e.g. not Saharan albedo – albedo is what it is.
∴ TCR(observed CO2) ≤ TCR(modeled CO2)
I this answer better. Thanks.
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by peter3172
Well, it seems you’re not too careful about attributing things to person who actually said them.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
