+ 10
Comment on Ins and outs of the ivory tower by Faustino aka Genghis Cunn
↧
↧
Comment on Ins and outs of the ivory tower by Geoff Sherrington
On reflection, Nick, I should not involve CSIRO so deeply in that action at that time. Thank you for the correction. Geoff.
↧
Comment on Ins and outs of the ivory tower by ...and Then There's Physics
As long as the academics wish to use their lab coats as evidence of pious impartiality and moral righteousness
Do you have evidence that academics do this? Have you considered the possibility that this isn’t typical and that what actually happens is that some (yourself, for example) accuse them of behaving in this way, and then go on to criticise them for not maintaining a standard was never their’s to maintain.
↧
Comment on Ins and outs of the ivory tower by mosomoso
You left out a +. Typical serf carelessness.
↧
Comment on Ins and outs of the ivory tower by beththeserf
Look. how can a serf, livin’ as she does,
outside the ivy walls of ivory towers, out
in all whethers, dwellin’ in in turnip fields
become adept in mathematics, can count
ter ten and then again, downhill from then.
But a serf knows what she likes and like
Socrates said, ‘Even a serf can learn.’
turnip
↧
↧
Comment on Hurricanes and global warming: 10 years post Katrina by SURVIVALISTS BLOG | Hurricanes and global warming: 10 years post Katrina | Climate Etc.
[…] by Judith Curry We anticipate that it may take a decade for the observations to clarify the situation as to whether the hypothesis has predictive power. – Curry et al. 2006 My first substantive post at Climate Etc. was Hurricanes … Article by hurricanes – Google Blog Search. Read entire story here. […]
↧
Comment on Ins and outs of the ivory tower by aplanningengineer
“Engagement without partisanship” is challenging to say the least. But that does not make it a worthy goal and doesn’t mean we can’t talk about it. and try to engage while at the same time calling out partisanship.
There is nuance. For sure “partisans” are going to see others “neutral” engagement as “partisan” activity. I doubt it will ever be clear and there are probably shades of “partisanship” in the best of “neutral” engagement. Similarly some “partisans” will see their “partisanship” as neutral engagement. I(For the same piece here I’ve been accused by some of being a denier and others of being a warmist.)
When I was in school it was generally the case that the professors would present different perspectives on issues (pros and cons) and you could not tell what their personal perspective was. In some instances I later learned that some were on the “other side” of issues then I would have expected from their classroom lectures (perhaps because they overcompensated for their biases). I don’t think it was problematic that the professors might “engage” or even be “partisans” on the side on their own time, because they supported open inquiry. Those who argue the issue clearly has been settled or those who argue it is clearly imaginary and can’t tolerate dissent are the problem. I haven’t sat in a class of Judith’s but I suspect she is an academic of integrity. I expect there are some among various perspectives, but the advocacy role is decreasing their numbers.
↧
Comment on Ins and outs of the ivory tower by rhhardin
He’s overestimating the esteem in which scientists are held.
↧
Comment on Ins and outs of the ivory tower by aplanningengineer
A short way to say this is that a “true” academic makes the “best” case for every perspective and is not shy about calling out the faults of any perspective.
↧
↧
Comment on Ins and outs of the ivory tower by Willard
> You had to go elsewhere […]
I already did when I quoted Hans from his guest appearance during the Barton Hearings, mwg. Only now you seem to have a problem with that.
Incidentally, the Soon & Baliunas incident supports Vaughan’s criticism of Hans’ socio-pop comment:
This sweeping generalization of what a scientist is seems to be implying (a) that von Storch would like them to be something else, and (b) that to date scientists meeting his criteria don’t exist.
While I’m fine with (a), his implication of (b) would seem to suggest that von Storch is guilty of what he accuses his fellow scientists of: his own values and preferences are in conflict with those of some number (a majority?) of his fellow scientists..
In any case, I quote something that agrees with Vaughan; you quote a bit that echoes “but ClimateGate”. I’m not sure who tried to go elsewhere first.
Hans’ grandstanding looks less impressive post-CG I-II-III (III is forthcoming), and Denizens need to play his CG performance both ways. A simple consequence of their daily hero worshipping and scapegoating, if you ask me.
Go team!
↧
Comment on Ins and outs of the ivory tower by Willard
> That is exactly right. Though I’m sure you don’t see it. My bias is not to use you as a means to my ends.
Your second sentence contradicts your third, Daniel, and your overall comment doesn’t warrant the first.
There’s nothing special about libertarian claptraps.
↧
Comment on Ins and outs of the ivory tower by rhhardin
If you’re just an old fashioned scientist, you’re working on curiosity, not a quest for truth. You want an explanation for what’s going on. It drives you.
In the case of climate, that’s pretty much out of the question.
So it turns into bureaucracy and hierarchy.
There’s no room for a simple explanation or therefore for curiosity.
So they add “science” to the name, so that the bureaucracy can claim it.
In real sciences, this is unnecessary. Curiosity makes the claim by itself.
It’s certainly true that bureaucrats shouldn’t polically advocate for the bureaucracy, but that’s what always happens.
↧
Comment on Ins and outs of the ivory tower by Joshua
The problem isn’t advocacy among scientists in itself – particularly if one uses subjective/self-serving definitions of advocacy.
The problem is the quality of one’s advocacy: is it consistent with the practice of sound science? Is it deceptive or misleading? Is it consistent with the full range of evidence?
↧
↧
Comment on Ins and outs of the ivory tower by AK
There are ways to get around the limit, if you think you need to. I usually use one of them when the thread is so long I’m afraid my reply would accidentally end up on a previous thread.
Usually.
↧
Comment on Ins and outs of the ivory tower by miker613
Three dozen that find a hockey stick. How many that haven’t been refuted?
This is a serious question. As new hockey stick studies come out, generally McIntyre and company publish detailed critiques on how the new study uses the same data as the old studies, that the statistics are no better, that data was selectively left out that would have led to a different conclusion, that some of the data that was kept has been used upside down… Generally these critiques are not answered. The critique on PAGES2K was answered – by a correction to the paper that disappeared the hockey stick. The correction was not referred to at the site of the original paper, nor did it acknowledge that the hockey stick is now gone.
So I’m asking a serious question. My impression from the field is that most of the work that has been done is wrong. How much of it actually stands? Three dozen of nothing is still nothing, if not.
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by Cartoon: Obama's Mountain Size Denial
[…] and participant in the International Panel on Climate Change and National Academy of Sciences, writes that when politicians talk about an undeniable climate “consensus” they are brushing over […]
↧
Comment on Ins and outs of the ivory tower by Danny Thomas
David,
Based on the definition Dr. Curry supplied here, I doubt she’d disagree.
↧
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by Cartoon: Obama’s Mountain Size Denial - Rage and War
[…] and participant in the International Panel on Climate Change and National Academy of Sciences, writes that when politicians talk about an undeniable climate “consensus” they are brushing […]
↧
Comment on Ins and outs of the ivory tower by Arch Stanton
Invisible, hoax…
Lucky. Science today.
↧
Comment on Ins and outs of the ivory tower by Steven Mosher
David read your description of our paper. It’s false. It is not based on proxies. Stop it.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
