tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post3565628203977260268..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: What a treat for Judith Curry - supping with the morally depravedSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger208125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-8955741451169592492015-12-12T09:02:10.316+11:002015-12-12T09:02:10.316+11:00Now I can see three copies of my post. But they wi...Now I can see three copies of my post. But they will disappear again if it does what it did before.<br /><br />Sorry ...Jammy Dodgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08360437479098314946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-357781305932688552015-12-12T08:59:44.268+11:002015-12-12T08:59:44.268+11:00test - because I cannot see some poststest - because I cannot see some postsJammy Dodgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08360437479098314946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-52662200571110879522015-12-12T05:48:32.311+11:002015-12-12T05:48:32.311+11:00"Steyn's primary argument is about free s..."Steyn's primary argument is about free speech..."<br /><br />Is that meant to be a comedy post? One of the guys supporting Lamar Smith's campaign to silence climate scientists (those whose views are inconvenient to the fossil fuel industry) is now supposed to be an advocate of free speech? Oh my, talk about denial.<br />Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-88484582709006853042015-12-12T03:20:09.883+11:002015-12-12T03:20:09.883+11:00+1.+1.cRR Kampenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07571285063752477448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-3686229187697682032015-12-12T00:44:05.979+11:002015-12-12T00:44:05.979+11:00I could have been more succinct, and summed up Pau...I could have been more succinct, and summed up Paul's comments as Phil Plait summed up Ted Cruz's circus - "<a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/12/10/climate_change_lamar_smith_and_ted_cruz_embarrass_themselves_further.html" rel="nofollow">it's Orwellian</a>".Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-84799793318650258922015-12-12T00:34:21.109+11:002015-12-12T00:34:21.109+11:00Well, Paul, you said you didn't like the artic...Well, Paul, you said you didn't like the article in which I wrote about Mark Steyn, who defamed Professor Mann, implying that you are in favour of someone who wilfully and persistently smears a person's reputation by telling lies about them. You wrongly think that "free speech" gives a newspaper columnist the right to falsely accuse a professional of fraud and falsely link him with a pedophile. <br /><br />You did support lying to the general public, because you argued against my article, which was calling out people for lying to the general public.<br /><br />If now you are saying you don't support defamation and you don't support lying to the general public, that's an about face on your part.<br /><br />You come here like others before you all gung ho, then complain when you are called to account for your opinions. You claim to want free speech but protest long and loudly implying that it's only you (and the lying deniers mentioned in my article) who are allowed (your version) of free speech. And when other people exercise their right of free speech in reply, you call it "witch burning".<br /><br />All I can say is that you have a very muddled mixed up notion of "free speech". (I reckon you'd feel more comfortable at <a href="http://www.hotwhopper.com/freespeech.php" rel="nofollow">somewhere like HotCopper</a>)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-26186768642752372142015-12-12T00:29:18.123+11:002015-12-12T00:29:18.123+11:00@Paul Martin
Irrational? No. Let me deconstruct f...@Paul Martin<br /><br />Irrational? No. Let me deconstruct for you. <br /><br />Trump is a typical example of an authoritarian who likes to reduce all ethics and issues to absolute values that can be shouted as meaningless slogans. "Freedom of speech" is one such slogan that trumps all nuance of any problem with people saying what they like, without thought for any consequences or hurt or harm. <br /><br />The second feature of such people is they only like to apply these principles for themselves when it suits them. As soon as there is a perceived "other" then the rules do not apply any more. Hence Donald Trump's shutting down of the internet to stop free speech. And your denial to the HotWhopper blog writer here to not indulge in exercising her freedom: <i>" rather than smearing everyone who thinks otherwise"</i> <br /><br />But then authoritarian types are not known for consistency of thought.Jammy Dodgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08360437479098314946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-54104029279243432922015-12-11T23:58:29.036+11:002015-12-11T23:58:29.036+11:00Sou, we differ, though maybe not so universally as...Sou, we differ, though maybe not so universally as you seem to imagine. I want to hear your views, I want to assay your arguments. I am open to discourse, enriched by it. I'm not supporting lying to the general public, if that proves to have been the case. But I do not support suppression of opinions simply because they are uncomfortable, irritating and confounding. Not even if they are potentially defamatory, because the converse is too dreadful and Orwellian to contemplate. <br />I have twice (thrice?) been invited to leave this forum because correspondents have made unwarranted assumptions about my motivations and beliefs. That's very ugly, Sou. That's witch burning.Paul Martinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-32023836207125169842015-12-11T23:52:29.874+11:002015-12-11T23:52:29.874+11:00" I am not a climate scientist, and all I kno..."<i> I am not a climate scientist, and all I know for certain about the subject is that my views will eventually turn out to be just as wrong as yours will.</i>"<br /><br />Erm, it may come as news to you but "just" has a different meaning compared to "more"...<br /><br />Or perhaps it's because you are not a climate scientist, or apparently even versed in the most basic fundamentals of climate science that are accessible to even a half-intelligent lay person, that you make such a statement.