== > “I think it’s cute that Schmidt has adopted Steve McIntyre’s “watch the pea” idiom.”
Once again, GaryM steps up to give skepticism a bad name (and Judith and Mosh applaud)
Wikipedia:
The shell game dates back at least to Ancient Greece.[1
Comment on Atlantic vs Pacific vs AGW by Joshua
↧
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by GaryM
AK,
Your confusion as to the definition of conservative, progressive, liberal and reactionary is not surprising. In fact, those terms are used by different people different ways, depending on their objective. Progressives in particular like a ‘fluid’ language, for the same reason they prefer a ‘living’ constitution. Because then they can claim words mean whatever they want depending on the circumstances, That’s why they love ‘fairness’ as a slogan.
I use the term conservative in the common usage of that term among conservatives, not among progressives and liberaltarians who want to define away genuine conservatism.
Conservatives do not want to “keep things the way they are.” If they did, they would never have fought a civil war to take the progressives’ slaves away from them. Nor would they have fought to pass civil rights legislation while progressives fought to prevent them. We certainly don’t want to conserve the progressive form of government currently being shoved down the American and European peoples’ throats by fiat.
‘Conservative,’ to conservatives, means staying true to certain core principles. Usually this is described as the three legged stool of conservatism: 1) a free market economy in a democratic republican form of government; 2) preserving the Judeo-Christian ethic (the real one, not the caricature you have been taught since pre-school); and 3) a strong military and foreign policy.
To conservatives, ‘progressive’ means the, well, progressives, as they defined themselves at the beginning of the 20th century, and as they have remained to this day. Modern progressives try to avoid labels, to escape their own history of slavery, eugenics and fascism. But their core beliefs are: 1) rule by a ‘meritocratic’ elite (of which they themselves always seem to coincidentally be members); central planning of the economy (and society – though they try to hide this one as long as possible) by the state; and 3) the ends justify almost any means.
Your proposed definitions seek to apply the every day meaning of the terms ‘conserve’ and ‘progress’ as though they actually define political philosophies. Your understanding of the subject is, how shall I say it, shallow and historically uninformed.
I don’t expect you to adopt such definitions; but that is what I mean when I use those words, As do most conservatives. You know, the ones who want to conserve the objective definitions of the English language that progressives try so hard to progress away from.
↧
Comment on Atlantic vs Pacific vs AGW by geo
Not an existential threat? If there is a 60 year stair-step cycle of 30 up and 30 flat, and yet they tuned their models only to the 30 up, then they’ve overstated reality by a full 100%! In other words, cut their predictions in 1/2 for the long term.
Yes, eventually it’s still a problem, but your timeframe for dealing with it is quite a bit longer.
↧
Comment on Atlantic vs Pacific vs AGW by GaryM
I really don’t see what is so complicated about Dr. Curry’s statement. I don’t see her as positing a novel concept, or even asking a question. I think she was describing the two primary views of the consensus and skeptic sides of the debate, and her reaction to being told to choose.
The consensus firmly believes “warming since 1950 is predominantly (more than 50%) caused by humans,” and expressly says so. Skeptics disagree, which by necessary implication means they (we) believe that “warming since 1950 is predominantly caused by natural processes” is far more likely to be true.
As a lukewarmer, Dr. Curry is asked (to put it nicely) to adopt a) by consensus advocates and b) by skeptics. Which is I suspect why the first sentence after she poses those two propositions begins “When faced with a choice between a) and b)….”
She is not posing the question. It is the question she faces every day on this blog. Schmidt is not posing the question, he sees no question. To him there is only the revealed truth of a). Dr. Curry is merely explaining her reaction to the choice posed by others.
↧
Comment on Atlantic vs Pacific vs AGW by Carrick
Thanks for the explanation, Paul S. Yes indeed, I was confused.
“Estimates” have a specific meaning to me… they are based on objective data but also include subjective judgements.
If I understand what you are saying, what you are describing 100% as a “best estimate” is just the median value of the distribution converted to a percentage. Whether this is a plausible result is another question (outside of my expertise to judge), but I think I understand your point now.
I didn’t want to discuss the fact the range can extend beyond 100% because I was afraid it would be a point of further confusion. (And yes the use of percentages does lead to confusion on this thread.) Of course I understand that anthropogenic warming might be masked by natural variability or forcings, so expressed as a percentage of AGW warming to measured warming, the percentage can be greater than 100%.
↧
↧
Comment on Atlantic vs Pacific vs AGW by kim
Even in ancient Greece, they laughed at people who didn’t get jokes.
=============
↧
Comment on Atlantic vs Pacific vs AGW by Matthew R Marler
WebHubTelescope: <i>Though we may be amateurs in the climate science field, some of us actually know how to analyze and interpret the physical data </i>
I think it is fair to say that a lot of readers agree that you have a model with a high correlation to the data from which the parameters have been estimated.
↧
Comment on Atlantic vs Pacific vs AGW by Jim D
On the question of attribution and detection without models, one idea is to see what AGW would suggest based on a dominant CO2 forcing. It would predict, just from the forcing change, that the warming from 1950 to now should be at least twice all the warming before 1950, and this turns out to be correct. The observations of this long-term temperature curve are consistent with a CO2 attribution fingerprint.
