Restructuring the global economy and restricting the freedom of
the individual ter live w/out unnecessary restraints.
Bts
Comment on On confusing expertise and objectivity by Beth Cooper
↧
↧
Comment on On confusing expertise and objectivity by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
The fact is that Inhofe was the one that recommended a criminal investigation of 17 climatologists based on their hacked emails, he said “the greatest scientific scandal of our generation” .
I suppose the long-arm of the US congress and judicial system extends to England ?
So Inhofe is facing pushback from the people he accused of being criminals and is being laughed at by the British, who at last count were citizens of a country other than the USA.
Irony seems to go over the head of the 3%
↧
Comment on On confusing expertise and objectivity by Peter Lang
JC message to Joshua said:
<blockquote>The other side is extremely diverse, including skeptical academics who don’t have a high opinion of each other, data libertarians from the open knowledge movement, people interested in accountability of publicly relevant science, and yes those who are politically motivated by allegiance to fossil fuels. </blockquote>
I'd take issue with the last one: "<i> those who are politically motivated by allegiance to fossil fuels. </i>
First, It demonstrates bias to connect "politically motivated" and 'fossil" fuels". It suggests the author considers it is skeptics and those who support fossil fuels who are politically motivated but does not recognise that the <i>"‘tribe’ associated with the IPCC and its supporters."</i>are politically motivated. The "<i>‘tribe’ associated with the IPCC and its supporters</i>" are mostly employees and tend towards being of 'progressive' political persuasion. I suspect the number of people "<i>who are politically motivated by allegiance to fossil fuels </i>" is small. But what <b>a large group of people are motivated by is allegiance to low cost, plentiful, reliable energy. I suggest this is an entirely rational position</b>, and those who do not support this are not acting rationally. Those who are concerned about energy costs tend to be more aware of the economic implications of the advocated mitigation policies, are more economically rational and more likely to be of conservative political persuasion.
Second, it misses another major group - those concerned about the economic costs and benefits of the policies being proposxed. This group want to see clear, well documented evidence, that has been fully exposed and tested in appropriate adversarial forums before we commit to the trillions of dollars that the policies advocated by the IPCC supporters would cost us.
I belong to that group. I believe the largest proportion of skeptics belong to this group. IMO, the concern about the need to implement policies that will cost the world trillions of dollars is the main motivation for skeptics questioning every relevant detail of the evidence used to support the case for GHG mitigation. Furthermore, I suggest skeptics are being entirely rational by challenging every detail before they are prepared to support the high cost mitigation policies being advocated. At the moment, the case has not been made that the costs of such policies are justified. There is no evidence that the policies will deliver any benefits.
It is unfortunate that, what I believe is the main reason for scepticism about CAGW, is not even recognised or acknowledged.
↧
Comment on On confusing expertise and objectivity by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
Right, I have this Luntz ref in my Zotero citation manager
http://www.actonfs.com/newsletters/issue18/newsletter18.html
”
When asked why consistency is critical, Luntz replies, “Finding a good message and then sticking with it takes extraordinary discipline, but it pays off tenfold in the end. Remember, you may be making yourself sick by saying the same exact thing for the umpteenth time, but many in your audience will be hearing it for the first time. The overwhelming majority of your customers aren’t paying as much attention as you are.”
“
The 3% don’t pay attention so they need to be bludgeoned over the head, repeatedly. Objectivity is at the mercy of propaganda techniques.
↧
Comment on On confusing expertise and objectivity by Jeffn
The climate concerned would pardon the “death train” operators outside of the US? Good to know.
When “science” writes open letters attacking the politicians and their donors for the crime of delaying action via insistence on Easter bunny solutions, then ill accept that science is unbiased.
When they object to the hyperbole on both sides Ill believe it.
↧
↧
Comment on On confusing expertise and objectivity by Bill
Pekka,
A clarification? When you said “have opposite bias” are you saying that the computer scientists (for example) think that their field is of particular importance for the problem, but another scientist, say a geologist, may have the same belief but about their own field?
So, not opposite, but maybe an “opposing bias” toward their own field? So, it would be the same type of bias but in a different field? Not trying to nitpick, just want to be clear.
↧
Comment on On confusing expertise and objectivity by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
Tom | August 2, 2013 at 6:52 am |
“Web your 5% say …”
That is the way a statistical distribution works Tom. There are a small percentage of stupid people at the bottom (the 3%) and a corresponding percentage of smart people at the top.
I wouldn’t pooh-pooh the idea that statisticians found a real correlation between heat and violence. After all, it was that smart top 5% who found the link between atmospheric lead and the criminal behavior of young adults. After lead was removed as a fuel additive worldwide, crime rates decreased significantly in every country that was measured.
