timg56: “Why does one need to be in a camp?”
It is a tenet of Climatastrophy that doubters of an immediate need for extreme expenditures to ineffectively mitigate a hypothetical problem must be isolated, lest their heresy doom the grandchildren.
Comment on JC’s conscience by verdeviewer
↧
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by Willard
> For the next week try […]
INTEGRITY ™ – We Direct from Megaphones
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by GaryM
“You have your obligations as a scientist and your obligations as a human and the human obligations win.”
Only in post modern science would one find the argument that the obligations of a scientist are different from those of a human.
Say your doctor has a new medicine that he thinks will successfully treat your illness. But he is afraid that if he tells you of the potential side effects, or doubts about its efficacy, you will choose not to do what he has decided is best for you.
His obligation as both a scientist/doctor, and as a human, is to tell you the full truth.
It is the patient’s decision to as to whether the potential risks are justified by the potential benefits. So too, decarbonization is a choice that is the voter’s and taxpayer’s to make. there is no A and B. In an ethical world, there is only A. Integrity and humility.
Progressivism is all about elitists feeling they have the right to make decisions for the stupid voters. Schneider’s preening about how complex it is in deciding whether to give in to his ego and lie to the public to make them do what he wants them to do, is nothing but a rationalization. It is not even motivated by concern for the people. It is plainly and simply an expression of a desire for power over others, masked as compassion.
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by Jim D
Here is Schneider showing how to treat a room full of Australian skeptics (some very angry ones), just weeks before he died.
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by bedeverethewise
If Judith were to ever give a public talk within 100 miles of the U of Minn, I would be there. Or at MSU Mankato, my hometown and alma mater.
I wonder if Dr. Doom and Dr. Gloom are still at MSU. I took a human ecology course which turned out to be a combination of apocalyptic eco-science fiction and blame Reagan/Bush. According to them , we should all be dead now. It wasn’t all bad, they planted the first seeds of skepticism in my young mind. Probably some of the best learning I could experience at university, but not what they had in mind.
↧
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by verdeviewer
If nothing else, Dr. Curry’s congressional testimony, where she so succinctly noted the uncertainties in future climate change regardless of anthropogenic influence, earned her the “Grande” adjective.
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by bedeverethewise
Mosher dreams of being the blind old master
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by Steven Mosher
Willard reads a page.
The page uses Grand Dame.
Suppose the page used the N word.
Willard then writes a comment using Grand dame
and tried to argue that he is quoting the source.
weird.
I suppose that defense would work for the N word.. nah.
The simple fact is this
Willard made a choice:
he could choose to use Dr. Curry
he could choose something else.
Something else will always be interpretable.
Dr. Curry is just a civilized formality.
Like not stepping on your partners toes while dancing.
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by Steven Mosher
Willard is off his game
“INTEGRITY ™ – We Direct from Megaphones
Willard I said TRY.
Do you know the difference between a request a suggestion and a demand or direction?
INTEGRITY ™ – We Suggest from Megaphones,
↧
↧
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by Richard Arrett
Brandon:
Thank you.
I will check out that reader.
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by verdeviewer
Grande Dame: A French term meaning “great lady,” used to describe a woman who is highly respected in her field.
Sexist? Of course. As well it should be. Leave “grand homme” to the males.
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by Willard
> Suppose the page used the N word.
Suppose the page used the word “Team.”
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by Willard
> I said TRY.
Suppose someone says "try to read the page before saying things like <em>the connotation is clear</em>."
↧
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by Steven Mosher
Yes, suppose the page used the word team.
If I wanted to quote it I would write
“team”
but you didnt quote your source.
you used the term.
You had a choice.
nobody forced you.
nobody made you do it.
own it.
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by bedeverethewise
Wow, that’s quite a molehill Michael. Very impressive.
↧
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by kneel63
Joseph,
I would tend to agree with you, except… well, this is climate science!
When I see people admit mistakes, correct them and re-do their work, engage in open, fair and honest dialogue with their critics, then my trust in them rises.
Alternately, when I see refusal to admit mistakes, let alone correct them and re-do the work, engage in closed, unfair and dishonest dialogue with anyone who dares to question their wisdom, then my trust in them falls.
Hence my trust in Schmidt, Mann etc al continues to drop, while my trust in McIntyre, Curry et al continues to rise.
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by ordvic
When I first read the five points: your conscience, your colleges etc. … I thought nothing of it. When I read all the posts with Ad Hom attacks and petty bickering I then when back and reviewed those points. I thought mostly of JC and James Hansen. The first point seems to have been most important to both of them. After the first point it becomes much more difficult to remain resolute in the midst of the criticism by remaining true to yourself. I believe both JC and Hansen had the integrety to sustain the criticism while wading through the other points. I’m sure we could qibble and find problems with both in working their way through the way they associated with the bigger picture but I personally believe they both remained true to themselves and their personal belief of what they thought they learned from science.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by Brandon S? (@Corpus_no_Logos)
No prob. For what it’s worth, even without using a blacklist, the reader makes it pretty easy to skip over comments from people you don’t want to have to deal with. You can choose to have comments displayed as just a single line like:
Comment on JC’s conscience by Willard
In a long list. If you do, you then click on the line and the comment will appear in a box below. The result is you can just skip any line which has a name you’re not interested in.
I don’t like having to select each comment individually (even if you can use arrow keys) though, so I use a different display option which shows the full comments.
↧
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by dpy6629
Attp, or whatever you want to be called. You are the one who doesn’t know how science works and are just ignoring recent evidence of systematic biases and errors. A negative result can be just as important as a positive one. It is not necessary to “show what the right result is” to show something very important by disproving a hypothesis or conjecture. I am a little surprised that you are so naive and unfamiliar with the self correcting nature of science and mathematics. Showing that a model is wrong is very important and does not require that one show what a better or right model might be. In some cases, it may be impossible to construct an adequate model for a given purpose. That is the import of many of the deep and important results of mathematical logic for example.
What you meant or said is not really the point here except in so far as it reveals your limitations.
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by Willard
I don’t take back or regret a word of it.
Now, try to own your rookie mistake.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
