At least one person can no longer be conned
Bookworm on Jun 12 2011 at 5:34 pm | Filed under: Climate change
My 13.5 year old glanced at this article and then walked away. I asked, “Aren’t you going to read it?” She shrugged. “It just says that global warming’s basically a fraud. I already knew that. We need to care for our environment, but the world isn’t coming to an end.” That’s my girl!
Email This Post To A Friend
78 Responses to “At least one person can no longer be conned”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
There’s one more person for the Z-Team to try to convert. I will grant the Z-Team this: its members have been both more persistent and more skilled at arguing than Helen, a commenter who stopped commenting here when she realized that she was converting no one.
If we lose the yoots. . .
Helen Losse was too open about her Leftist beliefs, even giving us links that explained them better than she could: I.E. institutional racism. Z and A are utilizing Alinsky tactics, where the real goal of the Left is hidden behind moderate “seeming” initiatives that are for the “good of the community”. I’m pretty sure that’s what Obama said as he was community organizing. The good of the community.
There is very little in this life more rewarding than hearing yours kids speak wisely, and one thing better is seeing them do right, for no other reason than that is is right.
I hope that this joy will provide some balance to the bitter sadness of seeing your mother reduced to her pitiable state.
I have experienced both those joys and, to a lesser extent, that sadness, so I hope that you understand that my words are felt most profoundly.
The satellite instrumentation doesn’t measure temperature directly, and the results concern the column of air in the lower atmosphere, not the surface temperatures. These are the scientific facts:
The 00′s was the warmest decade on record.
2010 tied for warmest year on record with 2005.
The ten warmest years have occurred since 1995.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110112_globalstats.html
The satellite data also confirms the warming trend.
“Recent analyses of temperature trends in the lower and mid- troposphere (between about 2,500 and 26,000 ft.) using both satellite and radiosonde (weather balloon) data show warming rates that are similar to those observed for surface air temperatures. These warming rates are consistent with their uncertainties and these analyses reconcile a discrepancy between warming rates noted on the IPCC Third Assessment Report (U.S. Climate Change Science Plan Synthesis and Assessment Report 1.1). ”
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Moderation queue, please.
It’s always useful to remember that Z-Team (Zach @ 5) is an advocate and shares information that bolsters their argument only. It’s never a complete picture. We’ve been around and around, for hundreds of comments, on Z’s arguments in other threads. Must we repeat the same cycle here?
Just take Z’s “statistics” with a grain of salt, and do some internet digging if you wish. Some areas to pursue:
- Zach’s records usually start at 1970 (Global temp data records are much sparser before then)
- Recent NASA corrections to 1990-2010 data indicate that the 1930′s in the USA are statistically insignificant compared to 2000-2010.
- Volcanic eruptions in the early 90′s pull that part of the trend line down; El Nino pushed the 2008 spike very high, pushing that part of the trend line higher.
- Are we in a long-term warming thrend that has nothing to do with human-caused global warming? Many think so. The question is not merely whether we’re warming, but how much of that warming is caused by human activity. Z-Team would have you believe that without human caused warming we would be at stasis, and that’s not true.
The devil is in the details. I as always urge patience on the AGW issue.
This is how falsehoods are perpetuated from mother to daughter. It is why there are so many scientifically illiterate people out there. If doctors are not frauds, then neither are climate scientists. You as a layperson are left to rely on the experts, but you decide for irrational reasons to trust some but not others. Lucky for you, you can still go to a doctor rather than a shaman. Perhaps we ought to make people who spread falsehoods about climate scientists ineligible for modern medical care. That way you’d be more careful what nonsense you are teaching the next generation…
There is a large scientific consensus, and they know better than you what the risks are. If you are going to irrationally and selectively trust experts, then at least admit the hypocrisy. And thank the scientific world for letting you be that way.
“Perhaps we ought to make people who spread falsehoods about climate scientists ineligible for modern medical care. That way you’d be more careful what nonsense you are teaching the next generation…
”
Don’t you just love when the dictatorial personality reveals its true colors?
Keep posting, abc. You are your own side’s worst enemy.
Here’s an interesting piece at Hot Air about the continued unraveling of the AGW hoax:
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/12/wheres-the-warming/
You as a layperson are left to rely on the experts, but you decide for irrational reasons to trust some but not others.
Why is A talking about himself here.
Perhaps we ought to make people who spread falsehoods about climate scientists ineligible for modern medical care. That way you’d be more careful what nonsense you are teaching the next generation…
Spoken like a true leftist. When the Left gets into power and if they goes bad – when they turn totalitarian – the dissenters are always diagnosed as having a mental disorder of one kind or another, and punished.
What has abc written but a refined form of such punishment. Dissent on global warming – and lose your health care coverage! Well, that’s better than a re-education camp a few hundred miles south of Nome, Alaska.
Dissent must never be allowed!
See Woodrow Wilson, surely one of the worst. It would have been genuinely frightening to be a dissenter during his presidency.
Mike, this also relates to abc’s abhorrence of being subservient to any morality other than one created by his credentialed self. Absolute power—which his ilk seeks—corrupts absolutely.
Martel, they have violence fantasies. They love that kind of stuff. Even the lower tier cannon fodder who hasn’t been allowed to get any inside information on Leftist operations. They still love their violent fantasies.
abc
This is how falsehoods are perpetuated from mother to daughter. It is why there are so many scientifically illiterate people out there….
Please inform us about your STEM background. Rather similar to that of The Won and the Goreacle, I would suspect.
