Why bother?
For reasons that defy explanation Eli was looking through Coby Beck's A Few Things Illconsidered, Skeptical Science before SKS as it were, and came across this
The true horror, of course is that we are trapped in Twitter with no exit
Posts
39 comments:
You can log out any time you like but you can never leave...
You've nailed it Brere Eli.
"Know Nothing" does not apply to Judith Curry!
"No Impacts" does not apply to Lomborg, Pielke and Tol!
"Belief" is for religions. Declaring others beliefs, is what psychics do.
SKS really are a bunch of childish treehouse kidz. That's hyperbole, which I sometimes do.
“‘Belief’ is for religions.”
One is reminded of Tom Fuller’s “Blessed with a Belief in a Low ECS” bit at ATTP’s.
Contrarianism is Belief - pure, uncut and unmolested by supporting evidence.
"Know Nothing" certainly applies to Judith Curry! We know nothing she writes! It's all natural, she says!
Eli, smart bunny that he is, believes in Emmy Noether.
There was a rise in temps before WWII. Then it leveled off for a while causing ice age anxiety, then it started rising again. Do we know why? Curry says we're not sure how much of the current rise is GHGs vs natural variability. That's not knownothingism.
Correct. It’s straight-up bullsh!t on her part.
Some thoughts on Judith’s lies to Congress:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/04/16/judith-currys-testimony/
And the relevant links to attribution studies (from those elitists in the SKS treehouse):
https://skepticalscience.com/humans-caused-all-gw-since-1950.html
And Then There’s Berkeley Earth, which Curry and Watts participated in and then abandoned when they realized that the findings upended their narrative.
http://berkeleyearth.org/faq
“[I]ce age anxiety...”
Nope.
https://www.climate.gov/teaching/resources/70s-they-said-thered-be-ice-age
https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/06/that-70s-myth-did-climate-science-really-call-for-a-coming-ice-age/
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11643-climate-myths-they-predicted-global-cooling-in-the-1970s/
Really, Canman. Why do you remain so ignorant?
I looked at ATTP's Judith Curry post and a few of the comments. Wegathon made an interesting point that it's all political, before getting the rest of his comments crushed by the gatekeeper. I would argue that on a deeper level it's all philosophical. It's Malthusianism vs Cornucopianism. I suspect that sustainability means the environmental/establishment/Malthusians, who have theirs, want to sustain their relative position against the teaming masses who would also like some.
“I would argue that on a deeper level it's all philosophical.”
You would, and you do, but that argument requires denying the evidence.
Eli,
I'm actually having a, well, let's call it "discussion" with Ralf D. Tscheuschner on a german YT vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R181kCfttW0&lc=z234dju55nfezhwnfacdp432xna3apiprzyg3rzkkktw03c010c.1581064322616499
If you are interested in some translations, I can do this. Three "funny" things happened during the discussion:
1) When Tscheuschner was asked by me, if he could answer Y/N if atmospheric radiation emitted by the atmosphere and absorbed by the ground has a zero-effect on temperature, he did not answer this question at all. Instead he retreated from this part of the discussion completely and a certain Mr Kramm took his place, throwing insults at me with breathtaking frequence. He himself never answered that question, too, though asked numerous times.
2) Tscheuschner claimed that you, Eli, are about to apologize for your unfair treatment of G&T in the past and the nonsense you spoutet at their "falsification". I was mildly surprised at this "fact".
3) On my request, if he denies that atmospheric radiation to space is a significant part of the energy balance of earth, he surprisingly took a completely clear position. His answer, to me even more surprisingly, was: NO.
In the following he explained how earth achieves energy balance with 100% agreement to climate science (and standard physics). From that he derived the conclusion, that climate science is 100% wrong. You can't be anything else than stunned by such logic.
Just wanted to tell you, since your name turned up there and know Gerlich's turned up here in your post. I don't know if you are still interested in this.
"I would argue that on a deeper level it's all philosophical. It's Malthusianism vs Cornucopianism. "
Huh, you are trying to put some kind of socialogical brush over hard data? You think measurements are made up to fit some ideological leaning? That might be what you do but it isnt what science does.
