tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post6174353993757063352..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: More on John Cook in Bristol, what WUWT won't tell youSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-31939545620687248392014-09-23T06:08:13.149+10:002014-09-23T06:08:13.149+10:00And not having pissed off every one before hand wi...And not having pissed off every one before hand with accusations of fraud.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17266230551097322977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-31163466215909090882014-09-22T20:52:26.118+10:002014-09-22T20:52:26.118+10:00I've used the Cargo Cult analogy myself. It no...I've used the Cargo Cult analogy myself. It not only applies to science, but to the forms of evidence-based debate. Some of the most persistent deniers imitate most of the forms that are seen when one successfully prosecutes an evidence-based argument including the specific language and the names for various concepts up to and including various fallacies...<br /><br />...only they don't demonstrate that the forms they use actually apply to the argument at hand (often including failing to stump up evidence that supports it).<br /><br />It's quite a staggering thing to watch. You can point out until you're blue in the face that merely alleging that someone is engaging in fallacy X is meaningless unless you actually that they are doing so, and that asserting that the evidence leans heavily towards your conclusion and away from the others means nothing unless you both cite the evidence and promote a valid argument for inferring your conclusion from it. And they will go around and around this Cargo Cult debate loop, apparently forever.<br /><br />Another perspective might be that they're engaging in something many politicians and business leaders and (especially) PR people engage in - stating what they wish people to believe (or if you're more charitable, what they wish was true) as if it were already true. <br /><br />It's almost like a wish-fulfilment affirmation or an incantation - if only I say sincerely enough what I wish were true, then surely it will be!Lotharssonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-53782405584139160632014-09-22T08:07:10.782+10:002014-09-22T08:07:10.782+10:00Do I remember it right that the only question of A...Do I remember it right that the only question of Anthony Watts at AGU was about nuclear power? For a conference about geoscience that is about as close you can get to <i>not</i> asking a question while producing some sounds. Not much changed.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-860909090755418302014-09-22T05:26:30.355+10:002014-09-22T05:26:30.355+10:00I suspect that what people like Watts and McIntyre...I suspect that what people like Watts and McIntyre don't realise is that even relatively junior researchers may have attended a good number of conferences and met many of those who work in their field a good number of times. It's not that there is a "club", it's that you simply know people. ...and Then There's Physicshttp://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-49300607130523307372014-09-22T00:47:56.635+10:002014-09-22T00:47:56.635+10:00Feynman said it quite well:
“Ordinary fools are a...Feynman said it quite well:<br /><br />“Ordinary fools are all right; you can talk to them, and try to help them out. But pompous fools - guys who are fools and are covering it all over and impressing people as to how wonderful they are with all this hocus locus -THAT, I CANNOT STAND! <br />An ordinary fool isn't a faker; an honest fool is all right. But a dishonest fool is terrible!”<br /><br />http://ingeniouspursuits.blogspot.com/2014/02/a-richard-feynman-primer-for-deniers.html<br />citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-16081654499611640672014-09-22T00:03:42.740+10:002014-09-22T00:03:42.740+10:00With regard to Watt's insecurities and wanting...With regard to Watt's insecurities and wanting to be part of the "club". I seem to recall that same sort of attitude on McIntyre's part at one AGU meeting, (no I wasn't there) and having it show up in the comments at RealClimate.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17266230551097322977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-18889465894653416812014-09-21T19:36:12.861+10:002014-09-21T19:36:12.861+10:00http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/04/18/pseudoskeptic...http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/04/18/pseudoskeptics-are-not-skepticsJohn Masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-78228944358916738772014-09-21T17:40:13.827+10:002014-09-21T17:40:13.827+10:00I have been trying for some time now to come up wi...I have been trying for some time now to come up with a simple analogy that I could use to explain to "Skeptics" why what they are doing isn't science. Then I thought of the Cargo Cult analogy, and funnily enough, found that Richard Feynman had got there before me! In a speech in 1974,he coined the term "Cargo Cult Science". But He tells it much better than me....<br /><br />"In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they've arranged to imitate things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas--he's the controller--and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land."<br /><br />This is exactly what the Denial Machine does:<br />They have Fake theories propounded by Fake scientists<br />Publish in Fake Science Journals with Fake peer review<br />For fake,pseudo scientific journals ("Think Tanks")<br /><br />But somehow the Climate Skeptics can't see it is all wrong, mainly because most of them do not have a sufficient grounding in science to follow the argument, whilst being totally confident that they "know enough" (aka Billy Bob).