Mike,
“Spoken like a true leftist. When the Left gets into power and if they goes bad – when they turn totalitarian – the dissenters are always diagnosed as having a mental disorder of one kind or another, and punished.”
I believe Ann Coulter has made millions on books claiming that leftists have mental illnesses. Please do not generalize that only one side makes such ridiculous comments. More fundamentally, I didn’t say that Bookworm has a mental disorder, since it is normal to be irrational in this way. And I wasn’t serious about punishing her for it, but wanted to point out that if there was a cost to ignorance, then she likely would revisit her views. I would never advocate denying medical care to anyone, including criminals.
But here is a question for you: is it totalitarian for the government to insist that the doctors working in your local hospital actually have studied medical science at an accredited medical school, passed a battery of exams administered by other such trained experts, and had some period of time to demonstrate competence in a residency program? And does that kind of program also produce “hoaxes”?
“What has abc written but a refined form of such punishment. Dissent on global warming – and lose your health care coverage! Well, that’s better than a re-education camp a few hundred miles south of Nome, Alaska.”
Please stop. That wasn’t the point of my message. Making people stop and think about their irrationality, however, clearly is.
“Dissent must never be allowed! ”
Dissent from those who do not know and lack the technical training is not really dissent. It’s just stupidity. I don’t solicit medical advice from my plumber, and I don’t take anything Bookworm writes about global warming seriously either. Unfortunately, she is viewed by her daughter as an expert in the subject. Too bad for her daughter.
“See Woodrow Wilson, surely one of the worst.”
Why?
“It would have been genuinely frightening to be a dissenter during his presidency.”
The founding fathers through their political opponents in jail and challenged them to duels. The country has seen worse. And I’d rather be a “dissenter” under Wilson, than an “enemy combatant” under Bush or Obama…
Gringo,
What is STEM?
Gringo, that says it all, doesn’t it.
Please do not generalize that only one side makes such ridiculous comments.
So we should listen to A because you’re Ann Coulter. When did you get a sex change, boy?
Dissent from those who do not know and lack the technical training is not really dissent.
99% of the Left would have to shut up about Bush, Palin, and America’s wars then. But they keep trucking along, so obviously A doesn’t actually believe that.
And I’d rather be a “dissenter under Wilson, than an “enemy combatantEunder Bush or ObamaE
Another one of those self-serving lies the Left likes to tell. They know they can’t be killed and executed as a dissenter under Wilson so they feel free to take the “Risk” of talking about it. Just like they know there’s no real possibility they would be an enemy combatant under Bush. But they know that the Islamic Jihad will behead them for real, so they shut their mouths about them.
Perfectly logical.
If you go back and read through all of abc’s comments above, please then reflect on the fact that he considers himself absolutely dedicated to Truth, and a completely rational and scientific person.
Yet he is wedded to so many Leftist tropes and slogans and idiocies.
No bias there!
This is why I am so dedicated to the principle of limited government. To keep the power-hungry from enforcing their endless programs upon me and those I love.
I just want us to be able to live our lives as freely as possible, free of their pernicious influence. Just as they would like to live their lives free of *my* “pernicious influence”.
And that’s the rub. When government is so big and so powerful – intruding into every aspect of our daily lives – you have no choice but to enforce your will upon them. You have no choice but to win. Because no one gets to just live their lives, being left as alone to it as possible. When government controls all, either they win or you win. It’s just terrible, what we’re all forced to do to each other, because we no longer have the choice of leaving each other alone. When government is too big, too powerful.
Limited government. We all win.
“If you go back and read through all of abc’s comments above, please then reflect on the fact that he considers himself absolutely dedicated to Truth, and a completely rational and scientific person….Yet he is wedded to so many Leftist tropes and slogans and idiocies….No bias there!”
Please name the tropes, slogans and idiocies.
“This is why I am so dedicated to the principle of limited government. To keep the power-hungry from enforcing their endless programs upon me and those I love.”
Because small governments lack fools with tropes, slogans and idiocies? I think not. Small government can be very good, but it can also fail in other contexts. Either way, stupidity can reign in large and small organizations.
“I just want us to be able to live our lives as freely as possible, free of their pernicious influence. Just as they would like to live their lives free of *my* “pernicious influence”.”
We have one earth. When you say that scientists are liars and AGW is a hoax, then you are committing a pernicious influence. And the size of government is really irrelevant.
“And that’s the rub. When government is so big and so powerful – intruding into every aspect of our daily lives – you have no choice but to enforce your will upon them. You have no choice but to win. Because no one gets to just live their lives, being left as alone to it as possible. When government controls all, either they win or you win. It’s just terrible, what we’re all forced to do to each other, because we no longer have the choice of leaving each other alone. When government is too big, too powerful….Limited government. We all win.”
Centralized government has nothing to do with stupidity over AGW. Nothing. Except maybe that Bookworm’s school where she learned science totally failed her. But the school board responsible is local, and the standards are set at the state level, which is big, but not US federal government big. So I really don’t understand this post at all. It seems like it is a fear of big government and centralization looking for a reason to declare itself.
Y, there are many, many documented cases of people detained indefinitely at Guantanamo that were innocent, and were at the wrong place at the wrong time. While there are terrorists that will want to behead me or you, they have little to do with the innocent people locked up without recourse to due process. You ignore these cases, but many others rightfully do not. At least an innocent had habeas corpus under Wilson…
But here is a question for you: is it totalitarian for the government to insist that the doctors working in your local hospital actually have studied medical science at an accredited medical school, passed a battery of exams administered by other such trained experts, and had some period of time to demonstrate competence in a residency program? And does that kind of program also produce “hoaxes”?
