Bishop Hill Niceness at home and abroad
Dec 2, 2014 Blogs Climate: other Shub Niggurath is bemoaning the lack of venues in which there can be conversations across the lines of the climate debate.
Good discussions used to take place, on occasion, at WUWT or BH. There were brief periods when the old Collide-a-scape blog and Bart Verheggen’s site provided such moments. They are hard to come by now. Maybe the consensus and conspiracy poison spread mindlessly and artlessly throughout the blogs by certain people is to blame.
He's right of course. I have struggled long and hard to make BH the venue where that can happen, but it seems that a visit from, say Richard or Tamsin is guaranteed to get some people riled, with the result that moderation becomes a full-time occupation. I can't afford to spend that amount of time on it.
Still, it's interesting to see that from some people's perspective, the limited exchanges here at BH are something to aspire to. As Judy Curry explains in her retrospective post on climategate, the state of the climate debate, and in particular the recent furore over Tim Ball's posting at WUWT and the riposte by Richard and Tamsin.
...the 1100 comments at WUWT were absolutely vitriolic against Betts and Edwards. On twitter, the vitriolic comments were coming from the warm side, i.e. how stupid they were to post at WUWT...Well, it seems Betts and Edwards are trying to promote civility, something that the UK does pretty well. Presumably they thought that posting at WUWT would be like posting at BishopHill. NOT. Climate change and social media is mostly blood sport over in the US (and Australia and Canada), where the situation remains very polarized and polarizing.
So I guess things could be worse. But please, everyone, do try to keep the temperature down when a comment thread features someone you disagree with. Even if they refuse to admit they are wrong or refuse to engage with your arguments or misquote you. If you start a shouting match, few people will hang around to see how right you are.
Reader Comments (422)
ATTP "that's a normal part of living in a social democracy." Yes, which is why we are all paying for CO2 reduction that hasn't reduced CO2 in any meaningful way. Governments believe a bit... enough to spend some money on the issue but nobody's really worried so there are no long hard looks at how we'd actually cut emissions significantly. The politicians are hoping for is a magic solution that will allow us to carry on as normal and not cost enough to make us uncompetative. Naive warmists think there is a magic solution and Big Oil is hiding it. The heavy greens want us to have nothing and like it. Ha, ha.
@ATTP
...What the evidence suggests is that if we continue to increase our emissions and, hence, continue to increase atmospheric CO2 concentrations, the world will continue to warm. ...
As far as I can see, there is no 'evidence' for this. This is a hypothesis, derived from basic physics. No one disputes the basic physics, but the ground observations do not support the hypothesis. For instance, no tropospheric hot-spot.
So although the physics is correct (as far as it goes), our understanding of the climate is not sufficient to make the jump from a lab-based hypothesis to the real world. To claim otherwise is a leap of faith, not science.
@Physics
ATTP says:
The problem with your claim in the above is that you need to substitute the word MODEL for evidence. And then you need to demonstrate that models are validated and have demonstrable forward predictive capabilities. Unfortunately for your argument, there is plenty of EVIDENCE that the models are neither validated nor have any forward predictive abilities.
Just a small selection of examples showing the lack of validity of climate models:
1. The models fail to correctly model the natural warming leading up to the temperature peak around 1940. They get both the timing and magnitude wrong (Lindzen has pointed this out many times)
2. The current temperatures as measured by satellites and datasets such as HADCRUT are now bumping along/falling below the lower 95% confidence interval bound predcited by the models
3. As a number of researchers including von Storch have pointed out, the probability of 15 year runs in the model outputs with no trend is <2% and 20 years is 0%. Only 2 years to go.
4. No models have predicted the current no trend period in surface temperatures which now exceeds some 18 years (depending on which dataset is used as the measure)
5. There is no observable tropospheric hotspot which has been predicted by models to be the telling fingerprint of AGW caused by CO2.
The list could go on, but as Einstein pointed out just one refutation is sufficient.
Models are NOT evidence and only the gullible would think they are.
