Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148649 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Open thread weekend by Bart R

$
0
0

jim2 | August 11, 2013 at 2:59 pm |
manacker | August 11, 2013 at 4:03 pm |

Wow, so ingrained is the instinct to deny in denialists, they are driven to demonstrate their denialism in metadenial their denial even exists.

Are they disingenuous or just that deep in denial?

Are they redefining the word in some Orwellian — sorry, since Frank Luntz redefined Orwellian it no longer means the same thing — in some Luntzian way, or do they really suffer such piety for their cause they can delude themselves into not being able to acknowledge any meaning injurious to it?

You be the judge.


Comment on Open thread weekend by jim2

$
0
0

Bart, one minor technicality – I was quoting Anthony. Just follow the link.

Comment on Open thread weekend by Bart R

$
0
0

manacker | August 11, 2013 at 4:09 pm |

Based on real data?

In the same sense as real data shows 80% of the world prefer Bing over Google and all other search engines combined?

Comment on Open thread weekend by Chief Hydrologist

$
0
0

Now that’s the heights of scintillating wit we are used to from you Bart.

Comment on Climate Science & Sociology by The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse

$
0
0


“Settled” as an unqualified adjective is a binary state; something is or is not settled, a 1 or a 0.

Differences of degree seem to escape some linguists.

It’s unsettling, but true.

Comment on Climate Science & Sociology by Pointman

$
0
0

Pointman.

Someone who says little but lets people keep digging a hole. I suppose I might have a morbid interest in the type of slightly pathological interpersonal behaviour on display here. Is it merely a territorial display by some beta males against a stranger or are there deeper darker reasons?

We’ll have to observe further. Keep going lads, it’s highly amusing.

Pointman

Comment on Open thread weekend by Bob Droege

$
0
0

Clear as mud max, as usual someone brings a dictionary to a scientific discussion. I want a scientific definition of the pause, like a trend of x with uncertainty less than y degrees.

Nice use of wood for trees, but what is the uncertainty of your cooling trends and does it exclude the “about 0.2 C per decade trend from the IPCC?”

What about adjusting for ENSO?

Comment on Climate Science & Sociology by A fan of *MORE* discourse

$
0
0

Kim asks (rhetorically): “Is the long term herd immunity of the human race to be better with vaccination or the native virus?”

Gosh Kim, how about a follow-up essay on the harm to human herd immunity caused by vaccines for measles, mumps, smallpox, tetanus, rabies, and yellow fever? Or the efficacy of the herd immunity associated to those no-vaccine scourges tuberculosis, malaria, HIV, and bubonic plague?

Meanwhile … thank you for providing Climate Etc readers with yet another example of ideology-driven non-rational denialist cognition, Kim!

\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}


Comment on Open thread weekend by captdallas 0.8 or less

$
0
0

Bob Droege, “What about adjusting for ENSO?” What a novel idea? We can “adjust” for ENSO and Volcanoes without really knowing how to properly do that so we can get another 0.05 C of possible warming to make a trend just under significant, significant.

Bob, you have a natural knack for statistics.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/more-on-estimating-the-underlying-trend-in-recent-warming/

Knock that out then we can hook you up with “Dimples” Marcott for some ground breaking paleo.

Comment on Climate Science & Sociology by Tonyb

$
0
0

Pointman

I followed your name and enjoyed your Berlin article. If you want to see interesting interpersonal behaviour I suggest you have a look at the weekend thread immediately before this one. It would keep a whole army of professionals busy for a month analysing the comments made there.

Tonyb

Comment on Climate Science & Sociology by manacker

$
0
0

Steven Mosher

Science does undoubtedly “progress” (and sociology is not, strictly speaking a “science”).

But (like the global temperature, since we’ve started measuring it) science does so in “fits and spurts”.

Three steps forward and one step backward.

Unfortunately, the agenda driven “science” resulting from the politicized IPCC “consensus process” has arguably resulted in a step backward for climate science.

But I’m convinced that it will move forward again as this process is discredited and abandoned (a process that is already underway today).

Max

Comment on Climate Science & Sociology by Pointman

$
0
0

Hi TonyB. With apologies to Johanna, I’m finding both the on topic and wildly off the edge of reason comments interesting.

In trying to drag it back to some sort of sociological or more accurately, a psychological area, there is a phenomenon loosely called the persistence of identity, which can be useful if you’re looking for someone who’s decided to change their name for some nefarious reason.