Does Harvard deliberately teach people to make terrible analogies? Here is how abc’s analogy should work:
A doctor comes to you and says he is concerned that your temperature may be rising faster than normal. At least it was for awhile, and the rise could resume at any time. If left alone, it might lead to death. He suggests a radical new surgery that maybe will forestall your predicted bodily temperature rise—if you do it now. The procedure, which has never been tested, will involve starving you and removing a couple of major organs that he and his fellow doctors are pretty sure are the cause of your incipient problem. He holds out papers for you to sign that give him complete control over your body and all subsequent medical procedures that he deems necessary.
You decide to seek a second opinion. A doctor who is as well-trained as the first says that he would not recommend undergoing the radical procedure proposed by his colleague. His reason is that your medical history is not long or clear enough for anybody to declare that your body temperature will suddenly spike fatally. He recommends monitoring you with a battery of tests over an extended period to determine what is really going on with you and whether the situation actually calls for medical intervention or whether your unique physiology periodically experiences temperature fluctuations that are best left alone.
You decide to follow the second doctor’s advice. When the first doctor learns of your decision, he rails at you, accusing you of irrationality and being anti-science, and tells you that almost every doctor in the hospital will back him up. When you point out that his reaction does little to strengthen your faith in him, he leaves the room in a furious snit.
There, abc, fixed it for yuh.
abc writes: And I wasn’t serious about punishing her for it, but wanted to point out that if there was a cost to ignorance, then she likely would revisit her views. I would never advocate denying medical care to anyone, including criminals.
First, why in the world did you feel the need to add the tagline: “, including criminals“? How very odd.
The entire paragraph is so breathtakingly arrogant and condescending toward Book. And of course, towards anyone who disagrees with you. Also, the kinds of jokes we *do* make often tell us more about the one making that particular joke, than it tells us about the target.
Anyone who has followed my argument on AGW knows I’m on the sideline, simply demanding further proof. I find the skeptics to have interesting arguments that require refutations. And the “consensus of the moment” has not supplied sufficient proof for me. It wouldn’t matter all that much, except that the cries of emergency demand such haste, and their proposed solutions are so ruinous economically, that their burden of proof is raised one HELL of whole lot higher.
Book is teaching her child that it is all a hoax. I’m not aligned with that particular position, yet I would *never* presume to tell her she’s wrong in any way. And besides, it’s her child, not yours. You can keep your authoritarian claws out of her life (you bastard). If you intuit that I’m furious with you for your intrusions into her life, you’re abso-fricking-lutely right.
Mike, you’re inciting abc into near hysteria—or at least to taking off his carefully contrived rationalist garb in public.
Now that we know one extent of his totalitarian fantasies, namely the ability to punish his opponents by denying them medical care, perhaps you can push him to expose how far he’s willing to go in other areas?
[Martel whips up yet another batch of buttery popcorn and sits back to watch the carnage.]
Charles, is #22 your own created analogy? That was just fantastic.
Charles @ 24 : Mike, you’re inciting abc into near hysteria—or at least to taking off his carefully contrived rationalist garb in public.
Ah, it’s mutual. Abc can get my back up. And sometimes, raise the hairs on the back of my neck, too.
I’ve owned a “Don’t Tread On Me!” flag for more than a year. It’s sitting on a shelf. I think it’s about time I got that puppy, shook the dust off it, and hung it out on the front of my house.
And maybe got off my butt, and got out there, go see what the local Tea Partiers are up to.
Mike,
“First, why in the world did you feel the need to add the tagline: “, including criminals“? How very odd.”
Not odd. Demonstrative. I do not advocate denying modern medical health care even to those in society that many would say are least deserving of it. If you can think of a less deserving group that others might call upon to receive less of it, then let me know. And I’ll replace criminals with that group.
“The entire paragraph is so breathtakingly arrogant and condescending toward Book.”
This is what you don’t understand. it is not arrogant to assert as fact what the facts are. If there is a large and compelling consensus amongst scientists, with 97% of those publishing in the field saying that AGW is a risk, then the only arrogant comment is the one that Bookworm has made calling those trained experts liars and their theory a hoax. If I correct your Mandarin, it is not arrogant, it is reflective of my knowing more of the language than you. And I DEFINITELY know more, apparently, about what the experts are saying with regard to climate change than Bookworm. You use the word arrogance in a vacuum, while I use it in context. If Rafa Nadal boasts about his tennis game. It isn’t arrogance, it’s fact. And if I boast about Rafa’s tennis game, it also is not arrogance. It is a fact. I am boasting about a 97% consensus around AGW, which is more than we have around many medical procedures, but Bookworm is calling that 97% a bunch of liars. She is also calling those who accurately describe what those experts are saying liars. And that is just plain silly. Highlighting when someone is wrong is not impolite, except to those who would prefer fantasy to facts.
”And of course, towards anyone who disagrees with you. ”
Not true. I have deferred here before to people who know more. But on AGW, people here expressing skeptical views have offered NO EVIDENCE from credentialled scientists. Their comments are useless and ignorant. It isn’t that they disagree. it is HOW they disagree…with no substance or facts at all.
“Also, the kinds of jokes we *do* make often tell us more about the one making that particular joke, than it tells us about the target.”
What jokes?