<br /><br />Denialists will "turn out to be" far <i>more</i> "wrong" that those who understand the best science. Just as flat-Earthers are <i>more</i> "wrong" than those who accept that the planet is an ovate sphere, and Creationists are <i>more</i> "wrong" than those who accept the evidence for evolution.<br /><br />If you don't understand why this is so it simply indicates your serious level of ignorance.<br /><br />It's entirely possible that the physics of global warming are "wrong" in the same way that relativity is "wrong", but the fact that it can be used to describe with exquisite accuracy the way the planet works as human scales of space and time renders any such putative wrongness irrelevant. On the other hand, expecting the planet not to heat catastrophically if we double the atmosphere's CO2, and double it again, is no different to expecting to sail over the edge of the ocean if one keeps a straight bearing...Bernard J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16299073166371273808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-75746063251359297212015-12-11T23:43:57.279+11:002015-12-11T23:43:57.279+11:00Trump? Trump is a populist buffoon. Whatever pos...Trump? Trump is a populist buffoon. Whatever possessed you to draw such an irrational conclusion about my heroes? I live in Africa. My heroes are Nelson Mandela and Thuli Madonsela.Paul Martinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-26829196012883336072015-12-11T23:37:26.207+11:002015-12-11T23:37:26.207+11:00Tone trolling is tedious. Tone trolling is tedious. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-78183611417272645932015-12-11T23:24:27.443+11:002015-12-11T23:24:27.443+11:00Shame on you indeed, Paul, to support lying to the...Shame on you indeed, Paul, to support lying to the general public as "free speech"; to regard people who don't tolerate defamation as being intemperately intolerant. <br /><br />BTW - it's impertinent of you to not refer to someone by their name.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-82471430522524150072015-12-11T23:11:54.170+11:002015-12-11T23:11:54.170+11:00Yes, thanks folks. I reckon my point has been nea...Yes, thanks folks. I reckon my point has been neatly underlined by your intolerant and intemperate replies.<br />It's 'impertinence' BTW, Kampo. And I have it, either way. Shame on me.<br />Paul Martinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-23804226077280380192015-12-11T23:09:59.420+11:002015-12-11T23:09:59.420+11:00""We have to talk to them about, maybe i...<i>""We have to talk to them about, maybe in certain areas, closing that Internet up in some ways. Somebody will say, 'Oh freedom of speech, freedom of speech.' These are foolish people.""</i><br /><br />Sorry, Paul Martin. Not even your hero Donald Trump agrees with you that freedom of speech is that sacrosanct.<br /><br />http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/12/11/donald-trump-wants-bill-gates-to-close-that-internet-up_n_8780686.html?ncid=fcbklnkukhpmg00000001<br /><br />Jammy Dodgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08360437479098314946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-20293124023610652202015-12-11T22:46:44.484+11:002015-12-11T22:46:44.484+11:00Paul, I am not at all sorry to disappoint someone ...Paul, I am not at all sorry to disappoint someone who'd excuse a journalist falsely accusing him of pedophilia, embezzlement and fraud on the grounds that the journalist can write whatever lies she pleases about anyone, no matter who they are, on the grounds of free speech. <br /><br />I'm not at all upset that I disappoint someone who has no sense of self worth. Someone who would let his family suffer the ignominy of a ruined reputation, not defend themselves, and either go on the dole or sell his home, move to another town, change careers and give up his livelihood - rather than defend himself against false accusations.<br /><br />I have no qualms about disappointing someone who wrongly thinks that free speech means they have the right to tell lies, wrongly defame, and spread false information. It doesn't. There are defamation laws for very good reason. <br /><br />As for the tone of this blog - if you don't like it there are plenty of other websites on the internet these days. No-one is forcing anyone to read HotWhopper. Lots do because they like it, hate it, or are entertained or informed.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-27221623636161284562015-12-11T22:28:43.727+11:002015-12-11T22:28:43.727+11:00Paul, there is a point at which free speech has a ...Paul, there is a point at which free speech has a price and that is the point at which an assertion is made that a person has performed some wrong doing. If I were to accuse you of a criminal act in a widely disseminated publication, you might seek redress since you would know it not to be true. You might ask for a retraction and an apology. You might wish to seek damages to your reputation and/or career through the courts. <br /><br />What Mann is doing is the latter. What Steyn didn't do was admit the mistake and give the former, which he easily could have done. The case is non, repeat, not about free speech but about the truth - has Mann committed a criminal act or not? You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to your own version of the truth.Catmandohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12313870265499015076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-29094069635095646422015-12-11T22:23:47.309+11:002015-12-11T22:23:47.309+11:00This is a climate blog. Not a free speech blog. No...This is a climate blog. Not a free speech blog. Not a place for people like you who are in fact trying to give smearing slandering frauds like Steyn freedom of speech at the cost of same freedom for scientists, Sou and me. <br /><br />You are not a climate scientist - no problem, it means you can come here to learn some facts about climate and climate change. It does not behoove you to blabber about totally different subjects and chastisting Sou with that tripe. <br /><br />If you are repelled, you are welcome to haul ass. You are free to go forever. You are not obliged to post your impertinance here at all. Use that freedom, please. cRR Kampenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07571285063752477448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-38020538152565493932015-12-11T22:04:46.800+11:002015-12-11T22:04:46.800+11:00Sou, this forum disappoints me, as do you.