Judith hasn’t yet suggested any method to attribute climate change, or hypothesis to test when doing so, and perhaps thinks this is impossible (?), but if you look at hypotheses and their predictions, passing rigorous century-long observational tests is at least support for a theory to be used going forwards. CO2 forcing passes such a test. What else would predict a doubling of the warming after 1950?
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by AK
@GaryM...<blockquote>Your confusion as to the definition of conservative, progressive, liberal and reactionary is not surprising.</blockquote>I'm not confused. I'm well aware of the semantic issues around those words. As you seem to realize:<blockquote>In fact, those terms are used by different people different ways, depending on their objective. Progressives in particular like a ‘fluid’ language, for the same reason they prefer a ‘living’ constitution. Because then they can claim words mean whatever they want depending on the circumstances, That’s why they love ‘fairness’ as a slogan.</blockquote>Language <b>is</b> fluid. That's a scientific fact. There are semantic and epistemological differences in usage between different villages, regions, nation-states, and whatever other sources of centralized contact happen to exist among people.<blockquote>I use the term conservative in the common usage of that term among conservatives, not among progressives and liberaltarians who want to define away genuine conservatism.</blockquote>If you wish to <b>communicate</b> rather than just shout at people, you have to take notice of how <b>they</b> use words. What they mean when they say them, and what they think you mean when they hear them.<blockquote>Conservatives do not want to “keep things the way they are.” If they did, they would never have fought a civil war to take the progressives’ slaves away from them.</blockquote>Historical revisionism much?
The <b>Republican</b> party was leading the charge against slavery. Even today, as you often remind us, there are many <i>"progressives"</i> in that party. The original focus of that party had to do with <b>national</b> ("republic") issues as opposed to <i>"states rights"</i>, which the <i>"Democratic"</i> party supported against the Federal Republic. Because states were closer to the electorate they focused on. Of course, they also supported local options as opposed to state level for the same reason.<blockquote> Nor would they have fought to pass civil rights legislation while progressives fought to prevent them.</blockquote>Again, historical revisionism. I lived through the <i>"Civil Rights"</i> era, and it was <i>"Progressives"</i> in the Democratic Party who led that charge. There were many conservatives in the Democratic Party, most of them left and became Republican <i>"Neoconservatives"</i>.<blockquote>We certainly don’t want to conserve the progressive form of government currently being shoved down the American and European peoples’ throats by fiat.</blockquote>No, you want to <b>conserve</b> the prior system <b>as you perceive it</b><blockquote>‘Conservative,’ to conservatives, means staying true to certain core principles. Usually this is described as the three legged stool of conservatism: 1) a free market economy in a democratic republican form of government; 2) preserving the Judeo-Christian ethic (the real one, not the caricature you have been taught since pre-school); and 3) a strong military and foreign policy.</blockquote>To <b>American</b> (US) conservatives. As I mentioned, conservatives in other cultures, <i>e.g.</i> Muslims, want to <b>conserve</b> other things.
And anyway, if you expect to be understood by anybody but members of your own little in-group, you need to go beyond <i>"‘Conservative,’ to conservatives,"</i> and take at least some notice of what your audience thinks.<blockquote>To conservatives, ‘progressive’ means the, well, progressives, as they defined themselves at the beginning of the 20th century, and as they have remained to this day.</blockquote>That's probably not what anybody else means by the word.<blockquote>Modern progressives try to avoid labels, to escape their own history of slavery, eugenics and fascism. But their core beliefs are: 1) rule by a ‘meritocratic’ elite (of which they themselves always seem to coincidentally be members); central planning of the economy (and society – though they try to hide this one as long as possible) by the state; and 3) the ends justify almost any means.</blockquote>This set of ideals is certainly espoused by a number of people who call themselves <i>"Progressives"</i>. And some of them probably (IMO) really are. There are good <strike>justifications </strike>rationalizations for:
• Meritocracy: especially in a milieu of inherited wealth/power, the nation/state or other polity that selects its decision-makers on merit will have a strong competitive advantage. At the beginning, such "merit" will be pretty obvious. As everybody learns to "game the system", it will become the prize in a typical political power-struggle.
• Central Planning: again, implementing this using the best practices of neighboring nation/states or other polities will seem like a productive idea. It might even actually be one if those responsible are clever and honest. But it doesn't last, because human ingenuity in more free neighboring systems inevitably outstrips central planning. Not to mention the tendency to turn such centralized power into an inherited <i>"aristocracy"</i>. <blockquote>Your proposed definitions seek to apply the every day meaning of the terms ‘conserve’ and ‘progress’ as though they actually define political philosophies. Your understanding of the subject is, how shall I say it, shallow and historically uninformed.</blockquote>About all I'm <i>" shallow and historically uninformed"</i> about is your particular brand of historical revisionism.<blockquote>I don’t expect you to adopt such definitions; but that is what I mean when I use those words, As do most conservatives. You know, the ones who want to conserve the objective definitions of the English language that progressives try so hard to progress away from.</blockquote>Who cares what you mean. If you want to communicate, rather than wave tribal flags for your fellow <i>"conservatives"</i>, <b>you</b> need to care what other people mean by those words. Not me, I'm semantically informed enough to know, or figure out, what you mean by such words from context.
