Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148479 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on What is skepticism, anyway? by curryja

$
0
0

I have actually declared my political orientation. I am an independent, with libertarian leanings. I am on record as having contributed to Obama’s first campaign.

The potential problem is issue advocacy by scientists – in this case scientists advocating for specific policies or ‘urgent action needed.’ It is the job of scientists to to be reflective and be aware of their own biases, and to minimize their impact on their science. This is why I often post about biases and advocacy, to raise awareness of these issues among scientists.


Comment on What is skepticism, anyway? by John Carpenter

$
0
0

Judy, thank you for the clarification. I stand corrected.

Comment on What is skepticism, anyway? by GaryW

$
0
0

Again we have a long battle between two sides, not informing, just arguing. Sure, I what would be defined as a skeptic. However, my response to the claims of folks worried about CAGW is OK. What is the best way to handle this problem you have defined? Keep doing what we have been doing for the last two or three decades: fighting over CO2 production? What has been achieved with that? All that has happened is CO2 production has been moved from developed countries to developing countries. That is an obvious failure. Doing more of the same won’t change the situation. (It was a dumb idea from the start. Any mechanical or civil engineer who worked with real people in the real world could have told you.)

The correct approach is to prepare for the many varied changes you claim will be happening. The question is then what is the best way to achieve that. That is where the discussion should be going.

Comment on What is skepticism, anyway? by Jim Zuccaro

$
0
0

The talk of “skepticism” is pointless.

There are conflicting hypothesis-es about the temperature sensitivity of the globe to CO2 concentration. The incorrect hypothesis will be shown to be incorrect when repeatable, falsifiable predictions by it (them) have been found to be incorrect predictions.

The correct hypothesis-es are those that have not been falsified.

That is science, not skepticism. Everything here is polemic.

Comment on What is skepticism, anyway? by Michael

$
0
0

Rud Istvan | June 5, 2014 at 7:58 pm |
“Michael, the answer to your presumedly rhetorical questions is yes, I did. And published them in a book you have evidently not read. As to SM, we co published there and here on the Marcott mess. You are obviously deficient in memory as well as net search techniques.”

Thanks Rud…..haven’t the faintest idea what you’re on about. Hopefully you do.

Comment on What is skepticism, anyway? by Harold

$
0
0

Horse poopies. I say turtles. You don’t have a better explanation. So it’s turtles? All the way down? Always?

Comment on What is skepticism, anyway? by JD Ohio

$
0
0

“People who are not experts often use simple heuristics to judge the credibility of claims by people who are (or are claimed to be) experts.”

Exactly what jurors do. Also, one of the biggest tells for me is the use of the term “d>nier” to dishonestly use Nazi innuendo to attack skeptics. Additionally, of course, it is scientifically improper to, essentially, claim your theory is unassailable and that you don’t have to answer criticism.

JD

Comment on What is skepticism, anyway? by GaryM

$
0
0

“Let me do a Judith; A litmus test for Judith’s belief in rational skepticism – can you find any critical statements here from Judith on Steve McIntyre?”

To my knowledge there is no instance of McIntyre being dishonest as Mann has so frequently been. No example of him inverting data, or creating a statistical model that gives the desired result regardless of the data input.

If and when he does so,I would expect his errors to be pointed out here as well as any other skeptic blog.

Until then, that question is just another example of false moral equivalence.


Comment on World Bank on Understanding Climate Uncertainty by mwgrant

$
0
0

Ahhh, Peter. I know you are really putting that in in cooler weather when it is more comfortable, but it really for that exoected increase in summer air conditioning. ;O) Have fun.

Gotta agree this is a good post.

Comment on World Bank on Understanding Climate Uncertainty by mwgrant

Comment on What is skepticism, anyway? by stevepostrel

$
0
0

As Gary M has pointed out repeatedly and Mosher has not responded to, Mosher is illegitimately trying to shift the debate from “what is legitimate skepticism” to “whom should I call a scientist?” While I think Mosher is also wrong on the second question as a normative matter, it is irrelevant since Prof. Curry is attacking the first question and disagreeing with Shermer there.

Mosher’s dodges here do him little credit.

Comment on World Bank on Understanding Climate Uncertainty by Raving

$
0
0

World government is an old idea. Think UN etc. Definately not a complex system….

Not saying it deliberate, but things are heading towards a world governance solution. Fits all the narratives

Comment on What is skepticism, anyway? by Steven Mosher

$
0
0

UK Spence.

The quote is there top of page 91.

The theory conflicted with the data. Feynman did not argue that the theory was wrong. Instead he argued that noone could find anything wrong with the theory. And that no one could find anything wrong with the data.
theory predicted 3 times as many neutrinos than were actually detected.

The mystery persisted for decades. until better data was collected..

ha.

Comment on What is skepticism, anyway? by stevepostrel

$
0
0

No. That is you, Mosher, changing the subject. Agnostic is correct about the context of the original discussion.

You are also wrong about the scientific aspect, as no-go theorems and other sorts of impossibility results limiting prediction and explanation are central to science of all kinds, but the entire discussion is a diversion from the sound critique that J. Curry made of Shermer’s argument.

Comment on What is skepticism, anyway? by stevepostrel

$
0
0

Cripwell is an easy mark here and Mosher is correct. Cripwell could do a little better by trying Sowell’s point that even though the border between Turkey and Greece is disputed, no one doubts that Athens is in Greece and Ankara is in Turkey. That wouldn’t rescue him completely but it would at least get him off the mat.


Comment on What is skepticism, anyway? by stevepostrel

$
0
0

VRJH believes that we can currently accurately explain pre-human climate by reference to orbital forcings, aerosols, etc. But we can’t. Even Science of Doom doesn’t see how to explain the ice ages. So the premise of his if-then is false, and the rest crumbles accordingly.

Comment on World Bank on Understanding Climate Uncertainty by R. Gates

$
0
0

“…is changing the atmosphere of the planet – without having the slightest idea about consequences – a clever thing to do?”
—–
Certainly not clever, but a big gamble. Poking a stick at a wild beast only increases the odds your arm will be torn off.

Comment on World Bank on Understanding Climate Uncertainty by stevepostrel

$
0
0

I wouldn’t worry too much about U.S. anti-coal policy with respect to the World Bank. First, the percentage of investment dependent on this funding source isn’t that great. Second, many coal plants will be good enough investments that they will get done anyway and the WB funds a country can get will be reallocated to lower-priority items. The bigger issue is the risk that WB loans go to stuff that’s actually value destroying, like shoring up the power of corrupt political in-groups and strengthening the power of national governments to regulate their citizens.

Comment on World Bank on Understanding Climate Uncertainty by R. Gates

$
0
0

“The US is finished. The 1% are now moving offshore to become global oligarchs.”

Hardly finished. We are now becoming the cheap labor source for the world as our former middle class happily accept their new status as one notch above slaves. But they’ve got TV and sports to keep them plenty distracted from their servitude to the 1%.

Comment on World Bank on Understanding Climate Uncertainty by jim2

$
0
0

SP said: like shoring up the power of corrupt political in-groups and strengthening the power of national governments to regulate their citizens.
*****
Are you talking about the US here?

Viewing all 148479 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images