A question for a passing warmist (Betts, Edwards, ATTP, Entropic Man, Raff, etc) – how much belief do you expect for your proof? By which, how much pain do you expect each person to shoulder? I ask because I am being remonstrated by warmists for not fully believing in anything and everything that comes out of the warmist camp. Nobody cares what my carbon footprint is or how much I’m doing to reduce my energy expenditure. That seems to be irrelevant. All that is required is I blindly sign up to… what? Give the government and the UN a blank cheque to spend on whatever they want? Turn a blind eye while they try to force businesses to do what, as individuals, we find impossible (ie radically cut CO2). Agree to de-industrialise the western world so everyone else can have a potentially unlimited turn at consumerism? What? What would be too much? And how polite would you expect me to be at that level of pain?
aTTP: you claim to be a scientist, and apply scientific principles, yet overlook the fact that, when you start you comments with a preconceived idea, everything that is subsequently said will only confirm your bias:
Then, you start to denigrate the responders and their responses:and still expect us to take you seriously! Should you debate a little more dispassionately, presenting evidence to back you claims, and show that you are prepared to admit errors and ignorance, then others might be more inclined to treat you a bit more civilly; it is a two-way street, you know.
I am like many on this site, and elsewhere in the real world: when my money is being ripped out of my pocket to pay already-rich people for the privilege of overcharging us yet more, particularly on the basis of extraordinarily paltry evidence, I do get a little upset.
ATTP
I've never liked the phrase "self-evident". It's usually a prelude (like "with respect") to something that isn't.
And I don't need to fall back on what is essentially flannel because both dodgy geezer and thinkingscientist support my argument. Never mind whether they are right or wrong, what they say is solid evidence that climate science is not "settled", that the evidence which you claim is there (whatever it is; you never actually specify) is being challenged even on its own terms (the tropospheric hotspot).
Let's ignore thinkingscientist's other four points for the moment and stick to that one because — we were told — that the models showed that a tropospheric hotspot was the fingerprint for global warming. At least we were until it never appeared at which point our two friends,The Pea Under The Thimble and The Man Behind The Curtain made their appearance.
And please don't insult my intelligence and that of everyone else here by saying that didn't happen. Any excuse to divert attention from the failings of the models was trotted out as was the Myth of the Missing Heat (it's hiding in the oceans — along with a Norwegian Blue parrot!) and the 53 (at the last count) excuses for the "pause" (another variant of the dead parrot sketch eventually).
The Models Are Rubbish.
If the climate scientists would admit that, admit that they just might be wrong about some aspects of what they have been telling us instead of ganging up to debunk any papers that even tentatively challenge the consensus, then we might have the basis for serious discussion about what the science does say and what we must do (if anything) about it.
I'll make this concession. I don't believe the most of the blame lies with most of the climate science community. It is the camp followers in academia and the activist groups that are mainly responsible for the outlandish claims (thalidomide and asbestos, indeed!) but there are enough activist scientists who are more concerned with politics than truth and are prepared to finesse the facts in the interests of their agenda.
As long as that situation continues there will be a lack of trust on the part of sceptics, and who can blame them?
As so often, it turns out to be so much more than one.
Please stop trying to pretend you are commenting here reluctantly. If you allowed such an open discussion at your own blog then maybe people would go to you.
"So, from what I've seen, people would be welcome here - or at WUWT - as long as they accept what people here believe to be self-evidently true"
ROTFL. As Jim Bouldin once said about Mr WottPhysics, "please, somebody, get that man a mirror."
I hadn't realised ATTP had his own blog until reading the replies here. So I had a look. It didn't take me long to find a piece by him that perhaps sums up his whole web persona: He was talking about a piece written by Matt Ridley that drew heavily on work by Nic Lewis. I don't think I need to do more than quote the last paragraph of his thoughts:
"Now, Nic Lewis gets – and should get – a lot of credit for doing research and publishing papers. It’s what a real skeptic should do. However, he is an ex-financier with links to the Global Warming Policy Foundation. His work also tends to produce results that suggest that climate change may not be as much of an issue as we otherwise might think, and which is often used to make this argument. Consequently, it’s not surprising that some might think that what motivates Nic Lewis is his ideological objection to the policy implications associated with mainstream climate science, rather than an intrinsic interest in climate science itself. Now, this may be an entirely unfair interpretation of Nic Lewis’s motives but, if so, maybe he could put a bit of effort into ensuring that it isn’t the obvious one. "
Sorry, am I being nasty to one of the warmers?
Capell (also a physicist - with research expertise in energy trapping in carbon molecules - and proud to be an engineer as well).
"...and Then There's Physics"
Even your name is chosen to drip condescension on those who disagree with you.
Anyhow, your first post above was interesting in that it could have been written by a sceptic complaining about alarmists, almost word for word.
