tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post8676236647596134221..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: That Ol' Devil RabettEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger72125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-87073793973784938172011-02-07T10:42:08.022-05:002011-02-07T10:42:08.022-05:00well, everything here is true. Gulbenkian is assoc...well, everything here is true. Gulbenkian is associated with oil company.<br />What is not true, is the insinuation that Gulbenkian works "favour" or "defence" of oil companies.<br /><br />gulbenkian foundation finances all kind of research and scientific areas, and there is absolutely no scientific bias in their mission.<br />Maybe you should look at all what gulbenkian does... you will see there is no connection!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-24739220472393908752011-02-05T13:37:37.354-05:002011-02-05T13:37:37.354-05:00I've read (on a denier site) that the EU was a...I've read (on a denier site) that the EU was also a funder of the Lisbon Conference. As an EU citizen bunny I resent my taxes going to fund a cheap stunt like this. Can anybody cite some details of the funding behind this conference?Hengist McStonehttp://muchachoverde.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-33249042359797954702011-02-04T19:54:04.618-05:002011-02-04T19:54:04.618-05:00Rui Sousa -- "And the event was organized by ...<i>Rui Sousa -- "And the event was organized by the EU Commision Joint Research Centre ... not the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation."</i><br /><br />So I take it they just took out advertising space in the header of the conference's documentation alongside the JRC's title? Novel approach. But Eli said "supported by", not "organised by". Fred Pearce, who was there, <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/02/climate-sceptics-scientists-at.html" rel="nofollow">backs him up</a>...<br /><br /><i>"His dream of an instant rapprochement in Lisbon didn't come off. The eventual make-up of the workshop, paid for by the European Commission and the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, was too lopsided in favour of the sceptical camp."</i>J Bowersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-35113580549484240732011-02-04T19:44:13.268-05:002011-02-04T19:44:13.268-05:00This article by Mike Hulme might be of interest to...This article by Mike Hulme might be of interest to those who haven't read it, where he uses Singer's and Avery's book to discuss PNS with regards to climate science.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/mar/14/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange" rel="nofollow">The appliance of science</a>J Bowersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-43863674131922508482011-02-04T19:20:54.450-05:002011-02-04T19:20:54.450-05:00Please remove your "bacalao gustado" lin...Please remove your "bacalao gustado" link. It is spelled "guisado", not "gustado". Also, Bacalao is a spanish word, and the conference was held in Portugal, please find a portuguese recipe of Bacalhau.<br /><br />And the event was organized by the EU Commision Joint Research Centre http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/jrc/index.cfm not the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.Rui Sousahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09466809878981913031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-63010843025381715972011-02-04T18:56:32.090-05:002011-02-04T18:56:32.090-05:00Cornbread are square. ... Old joke. If you don'...Cornbread are square. ... Old joke. If you don't know it, then you really haven't missed much. <br /><br />Okay, I did post on Curry's site. I'm not sure this is kosher (so I apologize in advance, but her response was:<br /><br />"I don’t make it a habit to judge people based on a book they mention on their website, particularly without knowing why they mentioned this book (note Tallbloke has a degree in the history and philosophy of science, so I imagine that he reads books about the history and philosophy of science.)"<br /><br />YMMV<br /><br />StuAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-83588391929009471342011-02-04T18:54:29.511-05:002011-02-04T18:54:29.511-05:00"PNS is far better understood as first and fo..."PNS is far better understood as first and foremost a description of<br />what happens when you have the following conditions:<br /><br />When facts are uncertain<br />When values are in conflict<br />When Stakes are High<br />When decisions are urgent....<br />"<br /><br />well, mosher, how many of the 28 participants would agree that "decisions are urgent"? Very few, is my guess.<br /><br />"interested parties argue two sides: one side saying we have enough certainty ( the science is settled) opposed people arguing that the science is not done yet."<br /><br />"enough certainty" doesn't imply "the science is settled". Many people would argue that the accepted range of sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 of 2-4.5C or so implies warming significant enough to warrant action, but that's certainly not an argument that "the science is settled". Scientists certainly aren't saying "the science is settled", nor are they hiding uncertainty, no matter how often the likes of Curry say they are.<br /><br />Nor is their any reason for scientists to oppose those arguing that "the science is done yet", as the very fact that such a range exists makes it *clear* that the science isn't done yet.<br /><br />Your strawman characterization is not an accurate portrayal of the argument between the so-called denialists and so-called warmists. It's about political ideologues denying science because they don't like the consequences of the science being right.<br /><br />Oh, and BTW, Mosher, your "lukewarmist" statements of late tend to fall right in line with mainstream climate science.dhogazanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-48674662601678846792011-02-04T18:49:41.336-05:002011-02-04T18:49:41.336-05:00Stu, pi are round.Stu, pi are round.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-5563430726149348042011-02-04T18:48:07.896-05:002011-02-04T18:48:07.896-05:00Carl SaganCarl SaganEliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-3230034071365539472011-02-04T18:00:44.897-05:002011-02-04T18:00:44.897-05:00argg edit function