“Anyone who has followed my argument on AGW knows I’m on the sideline, simply demanding further proof.”
Wrong. To wait to decide is to decide. And you are demanding more proof of scientists on AGW than reasonable people rely upon to make medical decisions. If you use a cell phone and put it against your ear, then you are not waiting for more evidence that it causes brain cancer. You are ASSUMING that it doesn’t. That is not being on the sidelines.
“ I find the skeptics to have interesting arguments that require refutations.”
Your subjective belief on what is “interesting” is not very interesting to scientists.
“ And the “consensus of the moment” has not supplied sufficient proof for me.”
That is a long moment, since the consensus has existed and strengthened over the last 3 decades.
“It wouldn’t matter all that much, except that the cries of emergency demand such haste, and their proposed solutions are so ruinous economically, that their burden of proof is raised one HELL of whole lot higher.”
The concerns are growing not because of politically motivated behavior, but because the science grows ever more explicit on the dangers. You falsely assume malicious motives that do not exist. And if the solutions are ruinous economically, but less ruinous than the risks identified, then that is the bitter medicine that one needs to take. You don’t object to chemo because of its adverse impact on your hairdo, afterall…
“Book is teaching her child that it is all a hoax. I’m not aligned with that particular position, yet I would *never* presume to tell her she’s wrong in any way.”
Wow. What if I taught my child that 1+1=3, or that Mexico lies in Europe, or that Paul Revere rode around Boston to defend our 2nd amendment rights, or that Jews or Blacks are inferior? Telling a child that something is true that is false hurts the child, especially when there is no compelling reason to maintain the “white” lie.
“ And besides, it’s her child, not yours.”
Agreed. And I never said that I or anyone else should raise her child for her. But I am entitled to my opinion on whether she is doing her child a service or a disservice in this particular case, just as she is entitled to comment freely on what I might teach my child. Some have told me that it is wrong to teach my kids Mandarin, since, you know, they might become Communists. And they are entitled to that opinion, however dumb I might find it.
“ You can keep your authoritarian claws out of her life (you bastard).”
So you DO think it authoritarian to demand that doctors know the science behind their craft (you Luddite).
“ If you intuit that I’m furious with you for your intrusions into her life, you’re abso-fricking-lutely right.”
It is not an intrusion to comment on one aspect of what she teaches her child, just as hers is not an intrusion into Obama’s life by calling the President and his wife “trash.” By your definition, we really wouldn’t have much free speech, now would we…
On and on and on and on.
Too many comments, apologies. But I just noticed another one abc let slip up there in #8.
abc: If you are going to irrationally and selectively trust experts, then at least admit the hypocrisy. And thank the scientific world for letting you be that way.
Whaaa-aaaat? Thank the scientific world for letting me be that way? What in the world is going on in the mind of someone who can even make such a statement?
The scientific world is going to permit me, allow me, give me permission, for exactly what? And should they decide they’re NOT going to “let me be that way”, what exactly are they going to do to stop me?
The scientific world? Has that power? Usually it’s the government that has the power, via the police. But you see it as the proper responsibily of… the scientific world! You wish they had that power? Yes, you do. Don’t you.
Pardon me for the egregious ad-hominem: But you’re a freak.
abc: By your definition, we really wouldn’t have much free speech, now would we…
I never claimed that my hot emotions have any relevance to your free speech. Free speech is most important surrounding passionate feelings, in fact. I know that. It’s interesting to me that you believe I’m going to march out there and take away your rights. (Perhaps becuase that’s what the leftists always try to do – take away your freedoms. Freedom to act individually. Freedom to speak your mind without fear of retribution as in hate speech. Freedom to Live.)
Don’t Tread On Me, baby! Just leave me alone.
I know: Devx, shut up already. Time to go get some real-life things done.
Not a freak. What A wishes is a world based upon technocracy, meaning rule by engineers or scientists. It’s similar, though not the same, as what Z envisions.
Technocracy is just another aristocracy. The first generation have the merits required to build a nation and a society. The next generation are a bunch of playboys, sadists, and Marquise de Sades.
Mike,
“Thank the scientific world for letting me be that way? What in the world is going on in the mind of someone who can even make such a statement? The scientific world is going to permit me, allow me, give me permission, for exactly what? And should they decide they’re NOT going to “let me be that way”, what exactly are they going to do to stop me?”
Nothing. And that is why you are lucky. You can enjoy the benefits of modern science without having to show them the courtesy that Republicans love to demand that we show toward our national symbols, military leaders, and the like. They go nuts because of flag burning and one’s desire to opt out of the pledge. Get the heck out of the country if you don’t like it, they yell. But scientists are not like this. You can selectively take the fruits of their labors and hurl epithets at them when it pleases you. But when you badly need a cancer drug or advanced military’s deterrent, you have that benefit even though you have attacked the very processes and people that deliver such benefits to you.
I don’t believe in God, so I don’t care if someone blasphemes. The the one who believes that their life was saved by the power of prayer turns around and blasphemes, well even I find that pretty bad.
“The scientific world? Has that power? Usually it’s the government that has the power, via the police. But you see it as the proper responsibily of… the scientific world! You wish they had that power? Yes, you do. Don’t you.”
Nope. I do not. But I also wish that ignoramuses didn’t have the power to declare people frauds when they are not, simply because they are not educated enough to know the difference. If we had Britain’s libel laws, which we do not, lest we overly-chill free speech, such comments would carry a cost. But they do not. In an ideal world, your ignorance would only impact you, and I wouldn’t care what poison you put in your body. But since your ignorance affects the rest of us, it is troubling. Lucky for you it carries no cost to you, but a burden of worry to the vast majority of scientists who know this area well.
