Ragnaar, where is the ocean temperature falling? High latitudes are where it is warming fastest, and yes a warmer ocean is a less effective sink.
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by A fan of *MORE* discourse
Mike Flynn challenges “You [FOMD to] name one Inuit elder saying that the climate-change hockey-stick is real“
Challenge by Mike Flynn, acceptance by FOMD!
Question Why do denialists ignorantly smear tribal and/or religious sages?
Answer Provided below!
It is a continuing pleasure to help slake your thirst for climate-change knowledge, Mike Flynn!
![\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}](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=ccffdd&fg=0055ff&s=2 "\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 How to criticize with kindness by Carrick
Don, honestly I don’t see public debate as particularly useful or informative here. Oftent these unfortunately often devolves into “a three-ring circus sideshow full of freaks.”
I was thinking more one-on-one conversations with a willingness to listen to other people’s views without confrontation and the ability to ask questions that are intended to probe the other person’s perspective and understanding, rather than just to “put them in their place”.
↧
Comment on How to criticize with kindness by thisisnotgoodtogo
Fanny,
Think if you are you issuing a true statement or not.
When McIntyre found an error dubbed the “Y2K” error, James Hansen was nasty and untruthful, not giving credit, etc., rather unlike the portrait you lovingly paint….
Hansen, writing of lights out upstairs, teapot dome, then
“What we have here is a case of dogged contrarians who present results in ways intended to deceive the public into believing that the changes have greater significance than reality. They aim to make a mountain out of a mole hill. I believe that these people are not stupid, instead they seek to create a brouhaha and muddy the waters in the climate change story. They seem to know exactly what they are doing and believe they can get away with it, because the public does not have the time, inclination, and training to discern what is a significant change with regard to the global warming issue.
…
The proclamations of the contrarians are a deceit, … The characters in the main drama are big fish, really big fish. But before we get to that matter, I need to expose how the deceit works. Instead of showing the impact of the flaw in our analysis program via a graph such as Figure 1, as a scientist would do (and as would immediately reveal how significant the flaw was), they instead discuss ranking of temperature in different years, including many false statements. We have thus been besieged by journalists saying “they say that correcting your error caused the warmest year to become 1934 rather than a recent year, is that right!?”
The contrarians will be remembered as court jesters. There is no point to joust with court jesters. … Court jesters serve as a distraction, a distraction from usufruct. Usufruct is the matter that the captains wish to deny, the matter that they do not want their children to know about. “
↧
Comment on How to criticize with kindness by climatereason
GaryM
I think I agree with all your points. However it does work both ways.
The overwhelming majority of climate scientists are not perpetrating a hoax or fraud or fiddling the figures. They are not stupid, they HAVE thought of all the angles relating to their narrow field of expertise, they ARE open to genuinely new ideas, they are generally friendly and receptive if you are the same towards them.
There ARE however a small coterie of scientists who are activists and they occupy a pre eminent position and dominate the debate. If you cross them they have enough influence to make your life difficult as can be seen with Judith’s experience. There is a large sub group of second trier pseudo scientists/activists who can be exactly like those described in the second set of 5 points you make.
If all ‘sides’ followed the guidelines laid down here we might be able to have a more serious debate without name calling and bitterness on both sides. As it is, few working climate scientists show up here to discuss general questions or their latest research as sooner or later they are likely to be insulted or be put off by the food fights going on all around.
tonyb
↧
↧
Comment on How to criticize with kindness by Bob
Carrick, “I was thinking more one-on-one conversations with a willingness to listen to other people’s views without confrontation and the ability to ask questions that are intended to probe the other person’s perspective and understanding, rather than just to “put them in their place”.
Carrick, if employed with Michael Mann, what do you predict the outcome to be?
↧
Comment on How to criticize with kindness by Ragnaar
I thought this was good:
“The cool kids aren’t allowed to talk to other groups?”
Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.
I had not thought of the consensus that way. To relate it to high school and cliques. It can resonate twice with someone. One’s own experience and that of one’s children. Not to attempt to pigeon hole scientists, there’s an opportunity to to evolve the situation to something better by people who had a shared high school experience.
↧
Comment on How to criticize with kindness by stan
Agree with all that. There is no point in wrestling with pigs.
The debate is about influencing those who have open minds. The goal should be achieving a better understanding of reality. Honest debaters should see their own need for humility and a recognition of our own overwhelming ignorance.
There is no point in debating people who regard any disagreement with their own views as being evidence of evil.
↧
Comment on Week in review by SnorpleTheThird
Brookings institute and the others cited are neoliberal, not “leftist” liberal. If you need me to explain to you the stark differences that entails, I’ll be happy to.
The Heritage Foundation received money from South Korea’s intelligence agency, btw. Not to mention cult leader SY Moon.
Daniel Pipes was one of the think tank “geniuses” who pushed for the Iraq war and explicitly predicted it would lead to a flowering of democracy and peace in the middle east.