About 70% of the time, the new name they choose for themselves subconsciously has the same initial as their real name.

For instance, someone called John might hit on an alter ego of Joshua or even Jebediah …

Pointman

Comment on Climate Science & Sociology by lolwot

$
0
0

“There’s no reason to suppose that such a phenomenon is confined to history. ”

Yes there is. Things are more complicated now. The big simple questions like explain the motions of the planets or explain the diversity of species have all been answered.

Comment on Climate Science & Sociology by manacker

$
0
0

Joanna

A very timely and interesting post – thanks.

As it relates to the ongoing debate surrounding “climate change”, you observe that most sociologists who write about this topic have already concluded (for one reason or another that arguably have little to do with any empirical scientific evidence) that “the science is settled”.

So now the sociologist ponders the psycho-sociological reasons why anyone would reject the obviously “settled science”.

A flawed starting point for an argument IMO.

Thanks again.

Max

Comment on Climate Science & Sociology by lolwot

$
0
0

Pointman: ““Settled” as an unqualified adjective is a binary state; something is or is not settled, a 1 or a 0.”

That is correct, but I think where climate skeptics tend to go wrong is they think “settled” is a permanent state.

But really there is no reason why something that is settled cannot later become unsettled. A leaf can fall from a tree to settle on the ground, only for it later to be unsettled by a breeze.

So settled science does not imply that the science will remain settled forever, it just means that for now it’s settled down, it differs substantially from a hotly debated science where there is a lot of movement. For example it’s settled science that the Earth orbits the Sun. There has been no credible doubt about that for hundreds of years, no movement on the issue. It’s settled down. It’s also settled science that human greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet.


Comment on Climate Science & Sociology by lolwot

$
0
0

“If someone proved that AGW was absolutely not occurring, how long would it take for AGW to go away?”

That’s like saying if someone proved the world was flat, how long would it take the idea of a round earth to go away.

Such an absurdity is hard to imagine, let alone to imagine would people’s reactions would be to it.

Comment on Climate Science & Sociology by willard (@nevaudit)

$
0
0

Some settled for Acadie.
Then for Louisiana.

Comment on Climate Science & Sociology by Chief Hydrologist

$
0
0

‘I published my first climate-related paper in 1974 (Chylek and Coakley, Aerosol and Climate, Science 183, 75-77). I was privileged to supervise Ph. D. theses of some exceptional scientists – people like J. Kiehl, V.Ramaswamy and J. Li among others. I have published well over 100 peer-reviewed papers, and I am a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union, the Optical Society of America, and Los Alamos National Laboratory. Within the last few years I was also honored to be included in Wikipedia’s blacklist of “climate skeptics”.

For me, science is the search for truth, the never-ending path towards finding out how things are arranged in this world so that they can work as they do. That search is never finished.

It seems that the climate research community has betrayed that mighty goal in science. They have substituted the search for truth with an attempt at proving one point of view. It seems that some of the most prominent leaders of the climate research community, like prophets of Old Israel, believed that they could see the future of humankind and that the only remaining task was to convince or force all others to accept and follow. They have almost succeeded in that effort.

Yes, there have been cases of misbehavior and direct fraud committed by scientists in other fields: physics, medicine, and biology to name a few. However, it was misbehavior of individuals, not of a considerable part of the scientific community.’ http://www.thegwpf.org/petr-chylek-open-letter-to-the-climate-research-community/

A sociological enterprise built on unsound foundations.

Comment on Climate Science & Sociology by Pointman

$
0
0

I’m obviously dealing with a reading skills issue here – focus on the “unqualified” word. I know it’s one of those tricky adjectives and it’s an exact usage of language, but I’m sure you’ll figure it out in the end.

Pointman

Comment on Climate Science & Sociology by Joshua

$
0
0

A man with a well-defined position, but zero magnitude.

That is interesting as the argument you have presented has enormous magnitude, but zero definition.+

Yes, if any significant number of people felt as you said, it would be a problem of significant magnitude. The only problem is that your vision is created whole cloth out of your imagination. No one, or at least hardly anyone, feels as you described.

Of course, if you have evidence otherwise…

Oh, and BTW – I linked your Berlin article, as it served as an excellent example of “skeptical” thinking.

http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2013/8/11/what-climate-skeptics-have-in-common-with-believers-a-stubbo.html#comments

Careful – I have contributed a lot of noise there. You’ll have to descend from your lofty perch if you want to enjoy the noise.

Viewing all 148649 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images