“Pardon me for the egregious ad-hominem: But you’re a freak.”
The only freak is the one who insists who knows more, as a non-expert, than the experts. And the freak is the one who thinks that he should be able to malign and slander those who do nothing but produce ALL of the material benefits that are enjoyed by all of us. And a freak is one who takes out of context my point that we’d see less ignorance if there were a real cost to such ignorance. Lucky for the ignorant that there is not such a cost. Unlucky for the rest of us that we just also bear the burden of that ignorance.
Maybe we should handle it thusly: those who are willing to pay now to mitigate AGW can do so, while those that opt out can pay 100x later…or file bankruptcy. When such costs are erected, the skeptics shrink from view. Just like Lindzen, the most famous skeptic of all, refused to bet that temps would be lower in 20 years (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/103702). He refused to put his money where his mouth is, and most less-well-trained skeptics are bigger cowards than he is.
Mike, I forgot… And a freak is one who calls authoritarian or totalitarian the government requirement that medical doctors be experts in their field. How arrogant of me to demand that my GP know more about anatomy than my plumber…
Under A and O’s national healthcare, I’m pretty sure our plumbers will know more about human anatomy than our government paid for doctors and nurses.
Mike, QED! You have made the boy become quite unhinged! Spew, spew, spew, spew, spew!
Mike Devx: – Zach{riel}’s records usually start at 1970 (Global temp data records are much sparser before then)
Global temperature records have been kept since 1880, with continuous regional records going back to 1659. There are other mechanisms for determining temperature by proxy going back for much longer periods of time.
Mike Devx: - Recent NASA corrections to 1990-2010 data indicate that the 1930′s in the USA are statistically insignificant compared to 2000-2010.
It’s admirably that you think so highly of the United States, but it still only represents about 2% of the Earth’s surface area.
Mike Devx: - Volcanic eruptions in the early 90′s pull that part of the trend line down; El Nino pushed the 2008 spike very high, pushing that part of the trend line higher.
Yes, scientists are very aware of El Niño, but a look at the 25 month trendline shows a definite increase. Volcanic eruptions give scientists a way to directly test their climate models.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_02/
Mike Devx: - Are we in a long-term warming thrend that has nothing to do with human-caused global warming? Many think so.
Is there a reason why we should consider your analysis more credible than that of NASA or NOAA?
Charles Martel: You decide to seek a second opinion.
And the second doctor agrees with the first doctor and points you to medical research. And a third doctor and a fourth doctor. Finally, a guy in the alley points you to someone with a basic degree in chemistry who says all the other doctors are frauds, but he gives you the answer you want.
NASA and NOAA aren’t here at Bookworm Room arguing their case. Thus they could be lying or somebody could be impersonating them, and nobody here would ever know because they cannot test them.
But Mike and Z and A, those are here. We can test them and see what they say or don’t say, do or don’t do.
This kind of personal “on hands” research may be foreign to the A through Zs of AGW fanaticism, but it is far more accurate than 3rd hand sources like NASA, however good their purported credentials.
Ymarsakar: NASA and NOAA aren’t here at Bookworm Room arguing their case. Thus they could be lying or somebody could be impersonating them, and nobody here would ever know because they cannot test them.
The URL’s are quite easy to verify, so no one is impersonating them.
It would be interesting if two things were to happen here:
1. That the room pests would actually deign to refute the Forbes article Book linked to.
2. That Zach would take the hint Gringo laid down in comment #1, namely, that our previous Zach retired from this blog once she realized that she just wasn’t clever enough to make any converts.
abc @ #8
This is how falsehoods are perpetuated from mother to daughter. It is why there are so many scientifically illiterate people out there….
Gringo to abc, @ #15
Please inform us about your STEM background. Rather similar to that of The Won and the Goreacle, I would suspect.
abc @ #17
Gringo, What is STEM?
Ymarsakar @ #18
Gringo, that says it all, doesn’t it.
Y-guy, I would say that it does.
abc pontificates about “so many scientifically illiterate people out there,” yet hasn’t a clue about what STEM means [hint: it’s an acronym. That would be S.T.E.M. Google it, though you can find the answer without the initials.]. abc answered my request @#15 with such a response: ∅, or close to it.
Sorta like saying “Second Law” and the reply is “Say whaaaaaat?”
[...] discussion on my recent climate change post has one side saying “expert consensus” and the other side saying “facts.” [...]
Gringo, the only STEM I know is science technology engineering and mathematics. But since you like to speak in riddles, it’s hard to know what the heck you’re talking about, much less rationally converse with you.
“We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception.”
The authority cited in the Forbes article is a signatory to the above statement. Faith-based narratives over empirically derived conclusions. As if that weren’t bad enough, Roy Spencer also believes in intelligent design…
A doubts his judgment to even DECIDE what Gringo means by STEM. And A thinks we should trust his judgment on what anyone else is saying or pushing?
Hah.
So indecisive. So bad, so sad.
abc, you are correct that I was referring to Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics.
“scientifically illiterate”
Which reminds me of the K.I.S.S. Principle used in explaining things: Keep it simple, stupid!
“what is your background in STEM?”
“It might refer to Science Technology Engineering Mathematics, but it must be a riddle. But it couldn’t be something which might so easily link back to the term “scientifically illiterate.”
OK.