It seems many of you are as deluded regarding climate change (we just had the hottest August on record btw) as you are on political matters.
↧
↧
Comment on How to criticize with kindness by GaryM
tonyb,
When these reasonable, open minded, climate scientists start showing up here, I suspect they will receive a welcome reception from skeptics and lukewarmers alike, and will be vilified by CAGWers.
“The overwhelming majority of climate scientists are not perpetrating a hoax or fraud or fiddling the figures.”
I agree with this completely. I will go further, the most vociferous advocates, including Michael Mann,are convinced that the “ultimate” truth is on their side.
That is why I call most of them “default progressives.” They believe what they believe, not because they are stupid, or evil, or crazy, but because it is all they have ever known. They have been taught the progressive view of reality since pre-school, with the focus becoming ever more intense as they progress (so to speak) through university and beyond.
Their colleagues all hold the same opinions, as well as most of their family, virtually all of their friends, Their sources of news all agree as well, since any sources of contrarian thought have been demonized throughout their lives.
But I don’t find it the same on “all sides.” Every conservative I know, myself included, has come to change their minds on some of the most important issues with which they are faced. There are some very civil progressive commenters here (and certainly some uncivil skeptics), but I have not seen one progressive here who has actually changed his/her mind about anything of importance.
With the exception of course of Dr. Curry. And look what it got her.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Rob Starkey
Snorple
You wrote- “(we just had the hottest August on record btw)”
By what measure did you make that determination, and why is it such a concern? What specifically is your largest concern of a warmer world? Do you believe the CO2 mitigation actions generally make sense? Which ones and why?
↧
Comment on Week in review by GaryM
jim2,
All I can say is that is a shock to see the Times committing journalism, rather than their typical journolism.
↧
Comment on Week in review by jim2
From the article:
…
Summary
There is little question that the rebound in Libyan production will continue. However, August OPEC production estimates have been unusually varied among reporting agencies.
The developing consensus is that global economic activity is slowing, with a particularly weak outlook in Europe and China.
The pace of North American inventory growth raises questions about the health of the US economy and potential for US oil demand growth.
Regardless of what set of OPEC output estimates we chose, the velocity of global supply increases is clearly outpacing demand prospects heading into 2015.
…
↧
↧
Comment on How to criticize with kindness by Rob Ellison
Absolutely Beth.
↧
Comment on Week in review by jim2
Gary – If you think that’s something, get a gander at this one. The NYT appears to be criticizing O’Bumbles, albeit in the most gentle manner possible. O’Bumbles has ruined a perfectly good country, the USA. Hopefully, it can be rebuilt.
From the article:
…
It was a time of weakness. The most powerful nation on earth was tired of far-flung wars, its will and treasury depleted by absence of victory. An ungrateful world could damn well police itself. The nation had bridges to build and education systems to fix. Civil wars between Arabs could fester. Enemies might even kill other enemies, a low-cost gain. Middle Eastern borders could fade; they were artificial colonial lines on a map. Shiite could battle Sunni, and Sunni Shiite, there was no stopping them. Like Europe’s decades-long religious wars, these wars had to run their course. The nation’s leader mockingly derided his own “wan, diffident, professorial” approach to the world, implying he was none of these things, even if he gave that appearance. He set objectives for which he had no plan. He made commitments he did not keep. In the way of the world these things were noticed. Enemies probed. Allies were neglected, until they were needed to face the decapitators who talked of a Caliphate and called themselves a state. Words like “strength” and “resolve” returned to the leader’s vocabulary. But the world was already adrift, unmoored by the retreat of its ordering power. The rule book had been ripped up.
…
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/16/opinion/roger-cohen-the-great-unraveling.html
↧
Comment on Week in review by jim2
Snorple – I’m very interested to hear the differences between “neoliberal” and “leftist.” Also, if you would be so kind, explain where “progressive” fits into the left.
↧
Comment on How to criticize with kindness by Steven Mosher
hehe. that was funny.
↧
↧
Comment on How to criticize with kindness by Steven Mosher
“While I agree the recommendations of this post have merit, I don’t believe they are suitable as something to be done in every response. ”
Note he never makes the argument that it is suitable for every response on a blog.
“You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.”
↧
Comment on How to criticize with kindness by Steven Mosher
Not to rain on the kumbaya parade around here, but convincing your opponent is not the only reason people communicate.
If you want to be effective in writing or speaking, there are a few simple rules:
1) define your audience;
2) decide what effect you want to have on them;
3) understand the nature of your audience’s philosophy (this is impossible if you discard “labels,” otherwise known as nouns);
4) understand your audience’s motivation; and
5) tailor your communication to your audience, with your ultimate objective in mind.
That would be RHETORIC. Rhetoric is concerned with you achieving your ends.
The author is discussing coming to truth.
↧
Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by philjourdan
But the Pyramids WERE built by aliens! They told me so when they beamed me to their mother ship. ;-)
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