Steyn...Sou, this forum disappoints me, as do you. <br />Steyn's primary argument is about free speech, not climate change. Had he not been sued by Mann, Steyn's views about the climate would have remained of no consequence to orthodox thinkers like yourself. I am not a climate scientist, and all I know for certain about the subject is that my views will eventually turn out to be just as wrong as yours will. <br />But free speech is another matter, and one about which we can know the future with far more confidence. If you restrict what people may say, what they may think, on pain of prosecution or public denigration, you do humanity a greater harm than even the most appalling coal baron. <br />Let me offer you a short lesson on rhetoric. Assuming your intent is to win over less-well-informed people to your point of view, you're doing it wrong with your silly generalisations and characterisations regarding your opponents. Your every utterance has the opposite of your intended effect. You impress only credulous acolytes, and repel everyone else. You have something worthwhile to say? Then simply say it, rather than smearing everyone who thinks otherwise. Or thinks at all.Paul Martinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-18374573550633805352015-12-10T21:21:55.499+11:002015-12-10T21:21:55.499+11:00To my mind, she was channeling another professor: ...To my mind, she was channeling another professor: Dolores Umbridge.jgnfldnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-74717992262728713782015-12-10T17:52:42.934+11:002015-12-10T17:52:42.934+11:00Metzo, it's a point that many deniers assiduou...Metzo, it's a point that many deniers assiduously skirt, but that should be placed front and centre in any discussion. It's atrocious that Curry completely ignores such a basic thing.<br /><br />Still, it's not surprising. I had a look at the comments in her thread from yesterday, discussing the senate committee testimonies, and the level of scientific rubbish that she permits to be posted with no attempt at correction at all is staggering.<br /><br />Oh, I'm sure that she would argue free speech and non-repsonsibility for the comments of others and that she doesn't even get to read the comments (evidence would suggest otherwise), but the fact remains that she set up Climate Etc to be the vehicle for an "honest broker" and a conduit for scientific correctness, and she stakes her claims very much on the stance reflected by her running of the blog.<br /><br />If this doesn't place an onus of responsibility on Curry to call out the scientific guff that floods her board then I doubt that anything could - and in this case she can claim no scientifically-credible high ground in the discussion.Bernard J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16299073166371273808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-79144544168837531162015-12-10T09:29:06.694+11:002015-12-10T09:29:06.694+11:00Next time someone tries the 'No warming for X ...Next time someone tries the 'No warming for X years in the satellite data', you might want to refer them to this:<br />http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/waleed-aly-takes-on-andrew-bolt-over-climate-change-let-me-nip-this-in-the-bud-20151210-gljuj1.html<br />The embedded video is quite long, but look at 3min in and he pulls in Carl Mears to comment.<br /><br />AnotherJamesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-67257102192997424562015-12-10T08:24:18.276+11:002015-12-10T08:24:18.276+11:00Second, we can't attribute the warming in the ...<i>Second, we can't attribute the warming in the 1998-present interval as resulting from the last 25% of CO2 emitted by humans, as the retention of heat resulting from that contribution has yet to be more than partially realised. The volume of CO2 that has resulted in the warming from 1998-present (and especially around 1998...) will be a smaller volume, largely emitted earlier than the period to which she refers.</i><br /><br />Spot on, Bernard. And, of course, Dr. Curry should know that, but she chooses to conveniently forget such things. So much wrong, you don't know where to start :-\Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-1640220021630090822015-12-10T07:51:31.331+11:002015-12-10T07:51:31.331+11:00Steyn's 'tell' is acting like a pugnac...Steyn's 'tell' is acting like a pugnacious pouting pre-pubescent.Ceisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12831378692022001009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-47488931536193382682015-12-10T07:49:19.577+11:002015-12-10T07:49:19.577+11:00Judith Curry seems to have a 'tell' when s...Judith Curry seems to have a 'tell' when she's lying or obfuscating. A breathy sniff. She sniffed every time she spoke.Ceisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12831378692022001009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-39908690876717453652015-12-10T07:25:42.658+11:002015-12-10T07:25:42.658+11:00I laughed at that too.
Cruz seems to just parrot...I laughed at that too.<br /><br /> Cruz seems to just parrot rubbish and present deceitful graphs from anti science bloggers like the fake 'Steve Goddard' so try hearing could have been called 'Blogma or Science?'Ceisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12831378692022001009noreply@blogger.com