I won’t speculate for Beesaman, but my contention would be the same as I gave upthread – that cancer is rather universally seen as a bummer, whereas a warmer climate is not. Some of us think it may be rather splendid.
Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by Anteros
↧
↧
Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by Michael
“Oreskes was the boss, carbon-hog face of the latest IPCC carbon pig-out bash in Durban…”
That’s as far as I read.
↧
Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by Joshua
Anteros -
She wants the ‘gravity’ of climate change to be settled in the way that an ‘anthropogenic’ influence is settled –
While I think you make some valid points in your post, this point confuses me.
Why do you consider it that the “anthropogenic influence” is settled? When I go to WUWT, I see posts written by people who seem scientifically knowledgeable explaining in great deal why there is no way even theoretically that CO2 could affect the climate. And in response to such posts, I see a long list of comments from the “extended peer review community” that are in agreement.
So what is the criterion that you use to determine that the “controversy” is settled in the one area but not the other? Is it because there is no controversy in the “consensus” community as to the “anthropogenic influence” but there is controversy as to the danger of “2 degrees?” So then, is the attribute of “settled” to be based on whether there is controversy in the “consensus community?” If so, how do you define the “consensus community,” and are you saying that we should disregard what we read in the “extended peer review community?”
↧
Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by Joshua
Anteros -
See my comment below. Also, another question. Suppose in the early stages of reporting about the link between smoking and lung cancer, the researches had accompanied their science with editorial comments in newspapers about how cigarette smoking would cause the deaths of millions and millions and millions of people. Would it have been wrong for them to do that – morally or scientifically?
What do you suppose the response might have been if they had?
↧
Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by Joshua
mike -
Have you had your coffee yet?
Do you think that the writer of an op-ed expressing a strong “skeptical” opinion would deserve the same level of abuse?
↧
↧
Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by lolwot
“The fact that global warming ended by 1998 and the fact that the world has been in fact cooling since 2002 trumps any consensus of open minded people claiming human caused global.”
Not at all because those two “facts” are actually lies.
↧
Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by lolwot
ha I think that tapping sound was Micheal nailing your double standards
↧
Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by cwon14
I never realized what a personality cult, warmist or skeptic, right or left, existed here until you revealed yourself DM.
Here we have a link to a tin foil hat, eco-leftist extremist (Oreskes) and you fault me (foam out the mouth) for pointing it out as yet another example of the false balance (ignoring the sources political colors) that exists here. It’s the topic that should be of interest not brownnosing the blog host.
↧
Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by Eli Rabett
Be careful, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jan/23/climate-sceptic-lawson-thinktank-funding" rel="nofollow">you might get an answer</a>
↧
↧
Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by manacker
ceteris non paribus
<strong>[corrected formatting – please ignore earlier post]</strong>
You state:
<blockquote>you cannot say that the warming stopped since 2000</blockquote>
adding
<blockquote>the trend is not statistically significant at 12 years.</blockquote>
These are two separate points,CNP
.
The <em>“truth”</em> is <em>“that the warming stopped since the end of 2000″.</em>
The empirical data confirming this <em>“truth”</em> comes from the physical observations of all those thermometer readings all over the world (even those next to AC exhausts, asphalt parking lots, etc.).
Now to the second part: is this lack of warming <em>“statistically significant”</em>?
There is no absolute answer to that question as it is judgmental. Santer tells us we need 17 years (rather than only 12 years) before it is <em>“statistically significant”.</em> Others may conjure up another figure.
But the <em>“truth”</em> is <em>“that the warming stopped since the end of 2000″</em>, whether this fits your (or anyone else’s) definition of being <em>“statistically significant”</em>.
Stated otherwise one could say that <em>"there has been no statistically significant warming since 2000"</em> – do you like this wording better?
Max
↧
Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by hastur
Max,
I can’t speak for Bob, but I’ll play anyway.
How many metrics show statistically significant warming since 2001?
This is a meaningless question as the period is too short to give a statistically significant trend.
How many show warming at a rate of 0.2 degC per decade, as projected by IPCC?
None. But then the projection was 0.2C per decade, not 0.2C every decade. Also see previous answer.
↧
Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by Eli Rabett
Oh goody, someone who <a href="http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/04/fred-seitz-is-not-as-pure-as-driven.html" rel="nofollow">doesn't know</a> about <a href="http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/03/its-really-thin-bench-over-there-at.html" rel="nofollow">the Freds</a> and <a href="http://rabett.blogspot.com/2011/06/really-thin-really-well-paid-bench.html" rel="nofollow">friends</a>
↧
Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by Eli Rabett
acrylonitrile FWIW
↧
↧
Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by lolwot
“How many metrics show statistically significant warming since 2001?”
How many should?
↧
Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by John Kannarr
Isn’t this the same Naomi Oreskes who wrote about the 50 years’ of “consensus science” that ignored evidence for plate tectonics and continental drift? I would have thought she had learned something about the fallacy of “consensus.”
↧
Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by lolwot
please stop being so rude and also please stop revealing the plans for world communism
↧
Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by Michael
Did you see the “raw data” mosher??????
↧
↧
Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by Michael
Yes, there has always been cancer.
↧
Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by manacker
ceteris ex paribus
The back-and-forth has gotten a bit long, so I’ve posted this here.
You state that it is “up to the scientists” to determine what is “empirical evidence”.
Wrong.
It is “up to the scientists” to search for, find and report “empirical evidence” to back up any hypotheses they happen to be supporting or espousing.
It is the prerogative of the rational skeptic of a hypothesis to insist on such “empirical evidence” before accepting the validity of the hypothesis..
“Empirical evidence” is fairly well defined (according to the scientific method) as “physical observations or reproducible experimentation”.
It is NOT the output of computer model simulations based on theoretical deliberations.
And it is what is lacking to support the IPCC CAGW hypothesis that most of the warming of the last half century has been caused by human GHG emissions (primarily CO2) and that this represents a serious potential threat for humanity and our environment.
This hypothesis has yet to be corroborated by empirical evidence – so it remains an uncorroborated hypothesis.
This is why we need to remain “open minded” to any empirical evidence that is found and reported (contrary to the advice of Naomi Oreskes).
Max
↧
Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by Michael
Awesome – random isn’t sure about smoking causing cancer.
Denialist bingo indeed!
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