Some simple examples. In norma...argg edit function<br /><br />Some simple examples. In normal science we trust the truth to win out eventually. We expect bad papers to get countered. Scientists work at their craft solving the puzzles that interest them. There is NO rush to judgement. Nostevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06920897530071011399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-57400569499166920002011-02-04T17:59:26.312-05:002011-02-04T17:59:26.312-05:00I've tried to explain this to skeptics, perhap...I've tried to explain this to skeptics, perhaps I'll have more luck here.<br /><br />PNS is not a prescription or a new way of doing science.<br /><br />PNS is far better understood as first and foremost a description of<br />what happens when you have the following conditions:<br /><br />When facts are uncertain<br />When values are in conflict<br />When Stakes are High<br />When decisions are urgent....<br /><br />the the first casualty is "normal" science as described by Kuhn.<br /><br />Some simple examples. In normal science we trust the truth to win out eventually. We expect bad papers to get countered. Scientists work at their craft solving the puzzles that interest them. There is rush to judgement. No need to have the answer tommorrow. There are no values at stake in the science of superconductivity.<br /><br />But when decisions are urgent and stakes are high and values are in conflict then uncertainty and the management of uncertainty becomes<br />the key battleground. Think about the fights folks had over star wars, for example.<br /><br />One key point with PNS is that science doesnt continue on normally one you hit those conditions. research get directed. value conflicts beled over into the science. interested parties argue two sides: one side saying we have enough certainty ( the science is settled) opposed people arguing that the science is not done yet.<br /><br />As for its prescription on how to manage these types of situations..<br />That's a good place to have discussions.<br /><br />Seen in this light, as an empirical description of the behavior we call "doing science." I think it comports with what we see. The behavior of scientists, what they choose to work on, the questions they ask, and the way they come to conclusions, seems different in a PNS situation tahn it does in a "normal" situation.<br /><br />For example, try to think of scientific endeavors where the stakes are not high and where there are no value conflicts and tell me you see the same kind of debate that you see around climate science? <br /><br />Where are the scientists studying new materials saying things like<br />"we have to speak truth to power?" what astromoner has gotten hate mail? Have you ever seen a governing body of seismology issuing position statements?stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06920897530071011399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-68351601606504351962011-02-04T17:38:49.200-05:002011-02-04T17:38:49.200-05:00For those of you who think Stu is just making stu...<a href="http://milesmathis.com/pi2.html" rel="nofollow">For those of you who think Stu is just making stuff up ...</a><br /><br />"Before we get started, let me answer a couple of prejudices. Many readers, especially those just coming to my papers, will hit a wall at some point in this paper. No doubt many already hit that wall when they read the title. Understandably, π as 4 is a big pill to swallow. This is admittedly one of my most revolutionary papers, and it cannot stand alone. It is a mistake to start with this paper. Those who do start with this paper will be very likely be led to believe I am simply doing the calculus wrong. To these people, I say that it is not I who am doing the calculus wrong. It is Newton and Leibniz and Cauchy and everyone since who has been doing the calculus wrong. I have earned the right to write this paper by first writing three important papers on the foundations of the calculus..."<br /><br /><a href="http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/01/13/miles-mathis-un-unified-field-new-book/>And here is where tallbloke praises mathis.</a><br /><br />This is stunning stuff ...dhogazanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-40764090592442734092011-02-04T17:11:56.511-05:002011-02-04T17:11:56.511-05:00Good catch on pi = 3. I think that is in Numbers. ...Good catch on pi = 3. I think that is in Numbers. Maybe not. My bible theory is rusty after moving out of the South many years ago. <br /><br />I hesitated to post over there since I hate to add to her hit count, but ...<br /><br />StuAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-47959806671624902092011-02-04T16:51:58.314-05:002011-02-04T16:51:58.314-05:00"I was particularly interested in seeing that..."I was particularly interested in seeing that the true value of pi is 4!<br /><br />Dr. Curry, if you happen to read this, would you mind explaining how anything that tallbloke has said or "brought to the table" is worth considering for reply."<br /><br />Why not post over there? She doesn't seem to be moderating at all.<br /><br />Maybe she'll start a thread similar to the one on the crank physics in "Slaying the Green Dragon" - defending the traditional value of pi.