I would say that "Malthusianism vs Cornucopianism" definitely applies when it comes to policy, and it most likely spills over, through conformation bias, into the science. Most of this "hard data" looks pretty noisy and ambiguous and can be spun in both directions, ... and is.
I see you already did react (du kannst Deutsch?).
Velvet, I see you've been either looking at my Twitter feed or my Canman Canned Facts blog. Yes, I'm a proponent of John Ziegler's quest for truth and justice in the Paterno/Sandusky scandal. But you've heard wrong about the evidence for Sandusky's innocence being "pretty noisy and ambiguous". It's not even close! Before you decide I'm completely crazy, please read or listen to some of the links in my pinned tweet. I strongly recommend the podcasts. Learning about the case without hearing Zig's exasperation, is like trying to learn about Richard Feynman without hearing his Brooklyn accent in the Feynman Lectures on Physics.
John Ziegler is a conservative/libertarian podcaster, documentary film maker, former radio talk show host, senior columnist for Mediaite and a never Trumper (check out his Individual One podcast).
He's recently taken up the case against Me Too excesses, even for people he doesn't like, like Al Franken, where he's gotten support from John Mashey in his Twitter threads:
https://twitter.com/search?q=(from%3AJohnMashey)%20(%40Zigmanfreud)&src=typed_query
The Sandusky case was a perfect storm of moral panic, mass hysteria, Prosecutorial overreach, a horrendously bad rush to judgement in the press, and a very sensitive, toxic subject. Ziegler destroyed his career over his principled stand and accumulated mountains of remarkably well documented evidence. He also has a lot of serious converts like renowned science writer, Mark Pendergrast, memory expert, Elizabeth Loftus, Carol Tavris, and former Federal Investigative Services agent, john Snedden.
Please check out the links in my pinned tweet:
https://twitter.com/DombroskiMike
Best miniseries on the internet!!!
First, Canman, thanks for the measured response to my nastiness. You are an admitted troll with a blog dedicated to your infrequent “successes” at being Twit-blocked, and you show zero desire to update your stunted knowledge re: AGW. I feel it would be irresponsible to follow you down your Sandusky rabett hole in light of your aforementioned intellectual dishonesty.
(And gratuitous Feynman references serve to REDUCE gravitas.)
Trolls and echo chambers are the Yin and Yang of the internet.
“This is just sad.” - R. Feynman
Velvet, I can't blame you for not wanting to go down this Rabett hole. It will most likely, just bring scorn and ridicule, but I do think it's an important story for people on both sides of the climate issue. A lot of prominent climate people have Penn State connections and they got fleeced to the tune of over $100 million, by a bunch of lawyers, scammers and deluded therapy patients. One little known aspect is a battle over education funding between Penn State president, Graham Spanier and republican governor, Tom Corbet.
I dunno, Canman.
Curry says we're not sure how much of the current decline in child rape is Sandusky’s incarceration vs natural variability.
Velvet, I have a question. Do you distinguish between "intellectual dishonesty" and disagreement, and if so, how?
Answered at your blog, where the rest of this ‘discussion’ will take place.
(Sorry, Eli. This is why I can’t have nice things.)
Thanks, it was getting Twitterish
Jahre in Regenloechern (Bielefeld, Essen, Muenster) als junger Hase
Im living directly next to Essen. The time to call it "Regenloch" is a bit over now ;-), global warming might have it's advantages.
I still wonder how RDT (and this Kramm guy) can get the basics of GHE right and conclude from that straight away, that GHE does not exist. That's a new kind of denialism.
In case anyone's interested, here's the link to Velvet getting his well deserved Hitchslapping:
https://canmancannedcomments.blogspot.com/2020/02/ive-accumulated-two-more-prominent.html?showComment=1581445400352#c39048599813171670
Cornucopialism is the Alfred E Neuman of economics--but 'what me worry' is a stupid response to the natural world (one only a comfortably coddled fool can get away with). The world is a complicated, dangerous place, and it will kill you if you don't pay attention, make a mistake or stumble on the stairs. Happily, science has taught us enough about that world to allow clever animals like ourselves to avoid many kinds of bad outcomes. Assuming, that is, that we can be arsed to pay attention to it.
