Rotating Eyeballs
Confessions of deniers at Judith Curry's blog @curryja #denierweirdness #notreally #climate http://t.co/UIB7ACJLzH
— Sou from Bundanga (@SouBundanga) February 16, 2015
@rgrumbine @SouBundanga The advanced degrees makes it fairly ludicrous to refer to them as science 'deniers'
— Judith Curry (@curryja) February 16, 2015
.@curryja @SouBundanga Being in denial is a matter of psychology. Degrees do not change psychology.
— Robert Grumbine (@rgrumbine) February 16, 2015
@rgrumbine @SouBundanga Sorry, I deny that line of reasoning is worth pursuing. If U can't convince such people, failure is with u
— Judith Curry (@curryja) February 16, 2015
@curryja Except you deleted comments that pointed out huge flaws in these people's "science." @rgrumbine @SouBundanga
— David Appell (@davidappell) February 16, 2015
@davidappell @rgrumbine @SouBundanga I am deleting all comments on the Denizens thread. Argue on the open thread.
— Judith Curry (@curryja) February 16, 2015
Eli would not even try to make this up.
Posts
22 comments:
Did you like my resumé?
" If U can't convince such people, failure is with u"
So is it Dr. Curry's failure then that she's failed to convince other climate scientists to join her?
She's saying in the previous tweet that it's my fault for failing to convince her cadre of folks in denial. If so,her failure to convince other people is no less a failure.
Curry, at much greater length on her blog, goes on about how the people in the field who disagree with her are part of groupthink and other negative things.
Odd how her failure reflects on the people she fails to persuade instead of her.
"The advanced degrees makes it fairly ludicrous to refer to them as science 'deniers'"
There's no arguing with "ludicrous" logic like that; it's an exemplar of "fairly" putting the 'twit' into 'twitter'.
Serious q. Why do people even bother reading curry? It's nothing more than vacuous blather.
Serious A: it is about ideology.
I'm with JA. I have yet to find anything at JC's blog (or in her published work) that increased my understanding of Earth's climate. And as I am not a trained psychologist, there's nothing there for me.
serious a: The lady has talent, it's hard to dumb twitter down. She does it
Re-stumbled on this -- seems apropos to the recent whining about the d-word:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Denialism
James Annan said...
Serious q. Why do people even bother reading curry? It's nothing more than vacuous blather.
Curry is a more serious scientist than you James, IMO. Empty is nothing more than a travelogue littered with "selfies".
http://julesandjames.blogspot.co.uk/2008/05/consistently-wrong-chronicles.html
Drug Maven,
Awwww! That's so cute. You think science takes place on blogs.
The 'Denizens' page (restarted Feb. 15 as "Denizens II") is only for personal self-advertisement; it's the members' clubhouse.
JC says "Don’t reply to anyone else’s post, to keep some semblance of organization to this. The Open thread is the place for discussion."
P.S., of course there "don't reply" doesn't mean don't applaud, support, encourage, echo -- it means don't doubt or check claims. Build up your buddies. Unpublished work suppressed by the conspiracy? Glory. Perhaps they'll eventually get a publication out of it, with sufficient help. There are journals eager to publish ....
James Annan wrote:
"Serious q. Why do people even bother reading curry? It's nothing more than vacuous blather."
Well, she does testify before the US Congress and write op-eds for the likes of the Wall Street Journal. Without some pushback her synchophants are left with a biased picture.
Goodness me. JA's professional competence is attacked because he posts photos on his blog. Who knew that this was diagnostic of a scientist on the slide? What of other professions? Is anyone safe?
I'd swear I just saw Patrick Michaels post somewhere that he's not to be lumped in with the fringe.
Then I read the authors list of that book Russell reviews (very helpfully) posted above.
"John Abbot (Author), Dr Robert M. Carter ~ Rupert Darwall ~ James Delingpole (Author), Dr Christopher Essex ~ Dr Stewart W. Franks ~ Dr Kesten C. Green ~ Donna Laframboise (Author), Nigel Lawson ~ Bernard Lewin ~ Dr Richard S. Lindzen (Author), Dr Jennifer Marohasy ~ Dr Ross McKitrick ~ Dr Patrick J. Michaels ~ Dr Alan Moran (Author), Jo Nova (Author), Dr Garth W. Paltridge ~ Dr Ian Plimer ~ Dr Willie Soon (Author), Mark Steyn (Author), Anthony Watts (Author), Andrew Bolt (Author), Dr J. Scott Armstrong (Author), Dr Alan Moran (Editor)"
So which lump are those folks in?
I like reading Climate Etc because it provides an excellent learning experience. She puts up a summary of what attracted her eye during the previous week, and it seems to be well balanced.
Given the amount of sniping she gets, I suspect she must be pretty important, and ranks way up there with Tol and those famous Koch brothers in the "97 % majority" camp.
By the way, I'm watching Bayern Munich against Shaktar Donetsk. It's 0 to 0 in the second half... I think the Germans are a bit distracted to be playing the team all the Russian rebels root for. Sometimes I think you fall in the same hole. I'll let you know if it ends in a tie.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2956777/Shakhtar-Donetsk-host-Bayern-Munich-Champions-League-match-unfold-750-miles-damaged-Donbass-Arena-home.html
Jutdith has a soul sister in Naomi Oreskes, who uses '"science denier " as her fall back epithet when dealing with people who embrace normative climate science but reject her policy conclusions.
Appell deserved to get zambonied. Judy stated that it was take 2 of the Denizens' thread.
It's not that complicated.
Shaktar Donetsk tied Bayern Munich. The Dontesk Free Republic population celebrated all night. This morning they are fighting to take control of the rail line. I pseudo interviewed President Petro Poroshenko and published the transcript.
God forbid discussion should break out!
I don't have Curry's problem. I don't post stuff that makes enough people angry enough to get a discussion going anymore.
But I'm still suspect at deletions of non-profane comments that are not wholly commercial productions. Worse that W. C. Fields's "go away kid, you bother me."
Yeah. That's the point.
When blog owners are unable to answer hard criticism, it's a clue to the rest of us. Should be a clue to the blog owner, where they not denying clues.
Post a Comment