I, for one, read all sixteen pages. 
Comment on Policy, rhetoric and public bewilderment by Kip Hansen
↧
↧
Comment on Policy, rhetoric and public bewilderment by Gary
Read Robert Frost’s very familiar “The Road Not Taken” but this time with your scientist hat on. Choices in the rational, objective sphere of life have as much finality as those in the poetic, artistic side. It’s very hard to “unlearn” (ie, modify or even abandon) the ideas and conclusions that have shaped your life so deeply. Even scientists steeped in the dialectical nature of research, have difficulty challenging their pet hypotheses. They become locked in, often on opposite sides, and become staunch defenders of their turf. Is it any wonder the public is divided as well? Science does not “carry the day” because it does not have Supreme Court finality. It is only part of a dynamic system of custom, policy, and economics.
↧
Comment on Policy, rhetoric and public bewilderment by willard (@nevaudit)
> Apparently their strategy is to mock people by intentionally misreading simple sentences.
Indeed.
They should simply say that what they read makes no sense whatsoever.
Look at the silly monkey!
↧
Comment on Policy, rhetoric and public bewilderment by MarkB
Good point. The science has nothing to do with the advocacy for particular ‘solutions.’ We could accept the most apocalyptic claims of climate change, and decide to wait until it happens to do something about it. Physics tells us nothing whatsoever about public policy. We can also reasonably challenge the claims of certainty before we decide to act.
↧
Comment on Policy, rhetoric and public bewilderment by Steven Mosher
+1
Especially WRT Hansen.
↧
↧
Comment on Policy, rhetoric and public bewilderment by MarkB
At least in the quoted section, I see no mention of errors in science. There is mention of disputes, but not of error of ‘consensus’ positions. Next time he’s diagnosed with an ulcer, I assume he’ll ask to be treated for stress, and not ask for the antibiotic NOW known to cure the problem.
↧
Comment on Policy, rhetoric and public bewilderment by Tom
Very good.
↧
Comment on Policy, rhetoric and public bewilderment by Brandon Shollenberger
willard, I know you love attention, but it’s poor form to yell at people, “Look at me!”
↧
Comment on Policy, rhetoric and public bewilderment by Eliza
JC Just curious would you be considering passing from lukewarmer to skeptical at this stage of the game?
↧
↧
Comment on Climate change: no consensus on consensus by BBD
It is that you are not mounting a credible challenge to an entire field of science. You lack the means. Where are the published, peer-reviewed studies that back up your iconoclastic ideas?
Argument by assertion in blog comments is not going to take down a central tenet of climatology.
↧
Comment on Policy, rhetoric and public bewilderment by ConcernedBob
JC Please don’t take sides it is not the scientists job
↧
Comment on Policy, rhetoric and public bewilderment by Wagathon
Mark Thompson is quoted as saying, “The irony is that, without the insights of the humanities, it [science] may still find itself without words,” and then… the blog goes quietus. Very eerie.
↧
Comment on Policy, rhetoric and public bewilderment by Steven Mosher
Indeed that is James annan did.
http://www.climatedialogue.org/melting-of-the-arctic-sea-ice/#comment-78
Of course you knew that, and went there to point out that he was wrong to call her statement “nonsensical” rather than reading it with charity.
or asking for a clarification or picture
↧
↧
Comment on Policy, rhetoric and public bewilderment by Pekka Pirilä
Kim,
Why do you present as your first finding:
Mark Thompson errors badly, I believe, in his agreement with the view that Science should be ascendent over all.
I don’t get that message from the essay.
He does believe that science is ultimately the best source of knowledge on issues of science, but even that only ultimately as he presents and emphasizes examples of serious errors in early results in a new field.
He does not claim that decisions could be based only on issues of science. He might have stated his view on that more clearly without too much additional text but it’s never possible to cover everything important.
↧
Comment on Policy, rhetoric and public bewilderment by timg56
I’ll second Brandon’s sense of this dipping into the morbid, even sick category.
I disagree with a lot of people on a lot of different issues. Just as I agree with a lot of people on different issues. They are often one and the same. Depending on the topic, some of the people I am furthest from in terms of agreement are also some of the people I care most about in the world.
Max, at best you have a small mind to look forward to (or prefer) the death of people who don’t agree with you.
↧
Comment on Policy, rhetoric and public bewilderment by Galileo
Seems as though you have quite a different opinion than Steve M. (and me) on this subject. In his Oct 30, 2012 post titled “Karoly and Gergis vs Journal of Climate” Steve stated …
“On June 10, a few days after the Gergis-Karoly-Neukom error had been identified, I speculated that they would try to re-submit the same results, glossing over the fact that they had changed the methodology from that described in the accepted article. My cynical prediction was that a community unoffended by Gleick or upside-down Mann would not cavil at such conduct.”
I also believe that many climate scientists are honest and follow the scientific method as a matter of course. People are individuals, and should be treated as such. However, if the past several years has taught us anything, it is that many of them do not follow such high behavioral standards and have serious ethical failings. Hansen is one of them in my opinion.
↧
Comment on Policy, rhetoric and public bewilderment by timg56
dik,
RE insinuation – you need to develop thicker skin.
One stop at Real Climate shows us what “whiney little bitches” some of the regular commentors over there are. In addition to trashing Dr Curry, they have the usual checklist of whines – unfair sense of balance, another ploy by fossil fuel, no alarmists, wah, wah, wah.
btw – I noticed you haven’t dipped into the “whiney” category over there, even with your criticisms.
↧
↧
Comment on Policy, rhetoric and public bewilderment by Joshua
<blockquote>I don’t have any ideological bias in this.</blockquote>
Lol!
↧
Comment on Policy, rhetoric and public bewilderment by omanuel
The entire structure of post-1945 consensus science must be abolished to correct mistakes along the path from scientific integrity and constitutional government in 1945 to public-financed scientific garbage and a one-world tyrannical government in 2012.
Here’s a 10-point outline of the path to our demise
↧
Comment on Policy, rhetoric and public bewilderment by timg56
willard,
feel free to jump to dikran’s defense. But that doesn’t alter the fact he is over reacting. He thinks I’m engaging in pedantry. I’m a former torpedoman, knuckle dragging type. Not sure I know what pedantry means, let along how to engage in it.
Would it have been better for Dr Curry to have left off the portion in paranthesis? Maybe. Should have refrained from picking on dikran’s point about “most”? In hindsight yes. Was dik being nitpickey with Dr Curry’s comments? Looks that way to me. Was Brandon being too pickey over dik’s replies? In this case I don’t think so. Dikran’s point of Curry accussing all arctic ice reseachers being dishonest was overblown. By a wide margin. Changing it to being an insinuation instead may move it a little bit back towards the bullseye, but it still is off target.
So I’ll repeat – chime in on dik’s defense. Just recognize it’s a forlorn hope.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