I really don't think much common ground will ever be found between these two mirror images.
Perhaps we just have to agree to disagree. I don't think it really matters. Sooner or later Mother Nature will decide the argument. Until then I'm quite happy if you retire to your own little domain.
The good news from my point of view: I think Paris 2015 will be a shambles. I think governments will step back from some of their most insane ideas on how to defeat climate. And before long "natural variability" will cease to be seen as an evil capitalist slogan.
thinkingscientist,
The problem with your claim in the above is that you need to substitute the word MODEL for evidence. And then you need to demonstrate that models are validated and have demonstrable forward predictive capabilities.
I don't need to do anything. We - as a society - need to decide if we should do something, given this evidence, or not. If we decide to do as you suggest, we'll probably need to hope that the models today are indeed very wrong.
Tiny,
A question for a passing warmist (Betts, Edwards, ATTP, Entropic Man, Raff, etc) – how much belief do you expect for your proof? By which, how much pain do you expect each person to shoulder?
I find that a rather odd question. Not even quite sure what you're getting at. I don't have really have any views with regards to the question you pose. I would just like us - as a society - to consider the available evidence and not simply dismiss it.
Radical,
when you start you comments with a preconceived idea, everything that is subsequently said will only confirm your bias:
At least I'm honest enough to admit that I have one. Past experience also counts for something. You, of course, are free to convince me that my biases are wrong.
Paul,
LOL...you and Jim are a laugh a minute. Did you read the rest of my initial comment, or was it too long and complicated for you?
Capell,
How was what you posted nasty? If Nic Lewis is unwilling to accept that even his own work doesn't rule out a high climate sensitivity (as he seems to be unwilling to do publicly at least), tell me what else one is expected to conclude? It's a real pity that people who demand absolute honesty from everyone else, fail to do so when it's someone with whom they broadly agree. To be clear, I have no idea what motivates Nic Lewis, but it's hard to conclude that it's an intrinsic interest in climate science. I could, of course, be wrong.
michael,
As so often, it turns out to be so much more than one.
Fair point. I'll call it quits.
Bishop your problem is not with the people. But with the subject. The dead horse of climate global warming changing leads to interminably repetitious pointless verbiage. Name one aspect that has not been beaten to a pulp. The publishing of ever more and more banal papers peer reviewed by the vast cesspool of peers, who are owners of worthless and useless devalued PhDs.
The cesspool of these doctors produced thousands of times more per year than at the turn of the century makes a mockery of a doctorate. When about a hundred physicists after hundreds of tests conclude that the neutrino flies faster then light even physical science gets a bad name. Never mind the arrival of statistical argumentation as the decider of the survival of civilization.
The argument that vast amount of data as well as wast amount of words does not mean better understanding is more true today then it has ever been.
"...I'll call it quits" And Then There's Pedantry has left the building. Hoo-bloody-ray! (That, is what we call evidence - of my feelings to what you - ATTP - represent and what you post. Thinks: perhaps I should have modelled it....nah, it's good enough for me and, after all, that's all that matters, apparently.)
When money is coming out of my pocket to help fund a failing hypothesis, then it is no longer a polite debating society. Pathetic, compliant politicians, from the PM down( notable exceptions - Peter Lilley and Graham Stringer), do not question the new orthodoxy, and indeed, smear any doubters, as supposedly decent Alan Johnson did last Friday, using the denier term. The media remains 'unquestioning stenographers' (H/t Walter Stark). Pushers of CAGW are those unopposed to higher taxation and more governmental control anyway, and enjoy peering and pointing from the moral high ground, built on sand, whatever the subject, cost or facts. The central figures behind the hypothesis react hubristically should anyone doubt their projections, when their short term analyses have failed to match reality. All in all, it is surprising how reasonable the sceptics are, given the circumstances.
I haven't read everything in these comments but I will speak for myself and my own point of view.
If there is to be a conversation on the actual ISSUE of AGW {or not}, there needs to be a housecleaning on the part of the Alarmist community. Gore and Mann need to be thrown out and discredited.
I am actually not sure whether there is a net global warming from the increase or not, but I know enough physics to see {with some help} that most of the anecdotal 'evidence' is bullhockey. Yet it goes unchallenged by the warmists and the press.