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2013/03/tetraethyl-lead-violence-link
“a 1% increase in tonnages of air Pb released 22 years prior corresponded with a 0.46% rise in the aggravated assault rate in the present period.”
This is a great example of objectivity versus “objectivity” in statistics that the Nate Silver article is about.
“Objectivity is the belief that there is a real world out there that’s more or less knowable”
↧
Comment on On confusing expertise and objectivity by Txomin
The analysis in interesting. Indeed, it seems to me that the climate snowball has come to be accidentally rather than conspiratorially. Everything seems to indicate that we will stumble our way out of this mess only to walk right into the next one.
↧
Comment on On confusing expertise and objectivity by Bill
Jim D,
That is a very cool graph. I will be using it to point out why I am skeptical that CO2 is causing all the warming of the 2nd steep portion of the graph.
Even the little dip after the flat region is there in both cases. How did you smooth this? (Or is that shown on the page w/ graph if I scroll to right?).
Be interesting to see if that little dip shows up again in a few years.
↧
↧
Comment on On confusing expertise and objectivity by Bill
Ask me. I’ll tell you.
↧
Comment on On confusing expertise and objectivity by Peter Lang
Yep.
↧
Comment on On confusing expertise and objectivity by captdallas 0.8 or less
Webster, “I suppose the long-arm of the US congress and judicial system extends to England ?”
Didn’t the “Tall Bloke” investigation involve UK and US agencies? With the larger number of difficult questions being asked in the UK Parliament, I don’t think there is much laughing going on.
↧
Comment on On confusing expertise and objectivity by Bill
WebHub,
The removal of lead from gasoline came about in the 70′s primarily (correct me if I am wrong) because congress enacted legislation that led to the premature use of catalytic converters which were then found to be incompatible with lead additives in gasoline.
Therefore, we had to rush to get rid of lead due to the rush to catalytic converters. (One can be in favor of sensible, clean air policies and not like the way it was implemented). This was probably a really good thing as lead is toxic and can lead to neurological defects.
However, another theory related to the decrease in violence is that the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 is responsible for the large decreases in violence that we are still enjoying to this day.
So, it was not “the smart guys” that figured it out and then got lead banned. It was serendipitous. And there is not widespread agreement about why crime rates are down, as other “smart people” have other theories.
↧
↧
Comment on On confusing expertise and objectivity by Bill
He also used to mention that we might need to use mandatory contraceptives in drinking water to control population. He and Ehrlich would throw these ideas out there with very little sense that they found the ideas at all distasteful.
↧
Comment on On confusing expertise and objectivity by captdallas 0.8 or less
BartR, It seems that you would learn from the references you link.
Carbon Tax – poor choice. Value Added Tax – good choice. It sounds like you are getting more for the effort.
Min achrist – poor choice, sounds like you think you are the mini-me anti-Christ. Pragmatist- better choice.
Global Warming- poor choice since is does warm uniformly. Climate Uncertainty- good choice because it is descriptive.
“As a pragmatist, I support a value added tax to prepare for Climate Uncertainty.”
Once you get into their wallets, do as you will.
↧
Comment on On confusing expertise and objectivity by Pekka Pirilä
No,
I meant that some scientists belittle the practical value of expertise in their own field, if not permanently then at least based on the current level of understanding. They may think so, while others disagree and may perhaps prove soon that the field had, indeed, practical significance.
↧
Comment on On confusing expertise and objectivity by Bad Andrew
“Joshua seems to be non-aligned about AGW”
You obviously haven’t read more than a few of Joshua’s comments. He’s and admitted Warmer who doesn’t understand climate science. His comments are almost invariably of the same theme: Criticize ‘Skeptics’.
Andrew
↧
↧
Comment on Ehrlich & Ehrlich: Can a global collapse of civilization be avoided? by David Springer
It’s been gamed. No way it went from 200 votes to 10,000 votes in 12 hours with votes from 10,000 different people.
↧
Comment on Ehrlich & Ehrlich: Can a global collapse of civilization be avoided? by mosomoso
Lunch Day 3, and there are bizarre reports of locals rain-dancing all over England. It’s like a scene from The Wicker Man!
↧
Comment on FT on the IPCC by captdallas 0.8 or less
Webster, “Well I can tell him the basic obvious point that he has missed. Using the global temperature records that include a significant fraction of ocean surface misses the fact that this is not measuring the eventual equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS). ”
Balderdash. SST and OH uptake correlate quite well. The stratosphere which is a better measure of radiant impact than the lower troposphere correlates quite well to SST and OHC. The outlier is northern hemisphere land which has much larger seasonal variability and would provide most of the albedo feedback required for higher sensitivities.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