<br /><br />I would expect three factions to argue it out:<br /><br />1. Tallbloke and friends, arguing that pi=4<br /><br />2. The elitist science and math types trying to point out where 3.14159 etc comes from<br /><br />3. Certain Christian conservatives from the south arguing that pi=3<br /><br />I'd expect factions 1 and 3 to put on quite a show!dhogazanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-10047767643041053872011-02-04T15:56:24.827-05:002011-02-04T15:56:24.827-05:00Regarding tallbloke's credibility: take a look...Regarding tallbloke's credibility: take a look on his website for a plug for the book by Miles Mathis titles, "The Un-Unified Field and other problems. Why Einstein's and String Theory's quests for unification were doomed: the fields were already unified, and have been since 1687." <br /><br /><br />I admit that I have not read a single page of this book. I decided it was not worth the time after I clicked around on Mr. Mathis' website where his home page has the article, "THE GREATEST STANDING ERRORS IN PHYSICS AND MATHEMATICS". <br /><br />Intrigued, I scrolled down to see that Mr. Mathis has corrected the standard theories and explanations in the fields of:<br /><br />Relativity, <br />Calculus,<br />Quantum Physics, <br />Electromagnetics,<br />Gravity,<br />QED and QCD, <br />and Other Mistakes. <br /><br />I was particularly interested in seeing that the true value of pi is 4!<br /><br />Dr. Curry, if you happen to read this, would you mind explaining how anything that tallbloke has said or "brought to the table" is worth considering for reply. <br /><br />How would you respond if one of you Georgia Tech students was a proponent of someone who has discovered the true value of pi?<br /><br />StuAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-70813139046155267112011-02-04T08:13:01.342-05:002011-02-04T08:13:01.342-05:00No, in general Eli supports the Gulbenkian foundat...No, in general Eli supports the Gulbenkian foundation, but <br /><br />a) Its income IS primarily from ownership of Calouste's oil company so its survival depends on the flourishing of same<br /><br />and <br /><br />b) Its history is <a href="www.scielo.oces.mctes.pt/pdf/aso/n195/n195a03.pdf" rel="nofollow"> not as simple</a> as the average bunny might think<br />---------------------<br />Established on his death in 1955, the Armenian oil magnate Calouste Sarkis Gulbenkian’s eponymous foundation enjoys a high profile in the cultural life of Lisbon and Portugal as a whole. Gulbenkian’s correspondence as well as that which passed among Cyril Radcliffe, José de Azeredo Perdigão, and others involved in helping plan<br />and then establish the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation indicates that the parameters of the latter’s activities were much fought over in its early years. The course set by the Foundation under Salazar’s dictatorship does not reflect the benefactor’s original intentions, which anticipated more recent models of charitable giving in their scope and dynamism.<br />----------------------------<br /><br />The essay by Jon Conlin is certainly worth reading to learn about Gulbenkian and the Foundation.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-46524938152360262622011-02-04T06:37:41.485-05:002011-02-04T06:37:41.485-05:00It's Einstein instead of Michelson and Morley ...It's Einstein instead of Michelson and Morley for the same reason the latter aren't mentioned here:<br /><br />http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html<br /><br />I propose referring to tells by number, like John Mashey's (?) motivation index.badger badger badgerhttp://badgerbadgerbadger.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-85774113635538020882011-02-04T04:19:48.775-05:002011-02-04T04:19:48.775-05:00Thanks Gavin, I understand your point better now.
...Thanks Gavin, I understand your point better now.<br /><br />Shewonk sais: "The premise [of the workshop] is that there is something wrong with the science"<br /><br />No, the premise is that participants in the *public* debate disagree about the science, which is true. Whether that disagreement is a root cause of the increased conflict is another matter, and I agree with Gavin that it's not the main factor.<br /><br />On the "post-normal" issue: I was under the impression that it's a characteristic of the science-policy interface for cases where the science is both highly policy relevant and has large inherent uncertainty. That's a recipe for public disagreement and polarization, and the name given to that beast is PNS. What's the big deal?<br /><br />BartAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-63926345783493298962011-02-04T04:03:02.462-05:002011-02-04T04:03:02.462-05:00Eli, a cursory perusal of the stuff the Gulbenkian...Eli, a cursory perusal of the stuff the Gulbenkian Foundation funds (on their UK website) hardly supports the Exxon-like conspiracy model. E.g.,<br /><br />http://www.gulbenkian.org.uk/partnerships/environment.html<br />http://gulbenkian.org.uk/partnerships/recent-grants-awarded.html<br /><br />Do you have any other evidence that the Foundation is on the dark side of climate policy?<br /><br />--Steven SullivanSteven Sullivannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-67962303657927791152011-02-04T00:53:59.867-05:002011-02-04T00:53:59.867-05:00"Yep, tallbloke certainly falls into the nutt..."Yep, tallbloke certainly falls into the nutter category. I say this only because ether (or aether) was convincingly disproved by the Michaelson-Morley experiment about 15 years before Einstein. The research wasn't ignored, it was shown to be wrong."<br /><br />But it made perfect sense, of course, that something that acts like a wave must require a medium to propagate ... and the physics based on this "wrongness" led to the practical development of radio[telegraph] communication, etc.<br /><br />To some degree, like Newtonian mechanics still works if I want to bash your head in with a club, rather than do something more esoteric.<br /><br />Tallbloke, though, is rejecting follow-on physics, as is that CJ dude who's starring in Judith Curry's post (made to debunk his idiocy, but it's not clear her rationaliy is winning, not a surprise since she's spent a couple of months chasing away those who are rational).<br /><br />Anyway, it's kinda cool that a nutter like Tallbloke could get a free ticket to Lisboa to attend a conference intended to bring down much of modern science (oh, sorry, "build bridges by virtue of the fact that any climate scientist attending would hoist a white flag).<br /><br />And Goddard.<br /><br />The wow-ness factor's nice.dhogazahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13589109126483161671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-71284737202190405262011-02-03T23:35:15.088-05:002011-02-03T23:35:15.088-05:00> [P]olicy by definition is postnormal.