That they (unlike Curry) are silent on the falsehoods promulgated by 'their kind' tells me they are not serious about wanting the 'conversation'. As to Curry's opinion on it, I understand she has to stand for 'moderation on the ISSUES' dialogs. For both professional and credibility reaspons
But as long as the policy makers and academics try to make and use the discredited alarmist points in order to enrich themselves; and as long as they bandy 'denier' around for anyone who doesn't agree with them, I have no reason to discuss ANYTHING civilly.
In politics we see what 'polite bi-partisan' discourse brings. If you're liberal, it gets you elected after which you can forget you ever said it. If you're conservative, you have given half your position away at the starting line.
And this, my friends, LONG AGO became politics.
The science is poorly understood and that is a fact.
There are those who have faith in the mechanisms and models and believe that the science is sound. There are those who always doubted the alarmist claims and believe that many assumptions are flawed.
Today we have a hiatus and the alarmists don't understand the cause. This is evidence of my first statement.
ATTP
Perhaps you don't understand how quoting your writing can amount to a slur on your goodself, so let me explain, sentence by sentence:
"However, he is an ex-financier with links to the Global Warming Policy Foundation. "
So you start with denigration by attaching the poisoned label 'financier' to him then continue with 'links to the GWPF'. Why are you doing this? Your nom-de guerre hints that you're on the higher ground of physics; physics is supposed to be all that matters to you: but here you are, starting your whole analysis of Nic's work on the basis of denigrating Nic's status.
"His work also tends to produce results that suggest that climate change may not be as much of an issue as we otherwise might think, and which is often used to make this argument. "
So, Nic has an agenda, and he deliberately corrupts his science/models to support his stance. That seems to me to be what you're saying.
And you confirm this intepretation in the next:
"Consequently, it’s not surprising that some might think that what motivates Nic Lewis is his ideological objection to the policy implications associated with mainstream climate science, rather than an intrinsic interest in climate science itself."
Have you tried thinking another possability? that Nic might honestly be trying to do physics?
@ Jim A: "And this, my friends, LONG AGO became politics".
Probably the most sensible sentence on this thread so far. I've said this before, and I'll say it again, as soon as politicians get involved in what started as a scientific issue, it becomes polarised and politics then drives the science, and not vice versa - the money (grants, funding, scientific adviser jobs/ consultancies/committee memberships -call it whatever you like) goes to those who will follow the political line, and they will still officially be lauded as 'independent experts'.
And of course, the same thing applies to issues other the climate change, i.e.; diet, alcohol intake, passive smoking, bovine TB etc.
ATTP says:
so ATTP am I correct to conclude that you believe that models are evidence?
OK, Then There's Physics.
Please state exactly where you stand. You claim that you are willing to discuss the issues. Please elaborate at length on what you think those issues are.
Capell,
So, Nic has an agenda, and he deliberately corrupts his science/models to support his stance. That seems to me to be what you're saying.
And you confirm this intepretation in the next:
Please try and read what I write more carefully. I don't know if Nic Lewis has an agenda or not. I was simply pointing out that since he tends to be reluctant (in any interactions that I've seen or been involved with) to acknowledge that his own work doesn't rule out - at high confidence - that climate sensitivity could be high, it's hard not to draw such a conclusion. I'm not claiming that this conclusion is correct, though, nor am I suggesting that it is actually the conclusion that I have drawn myself. To be honest, I don't really care. I'd rather that he were more willing to acknowledge the caveats with his own work, accept that it isn't inconsistent with the IPCC numbers, and spent less time dismissing the work of others. If, however, he doesn't want to do that, that's his choice.
Have you tried thinking another possability? that Nic might honestly be trying to do physics?
Of course this is possible, but - in my opinion - he could try a little harder to make this more obvious.
thinkingscientist,
so ATTP am I correct to conclude that you believe that models are evidence?
Oh no, are you trying to play the "models aren't evidence" game?
Brute,
Please state exactly where you stand. You claim that you are willing to discuss the issues.
No, I don't think I did. My broad point is that it is probably pointless to actually try. I would have no problem if the dialogue did improve and if it did become possible to discuss the issues, but I don't really care either way.
And Then There's Pedantry/Patronising/take your pick: You're back!! I thought you'd given up on us. And still, when you come back you still come back evidence-free - but still full of it, somehow.
And Then There's Pedantry/Patronising/take your pick: You're back!! I thought you'd given up on us. And still, when you come back you still come back evidence-free - but still full of it, somehow.
