thisisnogood, how do you interpret statements from Steyn like
“I want to get to court as soon as possible, and put Michael E Mann, PhD (Doctor of Phraudology) on the stand under oath.”? Is he just kidding or being misunderstood?
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Jim D
↧
↧
Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by Donald Rapp
According to the data you showed, there was no change in global temperature from 1933 to 1972, a period of 39 years during which CO2 was rapidly increasing. The temperature data you cited were -.034, -.038, -.018 and -.027, all within the noise, and must be taken as essentially equal. Your gerrymandered data over the past two decades hide the fact that the temperature has meandered up and down on a high plateau since the high year of 1998, and the figures for the past two decades are highly misleading, and highly dependent on the choice of years. So all I can say to you is stuff and nonsense.
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Jim D
phatboy, the law makes a distinction between a mistake and a fabrication. It is fine to criticize people for making mistakes. No one will get sued for that. This is perhaps subtle, so people are having trouble following it.
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Jim D
They don’t, but you can’t go around publishing libelous statements either. We saw this in the other direction a while back with blogged accusations about East Anglia too.
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Chuck L
Calling Oreske’s work science is a stretch, Hansen’s predictions have been wrong (the West Side Drive under water, decreasing Antarctic sea ice, etc.) and Mann’s hockey stick is broken (numerous non-hockey sticks from many parts of the world and sketchy statistics) but hey, you have to admire FOMD’s faith in his pantheon of green “gods.”
↧
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by phatboy
Jim D, a mistake is a mistake. When it doggedly continues to be pushed long after it’s been shown to be a mistake, then it could be argued that it becomes something else.
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by me
Try looking up Richard Tol’s CV on his university website.
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Joshua
So this turned out to be more interesting than I expected.
I assumed that warmista was a direct reference to Sandinista. As it turns out, it’s quite possible that some who used that term did not intend that reference.
So should I insist that they used the term with the intend I thought – hand-wringing, pearl-clutching, and drama-queening from my fainting couch as I do so?
I’d say no. You get what I’m going for there?
Should they stop using the term now – since they know that at least some folks (I wasn’t the only one) consider it to be used in a way as to deliberately demean and offend?
And just to be clear, because y’all seem to need to have things repeated often: I don’t defend the use of the term “denier.” Certainly, since some “skeptics” claims (in some cases I don’t doubt authentically) that they’re offended by the term, I think it is counterproductive. To continue to use the term is pointless, unless the point is to engage in identity-aggressive and identity-defensive behaviors.
IMO, the need to find labels, and in particular demeaning and insulting labels that at least some folks find offensive, is all part and parcel of the motivated reasoning that roils the climate wars. The need for labeling is largely about the identity struggle, the need to identify with a tribe and to demonize the other team. It’s about the otter.
Of course, there is a legitimate need to find terms to describe the participants in the debate, but if the purpose is good faith exchange, then the goal should be to find terms that are acceptable to both sides, and accurate descriptors, and that can further understanding and dialog. “Denier” doesn’t get that job done. Neither does skeptic – as it implies that skepticism only exists on one side of the war. Neither does realist.
Of course, there is also a legitimate need to express dissatisfaction or offense with the terms that others use.
But pardon me if I’m not particularly moved by the exclamations of offense by groups of people who regularly engage in the very same identity-aggressive and identity-defensive behaviors by using demonizing terms themselves. My favorite is when “skeptics” yuk it up about whether it’s appropriate to use the term “denier” for “realists” after just wailing to m*mmy about how mean those “realists” are for using the term “denier.”
I’m thinking of investing in big boy pants futures, because it’s sure as shootin’ that there’s a lot of folks who need to put some on.
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Joshua
Oh, and btw –
Yes, I have engaged with “realists” about why I think the term is counterproductive.
Their answer has been that it isn’t intended in the way that “skeptics” say that it was intended, and further, that it’s an accurate term. They seem to think that they know whether ‘skeptics” are denying the science as opposed to interpreting differently than they. I think (and I have said to them) that no one can know such things, and thus the assertion that it is an accurate term doesn’t hold water – because it is conflating fact with opinion.
I have told them that conflating fact with opinion is the kind of error that I frequently see “skeptics” making, and that when I see “realists” doing that, it lessens my confidence in the quality of their analytic reasoning. I have told them that conflating fact with opinion is, IMO, a classic “tell” for motivated reasoning.
Perhaps y’all get my drift?
↧
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by James Cross
Fan,
I can’t speak for JC but I think the reference to support is in regard to the lawsuit not the hockey stick.
I am not a fan of Marc Steyn. I am pretty much completely opposite on everything political but the Mann lawsuit is a little over the top. I doubt many scientists think it was a good idea no matter whether they stand on the science.
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by JD Ohio
JCH I have real issues with whether the time frame of ocean measurements and the sensitivity of the measurements are accurate, but your response reasonably replies to the issue raised, as opposed to FOMD’s. I doubt that the measurements since ARGO was initiated are sensitive enough to show any significant trends, but I am open to additional evidence.
JD
↧
Comment on Open thread by rls
Girma: Dr Wyatt on the Stadium Wave “one can note that the stadium-trend is consistent with a slowing in the warming of the Northern Hemisphere surface average temperatures, and that extrapolated forward, it would be consistent with the stadium wave if those temperatures continued a decline, albeit with inter-annually paced ups and downs, into the early 2030s.”
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Michael
Besides Fuler’s incoherent babble, what else is interesting is this bizarre obsession over Michael Mann and a 16 yr old paper.
The older it gets the more important it seems to become to these OCD types.
I assume that it’s some kind of sacred symbol in their anti-IPCC dogma……or something far nastier.
↧
↧
Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by thisisnotgoodtogo
You didn’t use running mean, did you?
↧
Comment on Open thread by Scott Mc
It has been incredibly cold where I am, SW Ontario, the furnace has been coming on, overcast and about 20d F below normal. Noticed that Wisconsin had an early frost yday. 2 years ago, we had a nice summer, seems that the MSM was saying hottest summer ever, new records, etc etc every other day, despite being nice, but not really hot to me. Dont hear anything about the cold records being set daily……Hope I dont have to go through another winter like the last :(
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Michael
“…the IPCC is a political creation with a policy conclusion before the first science report was ever reviewed or cataloged. …It took a whole village to create the IPCC political monster. The dream of regulating, populist hatred of energy interests and desire of specialty tax targeting long predates the global warming scam. The IPCC work is brochure ware for power lust and nothing more. The loss of integrity of science, if not corrected, move the world ever closer to the Orwellian reality so many fear and reject…” -cwon14
Look at just about anything written by the above person.
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by me
Flawed cf fraud
Do you see the difference?
The court case is about the use of the latter word, not the former.
↧
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by thisisnotgoodtogo
“the IPCC is a political creation with a policy conclusion before the first science report was ever reviewed or cataloged”
Apart from the rhetorical flourishes, that is absolutely factual.
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by thisisnotgoodtogo
UN prayer
“The United Nations Environmental Sabbath Service
June 1990; UN Environment Programme, DC2-803
“We who have lost our sense and our senses – our touch, our smell, our
vision of who we are; we who frantically force and press all things,
without rest for body or spirit, hurting our earth and injuring ourselves:
we call a halt.
We want to rest
We need to rest and allow the earth to rest.
We have forgotten who we are.
We have alienated ourselves from the unfolding of the cosmos
**********************************************************************
yadda yadda …give us the $ trillions you owe
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by thisisnotgoodtogo
so somebody called it what it is in vernacular
suck it up, toots!
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