I am n...> [P]olicy by definition is postnormal.<br /><br />I am not sure how to make sense of this definition. <br /><br />It could be a way to say that "postnormal" is a synonym of "value-laden".<br /><br />It could also way to say that it's a synonym of "pluralistic".<br /><br />Both pluralism and refusing the fact/value dichotomy seems natural enough to me. But YMMV, I suppose.<br /><br />***<br /><br />The point is this: trying to defend science or scientists by political means lies outside normal science. This blog is a very good example: it's science, but with some value added, something like scientific warfare, or simply wordsmitting. Without this added value, I am not sure I'd be here. <br /><br />Some might say this is postnormal science. They might have a point. I'd even say it, if I'd care for labels.<br /><br />In any case, "postnormal" is too ugly to pursue this.willardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-22632744735119820462011-02-03T21:43:26.333-05:002011-02-03T21:43:26.333-05:00Yep, tallbloke certainly falls into the nutter cat...Yep, tallbloke certainly falls into the nutter category. I say this only because ether (or aether) was convincingly disproved by the Michaelson-Morley experiment about 15 years before Einstein. The research wasn't ignored, it was shown to be wrong.Rattus Norvegicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03449457204330125792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-29920439986906426272011-02-03T20:36:30.710-05:002011-02-03T20:36:30.710-05:00"Tallbloke has it in for Einstein as well:
h..."Tallbloke has it in for Einstein as well:<br /><br />http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/hall-of-fame/<br /><br />To which Judy might reply, "Yes, tallbloke, that's very interesting.""<br /><br />He's a believer in the ether, and I don't mean the gas you can sniff, either!<br /><br />How about a Goddard and Tallbloke Lecture Series on Physics, that would be a hoot!dhogazahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13589109126483161671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-12276244917922543122011-02-03T17:21:35.832-05:002011-02-03T17:21:35.832-05:00@ J Bowers, thanks for the youtube link. "The...@ <a href="http://rabett.blogspot.com/2011/02/that-ol-devil-rabett.html?showComment=1296742908472#c4553996948726447573" rel="nofollow">J Bowers</a>, thanks for the youtube link. "The forces of confusion" indeed.<br /><br />The Anonybilby known as SteveCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-54127075143688484492011-02-03T14:12:25.362-05:002011-02-03T14:12:25.362-05:00The Workshop’s statement of purpose “Reconciliatio...The Workshop’s statement of purpose “Reconciliation in the Climate Change Debate” is an embarrassingly muddled essay that proposes an inappropriate (to the degree it’s even characterized) conflict resolution process to resolve a conflict itself fallaciously characterized. Both its articulation of the conflict and the proposed conflict resolution process are of little to no value IMHO to anyone responsible for advising elected or executive government leaders on CC and AGW. Although devoting time to deconstructing this turgid turd of an essay is tempting just for the blogo-sport of it, it is not worth my effort to do so, nor your time to read it. <br /><br />Suffice it to say that conflict resolution strategies and techniques (including mediation, facilitation, negotiation) used to address public policy disputes are minimally applicable to natural science debate and knowledge development. <br /><br />As to the preceding PNS/PoMo discussion, there are areas of social science where it is essential to explore the values, norms, and beliefs of the observer in order to understand usefully what and how they observe, particularly social science disciplines that stem from or are relevant to public policy processes. <br /><br />IF the CG Foundation and the Lisbon and Joint Rsch Centre were anything more than a oil-saturated cadre of concern trolls, they’d be proposing to facilitate a risk analysis and management discussion to help public, and private, decision makers formulate and pursue AGW mitigation and adaptation policies and actions. That’s the model of structured dialogue where exploration of how human values and histories determine individual and collective perception and interpretation of empirical facts can be accomplished in a valid, insightful manner<br /><br />The folks and orgs trumpeting this workshop are just pitiful.Sloopnoreply@blogger.com