(apologies if this is a double post Bish. I lost my session between writing and posting)
Well, as you're back, ATTP, why not take the opportunity to post up some your 'evidence'. You see, some on here have given you a few pointers as to the evidence against yet you continue to refuse to give yours. So why not? Go on, just a few items....give us some evidence. (Hint: output from models does not count).
It's not a game, ATTP.
Models are sophisticated computer games. Computers spit out what they are "told" (one way or another) to spit out.
If you don't model clouds properly you'll get a wrong answer. If you try to model a chaotic system, you'll get meaningless rubbish.
Of course model output is not evidence any more than programming the computers is research. And that applies in spades when you don't even try to validate the models.
And when the models consistently get it wrong, as they do, what is that "evidence" of except that it is time for the modellers to get their welly boots on and go out into the dirty world and do some proper research, ie look at the facts not their theories.
You are insulting our intelligence!
I think The Bish complains too much.
I have seen few if any unpleasant comments for Tamsin and Richard.
Visit a few blogs discussing climate and make sure to consider both ends of the divide.
Almost without exception, the sceptic blogs are polite and open to genuine comments where reasonably cordial exchanges take place, trolls excepted.
Now take the pro-CAGW blog. Again, almost without exception the articles belittle and decry sceptics and more often than not the D word is used to add emphasis. The comments are often caustic and sceptics tying to engage in an exchange are treated with disdain and humiliated by all.
I commented on the Tim Ball post at WUWT, and like most people I was open and polite.
Judith is rather exaggerating I believe in her comments about that article.
When all is said and done, most sceptics are genuinely seeking the truth and open to discussion, whereas the true believers are afraid of entering into discussion and their solution to any perceived threat to their beliefs is to hit out with the usual CAGW vitriol.
That Tamsin and Richard comment here is positive and it should be encouraged, however we should not allow what seem to be conciliatory gestures to convince us to roll over and submit to their views.
When these people stand up and speak out against the bad science then they should receive our complete respect. Until and unless they do this, they should not expect to be treated as friends but as acquaintances.
aTTP:
You know and I know that that would not be possible. You have the belligerent arrogance of Entropic Mann, with none of his charm.ATTP
"to acknowledge that his own work doesn't rule out - at high confidence - that climate sensitivity could be high,"
well, you see, you didn't really make that all all clear, did you? Naughty Nic hasn't acknowledged that he could be wrong and ATTP is cross?
But here we all are, hanging on your every word: tell us, where there's evidence (not models) for high climate sensitivity.
Capell,
well, you see, you didn't really make that all all clear, did you? Naughty Nic hasn't acknowledged that he could be wrong and ATTP is cross?
No, you misunderstand. I was hoping Nic Lewis would be willing to acknowledge publicly that his own work does not rule out high climate sensitivity. He may, of course, have done this without me noticing. For completeness, what I mean is that his own work does not rule out (with high confidence) that the TCR could be higher than 2K and that the ECS could be higher than 3K. So if you want some evidence that climate sensitivity could be high, try reading Nic's papers which - FWIW - are pretty good and quite easy to read and reproduce.
Radical,
You know and I know that that would not be possible.
Maybe, but you'll never know if you don't try :-)
I suppose Anders doesn't see the irony in saying:
He tells me I was wrong to interpret what he was saying as claiming to be "right" because I ought to recognize the difference between "right" and "consistent with the best evidence available." The irony is one's judgement of what is "consistent with the best evidence available" will be "right" or "wrong."
The entire misunderstanding he claims I've made is based upon him assuming his judgment of what is "consistent with the best evidence available" is somehow inherently correct. Which of course, is exactly what I criticized him for.
Later he makes the obnoxious remark:
I've admitted dozens of mistakes on blogs. I often highlight possibilities which would undermine my interpretations/arguments if true (one reason my comments wind up longer/more rambly than desired). Pretty much the only way to believe I don't acknowledge my fallibility, both in general and in specific instances is to just ignore most of what I say.
Comments like this really do nothing but show how biased a view people have. Of course, given Anders banned me at his site, despite me having never misbehaved in any way at his site, it's no surprise he'd have a biased view of me.
Evidence, ATTP, evidence?