But you don't have any reason to communicate to me, because your tribal flag-waving is too obvious for me to get caught up in your efforts to recruit a consensus. And as for wanting <i>" to conserve the objective definitions of the English language"</i>, well, language <b>always</b> changes. Given your interest in religion, you must be aware of how differently the speakers of King James' English spoke than modern Americans, or English.<blockquote>Why can't the English teach their children how to speak?
This verbal class distinction, by now,
Should be antique. If you spoke as she does, sir,
Instead of the way you do,
Why, you might be selling flowers, too!</blockquote><blockquote>An Englishman's way of speaking absolutely classifies him,
The moment he talks he makes some other
Englishman despise him.
One common language I'm afraid we'll never get.
Oh, why can't the English learn to
set a good example to people whose
English is painful to your ears?
The Scotch and the Irish leave you close to tears.
There even are places where English completely
disappears.
In America, they haven't used it for years!</blockquote><blockquote>hy can't the English teach their children how to speak?
Norwegians learn Norwegian; the Greeks have taught their Greek. In France every Frenchman knows
his language fro "A" to "Zed"
The French never care what they do, actually,
as long as they pronounce it properly.
Arabians learn Arabian with the speed of summer lightning.
And Hebrews learn it backwards,
which is absolutely frightening.
But use proper English you're regarded as a freak.
Why can't the English,
Why can't the English learn to speak?</blockquote>Alan Jay Lerner and Frederick Loewe
↧
↧
Comment on Atlantic vs Pacific vs AGW by Rob Ellison
Looks like I spoke too soon. Apologies to realclimate.
↧
Comment on The 50-50 argument by GaryM
AK,
Yer a funny guy.
“Who cares what you mean. If you want to communicate, rather than wave tribal flags for your fellow ‘conservatives’, you need to care what other people mean by those words. Not me, I’m semantically informed enough to know, or figure out, what you mean by such words from context.”
And not even a hint of irony.
As far as historical revisionism, google “Eisenhower civil rights acts,” then search “filibuster 1964 civil rights act,” then search “voting percentages in favor of 1964 civil rights acts by party.”
Then, just for giggles, use google to find out the political party of these famous civil rights advocates: Bull Connor, Orville Faubus, George Wallace, William Fulbright, Robert Byrd. (And when you try to say all the racists left the Dems in the 60s, give me the dates of departure for each of them.) Then try to find out which party it was that formed the KKK as its paramilitary wing. And while you’re at it, check out who implemented Jim Crow laws in the south.
Then if you really want some belly laughs, check out famous progressive and founder of Planned Parenthood Margaret Sanger and her fondness eugenics. Woodrow Wilson is always a good source of progressive feel good bromides on race. Then there are the recorded serial racist demagogueries by LBJ….
I couldn’t make you guys up if I tried.
↧
Comment on Atlantic vs Pacific vs AGW by Rob Ellison
‘It is no coincidence that shifts in ocean and atmospheric indices occur at the same time as changes in the trajectory of global surface temperature. Our ‘interest is to understand – first the natural variability of climate – and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,’ Tsonis said.’
1950 is 0.324 degrees cooler than 1944.
Inflection points
1911 -0.554
1944 0.150
1998 0.531
Ask yourself – do I want to know what the inflection points in the global temperature record are – and why – or do I want cherry pie. Jimbo wants cheery pie.
↧
Comment on Partisanship and silencing science by Lewis Deane
Grow up
↧
↧
Comment on Partisanship and silencing science by NW
Tee hee, capd. But about those company risk models: As long as their models keep pricing the very same risks in wildly different ways across companies, I will not believe any one of them very much. (Nice though the joke is.)
↧
Comment on Partisanship and silencing science by Rob Ellison
… oh for God’s sake… say something that’s not long winded drivel…
↧
Comment on Partisanship and silencing science by Lewis Deane
‘In a world of limited resources, we can’t do everything, so which goals should we prioritize? The Copenhagen Consensus Center provides information on which targets will do the most social good (measured in dollars, but also incorporating e.g. welfare, health and environmental protection), relative to their costs.’ Copenhagen Consensus
↧
Comment on Partisanship and silencing science by cwon14
Pew Study, 6% of “scientists” self identify with GOP;
http://ricochet.com/archives/where-are-the-republican-scientists/
Joshua is having a board conniption over the false equivocal use of “partisan” when it should be directly “left-wing advocacy” in climate science.
↧
↧
Comment on Partisanship and silencing science by nutso fasst
↧
Comment on Partisanship and silencing science by Lewis Deane
Based on the fallacy of ‘recources’ on the one hand and their limits on the other. Of course, human being invented ‘recourses’ and their ‘limits’. What is beautiful about human beings is that they invent their ‘resources’ and their ‘limits’.
↧
Comment on Partisanship and silencing science by kim
I’ve found Lewis Deane worth reading, just as I do you, but for very different reasons.
================
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