"Happily, science has taught us enough about that world to allow clever animals like ourselves to avoid many kinds of bad outcomes."
That's true, but incomplete. It also happened because of cornucopian striving in liberal democracies, where Alex Epstein's concept of human flourishing applies. "Comfortably coddled" malthusians usually give us results like the old Soviet Union or Mao's China.
Odd, then, that neo-liberalism applies a Malthusian perspective to the economy, making 'success' (being well off, that is) as the mark of virtue and talent, while starvation (as for Malthus) marks the unworthy masses (as if children's starting point on the social scale, not to mention their inheritances, makes no difference to outcomes...). Please note also that social mobility is much higher in the Nordic countries than in the US-- it's not just talent, but support for that talent, social connections and resources that make for success. Emphasis on the social and personal value of'striving' has become a cover story, defending the de facto establishment of a (very comfortable) oligarchy in the US, including wastes of space like your President.
Carnap
where are Kramm's comments. Eli has had a lot of fun with Gerhard over the years.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2009/05/krammed-to-our-misfortune-gerhard-kramm.html
Curry Confusion?
How about:
https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/carbon-cycle-questions/
"I just finished listening to Murry Salby’s podcast on Climate Change and Carbon. Wow.
...
This talk was given in June at the IUGG meeting in Melbourne Australia, and apparently created quite a stir.[1] A journal paper is in press, expected to be published in about 6 months.[2]
JC comments: If Salby’s analysis holds up[3], this could revolutionize AGW science. Salby and I were both at the University of Colorado-Boulder in the 1990’s, but I don’t know him well personally.[4] He is the author of a popular introductory graduate text Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics. He is an excellent lecturer and teacher [5], which comes across in his podcast. He has the reputation of a thorough and careful researcher. While all this is frustratingly preliminary without publication, slides, etc., it is sufficiently important that we should start talking about these issues. I’ll close with this text from Bolt’s article:
He said he had an “involuntary gag reflex” whenever someone said the “science was settled”.
“Anyone who thinks the science of this complex thing is settled is in Fantasia.”
[1] There was a "stir" because Salby got this abstract accepted:
"# 1582. Rebound of Antarctic Ozone by M. Salby, E. Titova, L. Deschamps,
for this session:
JM04 Stratosphere-Troposphere-Ocean coupling in weather and climate
THEN gave a completely different talk. Such switcheroos are not done if one wants to be invited again.
John Nielsen-Gammon attended talk, noting that
"Eventually I realized that if 0.8 C of warming is sufficient to produce an increase of 120ppb CO2, as Salby asserted, then the converse would also have to be true. During the last glacial maximum, when global temperatures were indisputably several degrees cooler than today, the atmospheric CO2 concentration must have been negative.
That was enough for me."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/unforced-variations-aug-2011/comment-page-2/#comment-212401
[2] Peer-reviewed paper did not happen in 2012 ... or ever, as far as I know.
[3] It didn't hold up, see John N-G's comment above, part of long thread at RC.
[4] "Didn't know him well personally" might be true in some sense, but misleading.
She was a Professor in small department at University of Colorado 1992-2002, entirely overlapped with Salby. Two 1996 papers by Bergman and Salby acknowledge Curry for discussions. Between 1997 and 2000, Salby brought grievances against Peter Webster, the Dept chair & Curry's husband.
[5} Good teacher? I found many internal CU ratings, he was average at best, often rated poor for accessibility. He also seemed to have supervised no CU PhDs 1999-2007.
The only good thing I can say about Canman here and Eschenbach over at aTTP is that while they are composing sciencey stuff that makes their invalid arguments sound plausible, accompanied by of insults as arguments, to post in these comment sections, they are too busy to make trouble elsewhere for other people who have useful work to do. Reality does actually matter.
Eli, good list. Some things never change.
Susan, I think it's a bit unfair of you to put me in the same company as Willis Eschenbach, because I stand in awe of his huge volume of writing, vast knowledge and amazing expiriences.
Post a Comment