Brandon,
Comments like this really do nothing but show how biased a view people have. Of course, given Anders banned me at his site, despite me having never misbehaved in any way at his site
Yes, this may actually be true. It was your behaviour on your own site that lead me to decide that I'd rather not have you commenting on my site. I'm afraid that I have little desire to engage with people who find an error in what someone else has said, accuse them of lying, and then refuse to move on until they've accepted that they're a despicable liar and fundamentally dishonest. I have no problem acknowledging an error. I see no reason, however, to accept someone's interpretation of what that error implies about my character. You, of course, can behave however you like on your site. It's your site. I get to decide that happens on my site. It's my site. To be fair, you may well be a wonderful person and I may well be missing out on some fascinating discussions. I have no desire to find out if this is the case, or not, though.
How long does the hiatus have to last for the climate scientists to admit that their models are flawed?
I understand that Santer said that 15 years would be enough. Then they all stopped commenting on the timescale. Maybe that should be the subject of debate. Why should the world wait indefinitely because climate scientists have got it wrong and don't want to admit it?
They should announce a realistic deadline. They may even gain a tiny amount of respect for doing so.
ATTP:
OMG, now I really do have to go and be sick! I bet you were a plasterer in an earlier life. You still have the trowel for laying it on thick.In the meantime, evidence dear, lovely and unmarked ATTP, evidence.
I look forward to the day when some of these thermogeddonist trolls look out from their comfortable ivory towers and notice the amassing peasantry, with pitchforks and flaming torches at the ready.
It will be interesting to see how impressed peasants and plebs are by self regarding sophistry.
John Carter
I wholly agree with your comments. I used to be great admirer of the Bish and continue to support him with a very modest monthly contribution but I find myself out of step with his views now. Frankly I do not see any real difference between Betts, Edwards and the uber warmists.
Dialogue is simply a waste of time - the evidence against the AGW hypothesis is slowly, very slowly mounting but will probably take, who knows, another 10-20 years before its totally discredited.
Harry,
In the meantime, evidence dear, lovely and unmarked ATTP, evidence.
Start with the IPCC documents and from there you can go to original peer-reviewed sources. As I thought I'd made fairly clear, I'm not really convinced that constructive discussions are actually possible and I'm certainly not interested in providing the evidence for you - or of convincing you of anything, actually. I'm sure you're capable of finding the evidence yourself and making up your own mind.
@Schrodinger's Cat
"I understand that Santer said that 15 years would be enough."
Not so. He was talking solely about internal variability and he suggested a slightly larger figure of 17 years. I've discussed this with him and he would in fact be rather annoyed to have his work misunderstood in this way and then cited in defense of the alleged "pause".
Physics, no one is forcing you to talk to 'wonderful persons'. Ban people at your blogs and be happy. Not everyone has the same approach. Not everyone else suffers from the repugnance and bubbling hatred you probably experience when talking to people of a different persuasion. They like a good intellectual exchange, a battle of wits. This means they disagree with one another but yet can talk to each other. This is only possible if communication channels are kept functional and open. Like here.
There are a lot of people angry with what climate science has come to mean with the wider world. As a medium-term observer, I am surprised by this myself. When I try to think of why this so, I can think of a few sentinel actions that are likely responsible. I think the Cook/Lew conspiracy paper is one. The banging on the consensus drum is another. The Michael Mann libel case is another. The Mann case tends to keep the antagonism on low simmer. But these perhaps explain things limited to the blogs. What about the wider world? Climate science has a really, really bad image and an image problem.
I see lot of positive buzz around climate on Twitter. Scratch a bit and what I see is that they are activists or renewables boosters - i.e., brainless drones in most instances. The genuinely interested independent individuals, like you for example, are hostile, hardened partisans. You have observed the same fact as well, from the other side.
Positive buzz around climate science can only come from sparkling discussions across the lines. This is serious, considered advice from an observer; Betts and Tamsin's little lecture they gave on WUWT does negative things compared to the comments they leave and the dinners they attend.
So yes, don't let me or Brandon in, but let others in.
ATTP:
No, no, no, ATTP. Been there, done that. Models, all the way down. And if you mean peer-reviewed like Marcott, or Lew, etc... take a number in the laugh line!When you said you would provide evidence I thought - as I'm sure many others did - that you would provide YOUR evidence. You know, the evidence that you take to heart that proves your case. I don't need your appeal to authority. Let's face it, much of the IPCC rubbish is peer-reviewed or supplied by Greenpiss or WWtF. I want to know: what floats your boat when it comes to belief? I figure you just can't tell me. You're too frightened by the fact that a big 'coolie coolie' is coming - after the 18 years of peak temps...and where you gonna hide then?