Those with STEM backgrounds have much practice in problem solving. Ockham’s Razor: try the simplest solution first.
Please show where I speak in what you consider to be riddles. I try to speak tersely and concisely. I had a class where a professor hammered the following into our skulls: Be brief, concise, and to the point. I try to follow his words in all I do.
Gringo, you show remarkable restraint considering how foolish the omniscient abc looks after revealing he couldn’t figure out what STEM was in the context of your question about his science chops.
It’s also telling that he would not answer your question.
[...] discussion on my recent climate change post has one side saying “expert consensus” and the other side saying “facts.” [...]
It seems A is so doubtful of his own judgments that he has to wait for confirmation and “orders”. He won’t be proactive and say “Assuming S.T.E.M means what I think it does, here is my background. What else did you mean by STEM”. Instead, he fiddles around, half and half, saying Gringo speaks in riddles.
URLs don’t determine whether anyone is being impersonated. For example, Jason Blair’s URL was rightfully linked to the New York Times. Yet he was impersonating his credentials and stories for the Times. It also doesn’t make its own arguments. These things require something called human interlocutors.
Ymarsakar: URLs don’t determine whether anyone is being impersonated. For example, Jason Blair’s URL was rightfully linked to the New York Times. Yet he was impersonating his credentials and stories for the Times.
Are you claiming that the links to NOAA provided above are not authorized by NOAA or that they do not represent the view of the NOAA with regards to climate change? Seriously?
Ymarsakar: It also doesn’t make its own arguments.
The NOAA links provided empirical claims:
The 00′s was the warmest decade on record.
2010 tied for warmest year on record with 2005.
The ten warmest years have occurred since 1995.
The satellite data also confirms the warming trend.
I think I took abc too literally based on abc’s reply. I thought abc meant the scientific community would “let me” continue to think non-approved thoughts. And state them!
Actually abc was just being rhetorical (I think), when he said the scientific world.
I think he just meant, by “scientific world”, everyone who is rational, such as him, and not ignorant fools, such as those commenting in this Book room.
So I withdraw my unfortunate “freak comment”. I think I completely misunderstood. I thought abc actually felt that a scientist/government power should actually control what I can say. My misunderstanding – his comment was really nothing more than a mild insult.
Mike, I visited Scientific World once. I had to save up for years to afford the ticket.
It was wondrous! On Theory Street I encountered great cartoon characters dressed up as Galileo, Newton, Fleming, Eisntein, Salk and Al Gore (I’m kidding about that last one!). It was really neat that they had a guy dressed in a chasuble and miter running down the street after Galileo pretending to flog him with a humongous cat-o-nine-tails that had little Sarah Palin portraits mounted on the business ends. Whatta hoot!
On Falsifiable Lane, I ran into characters dressed as Piltdown Man, Mr. String Theory, Electromagnetic Threat, and Global Cooling Girl, who all represented modern science’s uncanny ability to catch and reject untenable theories after only a few decades!
Atheist Avenue was kind of a bummer. The characters were dressed up as Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking and the usual assortment of great minds that reasoned about God at a junior high school level. Boring! They had the same guy with the miter and chasuble chasing after them, but nobody laughed because the “joke” had become so lame.
Maybe the best part of my trip was the visit to The Congress of Scientists, where the world’s finest minds deliberated on who would be allowed to live and die in the utopia that they were creating. Sad to say, fetuses, blacks, Republicans, terminal patients and people who believe in God were on their list for elimination. “Once those fools are gone,” said the head scientist, a guy who called himself def, “We’ll probably be pretty much where we want to be, and only need to peridocially off a few million here or a few million there, just to keep the Ignoramuses at bay.”
Looking back, I think next time I’ll just go to Legoland.
I’m still laughing, Charles.
I’m claiming Z’s methodology has holes and weaknesses in it. Z is the one stuck on NOAA, but that’s only one example, it is Z’s methodology that is more important to consider.
Do you mean Z’s slavish devotion to consensus, Ymar? Or are you more subtly referring to the stilted tone and word choice of the propaganda? The selective examples chosen to bolster the one-sided argument?
Charles M @ 52: Great one, Charles!
Hey, you forget to mention the Consensus Carousel! *Everyone* at Scientific World is required to ride the Consensus Carousel!
Devx,
Z makes claims like “the NOAA links provided empirical claims…”.
Even though it is the Z that is the originator of the argument (the one claiming things here), and not NOAA, Z wants to shove the responsibility of primary advocacy unto his source. It’s a completely reverse ended methodology. Instead of quoting George W. Bush on WMDs and making an argument off the source, he instead replaces his own thoughts with Bush’s opinion and thoughts acting as a surrogate, eventually presenting it as Z’s primary argument. As if it came from Z himself. But it didn’t.
“Consensus Carousel?” Love it, Mike!
That is interesting. I usually provide a summary idea, then the link, and THEN my argumentation. Z will always provide the link at the very end of Z’s argument of a point. It does shove the “responsibility for primary advocacy unto his source”, as you say.
Mike Devx: It does shove the “responsibility for primary advocacy unto his source”, as you say.
Let’s try to simplify this.
Zachriel: 2010 tied for warmest year on record with 2005.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110112_globalstats.html
This is not “advocacy,” but an empirically verifiable scientific finding. NOAA provides authoritative support for the claim. For those interested in the technical details, there is a link at the bottom of the NOAA page that leads to the studies published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
Charles Martel @ 52 : Mike, I visited Scientific World once. I had to save up for years to afford the ticket.
