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

Comment on ‘Consensus’ by exhaustion by WebHubTelescope

0
0
Yes, I also can't see how it can undermine their "power". Those religious types were no different than the fake climate skeptics of today. They realized that Fear-Uncertainty-Doubt (FUD), as exemplified by religious writings, could keep the populace under control. The fake skeptics have dozens of their own wild theories to add to the FUD; there are <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1TbosA_JLgwcjj6SfOqmvQu4oEgkWNQOw7XgvxvUZoJE" rel="nofollow">over a dozen promulgated by crackpots that contribute to this site alone</a>, never mind others out there. The real skeptics operate under different principles -- <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2012/08/08/consensus-by-exhaustion/#comment-227239" rel="nofollow">see elsewhere in this thread</a>.

Comment on ‘Consensus’ by exhaustion by willard (@nevaudit)

0
0

Please clarify groundless, Tomcat.

I assume you meant that Keenan’s approach serves political inactivism.

Not that Keenan’s pedantry is in any way activist. Unless he promotes it in op-eds, of course, for if we assume, like Judy does, that writing an op-ed is a political act, we have not much choice but to assume that Keenan has his activist moments.

Speaking of which:

> We have already seen that the authors of the IPCC report have made one fundamental mistake in how they analyze their data, drawing conclusions based on an insupportable basic assumption. But they commit another error as well—the same one, in fact, that hindered the scientists working to verify Milankovitch’s hypothesis. Nowhere in the IPCC report is any testing done on the changes in global temperatures; only the temperatures themselves are considered. The alternative assumption I tested does make use of the changes in global temperatures and obtains a better fit with the data.

http://www.informath.org/media/a41.htm

Among other tricks, Keenan’s uses the random walk trick. This is a good trick: VS once could pull many readers’ leg for more than a month at Bart’s.

But it’s just a trick.

Comment on ‘Consensus’ by exhaustion by Steve Milesworthy

Comment on ‘Consensus’ by exhaustion by Dave Springer

0
0

Yes, I confirmed the snip. This link, which I posted twice, is gone:

http://lbloom.net/

Of all the crap that gets posted here that truly isn’t relevant, like Oliver O. “Chester” Manuel’s 1945 iron sun conspiracy, it beggars belief that Curry would single out a post to public records of academic climate change advocates seeking to enlighten others on exactly how much the taxpayers and college students funding those people are actually paying them.

Yeah, Iron Sun relevant, taxpayer funding of climate change academics not relevant.

You’re amazing sometimes, Curry.

Comment on ‘Consensus’ by exhaustion by willard (@nevaudit)

0
0

Perhaps, but inactivism has entered the vernacular.

(In other words, I’m not using inactivism as a descriptor, but as a noun.)

Comment on ‘Consensus’ by exhaustion by Joshua

0
0

I think Judith left “consensus-building through sockpuppets” off her list of criticisms of consensus. Did you offer that revision to her?

Comment on ‘Consensus’ by exhaustion by JCH

0
0

A warming world is better. Haven’t you heard? Don’t quite know why it’s suddenly alarmist.

Comment on ‘Consensus’ by exhaustion by Dave Springer

0
0

You and Hansen should get a room, swish boy.


Comment on ‘Consensus’ by exhaustion by Joshua

0
0

I was recently told that the “pronouncement” mentioned is responsible for the variance in public opinion about climate change.

Not short-term weather patterns. Not media influence. Not motivated reasoning. Not political influence. Nope.

Comment on ‘Consensus’ by exhaustion by Vassily

0
0

But the bible was not the priesthood’s promotional material. It was more their mystical authority, so, much like modern-day fake climate scientists of the consensus, they tried to hide it lest the McIntyres of the day (Luther et al?) audit it.

A big difference even now between Catholicism and Protestantism, is that the former places imbues the priest with the power to say what god’s will is, whereas the Protestants speak of a direct access to by laypeople, using the bible.

Comment on ‘Consensus’ by exhaustion by WebHubTelescope

0
0

I have said before that science and engineering professors earn every dime they make when they have to go through the unpleasant task of flunking out those students that can’t handle the course material.

Too bad we can’t do the same thing when it comes to the lightweight contrarians who populate the blogosphere.

Comment on ‘Consensus’ by exhaustion by Edim

0
0

“Professor Jarich Oosten, an anthropologist at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands, says that even if we no longer see snow, it will remain culturally important.”

Cultural snow?

“David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes – or eventually “feel” virtual cold.”

Virtual snow and cold?

Feynman comes to mind…

Comment on ‘Consensus’ by exhaustion by Vassily

0
0

Web
You will let us know when/if you eventually manage to string an argument together won’t you ? Otherwise most people are just going to lump you with the craven consensus cretins (aka the climate ‘scientists’), and so never read it.

Comment on ‘Consensus’ by exhaustion by Dave Springer

0
0

State taxpayers and state university students are footing the bill.

Generally speaking the latter are usually quite poor hence the trite expression “Starving College Student” and the national scandal with college loan debt and the mediocre quality of the education compared with other nations.

State taxpayers on average certainly aren’t rich.

So when you see information like is contained here:

http://lbloom.net/

where average professors who teach a few classes and have no other responsibilities get paid over $200,000 per year one wonders what got broken in the academic compensation scheme and when it happened. The current theory is it’s basically a collusion between government and academia. The government provides low interest high risk loans to individuals who desire a university degree. The easy money available to students raises the number of them and the cost that the market will bear. The public academic institutions take advantage of this all this and raise their own compensation. It’s a vicious circle and resulted in the most expensive university system in the world that produces only mediocre results at best. In a fair world this would be prosecuted as racketeering.

Comment on ‘Consensus’ by exhaustion by David Springer

0
0

Wall Street employees aren’t funded by tax dollars or tuition payments by starving college students. I’m not defending Wall Street practices in any case. Straw man. Pfffffffffffffffffffffft.


Comment on ‘Consensus’ by exhaustion by Robin Melville

Comment on ‘Consensus’ by exhaustion by Robin Melville

0
0

Lurker — Brazil (Wordpessary, sigh)

Comment on ‘Consensus’ by exhaustion by A fan of *MORE* discourse

0
0

manacker inquires “It’s August and I thought the late summer Arctic sea ice was fast disappearing.”

Manacker, your understanding is correct.

Neven’s Arctic Sea Ice weblog is a vibrant yet polite and respectful forum at which your climate understanding can increase, as fast as Arctic ice decreases!   :)   :)   :)

The climate news is breaking faster than the ice, so don’t delay.   ;)   ;)   ;)

Good luck, manacker!   :grin:   :grin:   :grin:

Comment on ‘Consensus’ by exhaustion by Martha

0
0

The HFC-23 scam? Yes, well, industrial polluters are a powerful constituency there… and here.

The story is not new.

A similarly abused tax shelter system for the industrial complex in the United States operates similarly.

And ‘progressives’ tend to recommend limiting GHG’s, not paying polluters for offsets. ;-)

Comment on ‘Consensus’ by exhaustion by andrew adams

0
0

PE,

Indeed, you have to demonstrate a specific link between the prediction and the outcome. Luckily in the case of AGW we have one – the known radiative properties of CO2 and the observed effect of the presence of GHGs in the atmosphere.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live


Latest Images