So, once again: evidence, dear boy.
As has been said above, it is politics, not science that is driving things. And in politics the 'normal' rules of discussion don't apply. It is not about marshalling arguments and debating them to a conclusion. In this type of play the outcome is already decided and the game is to steer what needs to be steered. The tactics include making the opponents views not just appear wrong, but to appear unacceptable to even voice. This is the game played on immigration, on the redefinition of marriage, on the 'rights' of any number of groups over others. Combatting this sort of social engineering is not impossible, but it takes focus and clarity of purpose. It has very little to do with science, other than the use of scientists to provide a veneer of policy based evidence making.
I'm not yet sure what the right strategy is against it. But I'm thinking about it.
Shub,
Not everyone else suffers from the repugnance and bubbling hatred you probably experience when talking to people of a different persuasion.
You shouldn't confuse my dislike for individuals with a hatred for people of different persuasions. I would be offended if it wasn't for the fact that you saying such a thing is no great surprise.
So yes, don't let me or Brandon in, but let others in.
Others are allowed in. I have no idea why you think otherwise.
You have the belligerent arrogance of Entropic Mann, with none of his charm.
Dec 2, 2014 at 7:14 PM Radical Rodent
Hee hee
Harry,
When you said you would provide evidence I thought - as I'm sure many others did - that you would provide YOUR evidence.
I have no recollection of ever saying anything like this.
Anders, I like how you still say:
Even though I never accused you of lying, much less of being "fundamentally dishonest." You're just making things up. Amusingly, these sort of fabrications on your part are exactly what I criticized you for before.
And yes, I am aware I just said "fabrications." I'm also aware you claimed my previous usage of that word as proof I accuse you terrible things. I don't think many people will agree with you though. I'm pretty sure most people will recognize me saying you've somehow made things up about me is not accusing you of being a "despicable liar and fundamentally dishonest."
Yes, you do. You so entirely do. You still haven't even corrected the error I pointed out. You admitted you made some sort of error, refused to state what the error was then just insisted everyone move on.
By the way, I like how you completely ignored the majority of my comment, including the more substantial issues I discussed, entirely in favor of smearing me some more. It goes a long way in showing what your character is.
Brandon,
You're just making things up. Amusingly, these sort of fabrications on your part are exactly what I criticized you for before.
I rest my case.
There is no point in arguing about the facts with people who have demonstrated repeatedly that they do not care about facts.
The most important revelation that came from the Climategate emails was the confirmation that Global Warming is exactly like every other left-wing political cause. The warmists were the good guys, anyone who disagreed was evil, the answer was already settled, and the only purpose of science was to convince the public and the politicians that the 'proper' political 'solutions' needed to be enacted.
I realize that summary seems harsh, but I don't see how anyone can review the emails and the treatment of Steve Mc and others and come to any other conclusion. Look at the treatment of Judy Curry by other scientists. Genuine science is not tolerated. The "scientists" in climate are not interested in science or facts. They care only about the cause and the punishment of heretics.
Are there a few who aren't completely on board with the totalitarian consensus? Sure. But here is the important part -- no scientist is a genuine scientist worthy of the effort of honest conversation unless they first condemn the tactics of the totalitarians. I'm serious. If a "scientist" won't stand up for genuine science and won't condemn dishonesty and won't condemn mistreatment and shoddy practices, they aren't worthy of anyone's time.
No one has to agree on anything regarding the science. But every decent person must first condemn the climate totalitarians as a prerequisite to admission to polite society.
ATTP:
Yep. You're very careful about that. You always seem to reference 'the evidence'. Which is testament to your pedantic way. No belief in yourself; only in your peers: those who tell you what to think. Point is, you really daren't tell us what YOU think, based on your intellect. 'Cos then, you'd have to own it, and you can't get caught doing that. After all, when the wind changes you want to be able to disown the 'proofs'; and be able to say: 'Not me guv'. Frit!Anders:
Your "case" hinges entirely upon interpreting my remarks in ways I have explicitly denied intending. No matter how many times I point this out to you, you just ignore it. In fact, you just selectively quoted me to pretend I didn't explicitly deny the interpretation you're putting forward.
It's remarkable. You routinely criticize people for assuming people mean things even though they might not, yet you freely ignore people when they explicitly tell you what they mean.