There was this other fellow who visited Scientific World recently too, Charles. But he walked up to the admissions counter wearing his “Phil Jones Of The IPCC” t-shirt. Kind of like a Che Guevara T-Shirt, but nerdy. The lady at the counter complimented his shirt, and he then said, “Phil Jones is a GOD! He’s the most bestest, awesomest scientist who has ever walked the earth!”
“For you, the admission is only ten dollars,” the lady said, returning all the rest of his money.
The t-shirt was reversible. Once through the gate and inside, he turned the t-shirt inside out, to display the “No-Bama 2012″ image. He got a lot of dirty looks while walking down the midway. A group of seven clones even came up to him and one of them said, “There is a widespread consensus that President Obama will be re-elected in 2012,” and then tried to show him a supporting link on an I-Phone.
A group of seven clones even came up to him and one of them said, “There is a widespread consensus that President Obama will be re-elected in 2012,” and then tried to show him a supporting link on an I-Phone.
ROFL!
Mike, you have hit on Z’s weakest spot, namely, his reluctance (inability, really) to discuss topics where he does not have a bundle of talking points and links mapped out in advance.
He’s scared silly of discussions that veer into philosophy or epistemology because he’d be at sea trying to reason at that level of abstraction. He presents tautologies as moral reasoning—very much like abc—but knows that he cannot explain or defend them. Thus his total absence from any thread that requires independent thought or speculation. (A small mercy, I suppose.)
Poor Z, still sticking doggedly to his guns.
Does Z ever lie awake, in the deepest dark of the night, troubled… remembering that not one scientific advancement was ever made by a member of the consensus doggedly agreeing with that consensus?
That every advancement was made by wondering about that strange anomaly in the data, refusing to let it go, following through, despite the heresy of departing from the consensus?
Charles Martel: He presents tautologies as moral reasoning—very much like abc—but knows that he cannot explain or defend them.
No. We provided an empirically verifiable scientific finding.
Mike Devx: remembering that not one scientific advancement was ever made by a member of the consensus doggedly agreeing with that consensus?
There are no scientific advancements without scientific observations. We pointed to a specific scientific finding.
Mike Devx: That every advancement was made by wondering about that strange anomaly in the data, refusing to let it go, following through, despite the heresy of departing from the consensus?
They laughed at Columbus! They laughed at Fulton! They laughed at the Wright Brothers!
…
But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
“No. We provided an empirically verifiable scientific finding.”
Thank you for proving my point in spades.
Charles Martel: Thank you for proving my point in spades.
This thread concerns the claim that “global warming’s basically a fraud.” Hence, a discussion of the scientific support for global warming is part of that discussion. More specificially, empirically verifiable scientific findings are essential to understanding the scientific support. We stated several such important and relevant scientific findings. That simple first step was confused with advocacy. Then, you diverted into personal attacks.
It’s not that difficult.
2010 tied for warmest year on record with 2005.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110112_globalstats.html
Zach, it is not a personal attack to note your reluctance to state how you’ve arrived at your political and moral conclusions. I simply agreed with Mike that when it comes to such discussions you are truly a duck out of water and very much afraid to expose your lack of a well thought-out moral basis for your thoughts.
Please remember that you do not control the thread. We can talk about anything we want, including your philosophical incoherence.
Martel, he’s worried that people will talk too much and emit pollutants (CO2) into the atmosphere that will cause “unsustainable development” of the human species.
Charles Martel: Please remember that you do not control the thread. We can talk about anything we want, including your philosophical incoherence.
Feel free to divert to what you consider our “philosophical incoherence” on a thread about global warming. We will continue to point to empirically verificable scientific findings concerning the actual topic.
Zach, you remind me of a bagger at our local supermarket. He is a nice enough fellow, but extremely limited when it comes to human interaction. I think he probably has a form of mild autism. He knows he has to say certain things and act certain ways, but cannot really tell you why.
You are much the same. You claim to be concerned about AGW and its bad effects on humans—whom you refer to as though they are not the same species as you—but you never say why. Nobody here believes that you really like people or stand for any sort of moral enterprise. Your schtick carefully avoids any such discussion, because, as shown here time and time again, you are not equipped for it.
So, please, continue to bombard us with your regurgitated factoids. If you want to function as this blog’s Bourbons, who learn nothing and forget nothing, be our guest.
Martel out.
Charles, don’t be too hard on the Z-Team.
They have a set of links for AGW that they consider conclusive, and they will keep repeating those same links ad nauseum, with a little boilerplate of “confirmation” advocacy.
For example, in this commentary thread alone, we have the following link repeated three times:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110112_globalstats DOT html
You’ll see this one link repeated in the Zachriel comments for # 5, 59, and 66. (Use a period instead of ” DOT “)
But Z-Team did make use of two other links as well! Like I said, there’s a set.
The other two links: another NOAA link. And a James Hansen link. (Hansen is a committed advocate of AGW)
Z-Team is nothing if not consistent on coloring within the lines.
Mike Devx: They have a set of links for AGW that they consider conclusive, and they will keep repeating those same links ad nauseum, with a little boilerplate of “confirmation” advocacy.
You’re still confused. We were substantiating particular facts. Those facts do not in themselves show the relationship between human activity and climate change. But it’s important to start with facts, even if others ignore those facts, or deny those facts, or compare the presenter of those facts to someone with mild autism (as if that impacts the fact one iota).
Correction to #41: one side has facts AND scientific consensus. The other side has limitless doubt, which is beginning to look increasingly like irrational denial. Inaction is action, and the skeptics ought to supply their own affirmative case, with empirical evidence, to support that course of action.
Gringo, now that I understand what you were asking with STEM, I’d like to respond. As I have consistently said, I am not a climate scientists, so I rely on their expertise as a lay person. I don’t presume to know more than they do, nor do I blindly call them frauds because I don’t like what they are concluding. I trust their conclusions, just as I trust other scientists and technically trained people in their professional judgments, especially when I’ve received the first, second, third and fourth opinion on the matter with remarkable consistency. I think you do the same, except in the area of AGW, where you curiously hold out a different standard, although you are likely not qualified to evaluate the science–only the conclusion and implication of the science. And since you do not like that, you make the irrational exception to your normal treatment of scientific or highly technical data. This is bad since the scientists know better than you, or Book, or Mike, or Z, or myself. The irrationality is not listening to the expert because you are afraid of what you’ll have to do with the conclusions…or rather, what your grandkids will have to do. Denial. Selfishness. Ignorance. Are there any other rational explanations for the inconsistent use of scientific knowledge?? I can’t think of any, but perhaps you or others could fill me in. Also, it’d be nice if you could present an affirmative case for doing nothing, complete with empirical data found in peer reviewed (and thus double checked) journals. I’ll be waiting.
abc
Gringo, now that I understand what you were asking with STEM, I’d like to respond.
But not by directly replying to my original query in #15:
Please inform us about your STEM background. Rather similar to that of The Won and the Goreacle, I would suspect.
You ignored the K.I.S.S. Principle. A sentence or two would have sufficed, such as “I took a Physics for Poets class my freshman year.” Yet in the 250+ words you wrote in “reply,” you in no way answered my query. This leads me to the conclusion – as I surmised in my comment # 40- that your STEM background is approximately equivalent to ∅. Nichevo. Cero. Zilch. Zero. Maybe a Science for Poets course, like one the Goreacle took at Haavaad.
[I first used “∅” in math class in the 9th grade. And as we had to write a lot of proofs in 9th grade, I had extensive exposure to ∅ in 9th grade.]
Yet someone with nil or close to nil background in STEM has the chutzpah to call someone “scientifically illiterate.” Chutzpah, indeed. [comment #8] And then has the chutzpah to write some 250 words on an issue related to science.
I see no point in responding to anything further you have written in #73 as you have in no way linked it to anything I have written.
Gringo,
More information is better…unless you want to declare a fake victory and retreat. As I wrote where you refused to read, I never claimed to be an expert in climate research, just as I am not a medical expert. However, I treat experts in both fields the same way, unlike the skeptics here, who are curiously hypocritical in their use of scientific expertise. And you guys continue to dance around or avoid the hypocrisy since you don’t have a good answer for it. I think that is the reason you wrote that there is “no point in responding to anything further…” Denial. Ignorance. Selfishness (because, unlike ignoring the doctor, calling the climate expert a charlatan will only hurt your grandkids). Thanks for proving my point. Better luck next time with attempting to change the subject to irrelevancies.
Gringo, I’ll translate: abc, who gets caught with his pants down often, got caught with his pants down when he couldn’t figure out what you meant by STEM and was too lazy to even Google it.
And, yes, it’s obvious that much of what he says here is based on half-remembered frosh survey courses at Hahvahd.
(PS: I do these translations as a courtesy to abc, who is notoriously tight with his purse.)
abc says: More information is better…unless you want to declare a fake victory and retreat.
Battles and wars! Advances and retreats! Victories and defeats!
This intense approach to Book’s comment areas explains the 500+ word missives.
You really are on a mission, aren’t you?
Well, whatever floats your boat.
abc
And you guys continue to dance around or avoid the hypocrisy since you don’t have a good answer for it. I think that is the reason you wrote that there is “no point in responding to anything further…” Denial. Ignorance. Selfishness.
You apparently have reading comprehension issues, so I will repeat in full what I had previously written:
I see no point in responding to anything further you have written in #73 as you have in no way linked it to anything I have written.
La segunda : as you have in no way linked it to anything I have written.
Third time’s a charm: as you have in no way linked it to anything I have written.
Since in #73 and #76 you are making claims about what I have said but have no documentation whatsoever to actually prove I wrote what you claimed I wrote, it is a waste of time to discuss with you. For example, were I to state, “William Jehosephat Slobbinskojanovich sent a million dollars to Saddam Hussein in 2002,” but have no documentation to back up my claim, I am writing nonsense. As you are writing nonsense when you make claims about what I have written but have no documentation whatsoever that I actually stated that.
abc
Better luck next time with attempting to change the subject to irrelevancies.
The ONLY subject I have been discussing in this thread is related to what you originally wrote in #8-(This is how falsehoods are perpetuated from mother to daughter. It is why there are so many scientifically illiterate people out there.) and my response to it in #15:(Please inform us about your STEM background. Rather similar to that of The Won and the Goreacle, I would suspect.)
As indications are that you have zilch or close to zilch STEM background, your calling someone “scientifically illiterate” is rather comical. Someone who has zero or next to zero STEM background has no credibility whatsoever when he calls someone else “scientifically illiterate.”
That is the only issue I am discussing on this thread. To therefore accuse me of “attempting to change the subject” is comical.
IN #73 you tried to change the goalposts from my original point: someone with zero or next to zero STEM background has no credibility whatsoever when he calls someone else “scientifically illiterate.” And that is being charitable. I could say much harsher.