<br /><br />So yes, they are just like the south sea island natives. They think they have all the structures in place, with their own scientists, Journals and various (Big Oil funded) organisations, but they don't realise it is all useless; their planes are never gonna land.Chucknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-88796045840904525752014-09-21T16:25:46.753+10:002014-09-21T16:25:46.753+10:00BTW - there were no accusations of "evil"...BTW - there were no accusations of "evil" directed at anyone who comments here. The "evil" comment was how Kevin described his category 4 - disinformers who knowingly propagate lies about climate. That sort of thing is immoral, surely. I can understand, given the consequences of increasing CO2 emissions, many would agree that deliberately generating propaganda aimed at increasing CO2 emissions is an evil thing to do.<br /><br />I've no problem with a comment like that at all. Perhaps you can elaborate if you think it's over the top.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-53405255327330190772014-09-21T16:19:39.393+10:002014-09-21T16:19:39.393+10:00Thanks. I possibly allow commenters who accept sci...Thanks. I possibly allow commenters who accept science a bit more slack than those who don't - as far as snark goes. Not sure about that. There aren't too many science blogs where people can let off steam at the foolishness and worse elsewhere on the internet. <br /><br />I do delete some comments though. Eg I don't generally allow extreme language or allusions to physical violence or over the top personal attacks (regardless of their take on science).<br /><br />People who question science generate lots of comments. It's common blog knowledge that to go against the stream generates discussion :D (It's what trolls trade on too.)<br /><br />On the plus side, they provide more examples of memes that can be demolished. Just the same, there are limits to what can be tolerated. The last thing I want is to have HotWhopper turn into a Curry-style gish gallop where laypersons can't distinguish nonsense from science. And regular readers have said the same thing.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-4133405461966049432014-09-21T13:42:42.186+10:002014-09-21T13:42:42.186+10:00I generally agree with what you've said. I don...I generally agree with what you've said. I don't have a problem with snark and you're gracious enough to tell everybody to expect it on your blog. <br /><br />Something that pissed me off no end when I read the blogs of Morhasy, Jo Nova, Watts and the like, is that morons are allowed to get away with saying the dumbest shit. On Jo's site someone commented they wished the Sept 11 hijackers had hit the UN building, and nobody stood up and said hey, that's bullshit, you're a stupid sack of dicks. When I had a go at this douchbag some dumbarse even jumped to his defence. The thing is many blogs are tarnished by the brush of the people who comment there. <br /><br />I like this blog and I like reading the comments, and I, perhaps stupidly, feel an obligation to say I think throwing around accusations of being evil is stupid. <br /><br />Having someone like BillyBob around can make the comments more interesting, and while I might not agree with what he says, he actually seems like a reasonable dude. I don't think Billy is another Viscount Eugene Dyson Worrell and will hijack every thread squealing incessantly about eugenics. <br /><br />Rational TrollAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-45256235427806678012014-09-21T12:47:16.206+10:002014-09-21T12:47:16.206+10:00Rational Troll - on your tone criticisms:
Billy B...Rational Troll - on your tone criticisms:<br /><br />Billy Bob does seem like he might be a nice guy or it could be the onboard persona he's chosen to adopt. Who knows? His comments so far suggest a bit of both, with him flip-flopping between folksy/dumb and articulate/educated. <br /><br />Whatever - he comes here to be challenged or, more likely, to challenge. I don't let him get away with making up stuff or making bald wrong statements based on nothing at all. This blog is not about being nice to people spouting denialisms.<br /><br />Also your reference to "evil" and "stupid" stuff is from the comments, not from my articles. It was Billy Bob himself who made much of it.<br /><br />Billy Bob could be ignored or mildly rebuked if not for the fact that he keeps making up stuff. In my experience, after a while, some deniers get way out of hand here. They start posting comment after comment in quick succession, full of nonsense if not downright defamatory (usually of scientists). Billy Bob hasn't gone that far by the way. <br /><br />I prefer not to delete posts and only ban people for extreme behaviour. Moving comments to the HotWhoppery is a pain. When mild rebukes don't get through, I up the ante.<br /><br />I don't think anything in the comments will chase people away. While not as civil as ATTP or SkS, the general tone of HW comments are in keeping with the style of the blog. We don't go overboard. I don't permit the sort of crap in the comments that you get at places like WUWT. I do insist on a certain level of decorum. People are more likely to decide whether to read HW based on the articles. It's not for everyone. There are plenty of other places where people can discuss climate and learn about it.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-17658032558848572042014-09-21T12:17:58.802+10:002014-09-21T12:17:58.802+10:00Billy Bob seems like a reasonalbly decent guy, may...Billy Bob seems like a reasonalbly decent guy, maybe there's a danger of chasing away people just because we don't agree. I know this is a snark blog and that's to be expected, but maybe let's relax a bit. All this are you "evil" or just stupid stuff is a bit over the top. <br /><br /><br />Basically what is comes down to for people like me, who don't have specialist knowledge of the area, is a question of what's more likely. Given the history of industry downplaying the dangers of their products, lead, asbestos, tobacco etc, it doesn't seem unlikely that the same thing is going on with the fossil fuel industry. <br /><br />Then there's the allegation that researchers are just towing the government line for the money, this is an area where I actually have knowledge, and it seems like a pretty bullshit claim to me. Research grants don't make anyone rich, nearly all of the money goes into doing the actual research, often they're hardly enough to live off. It's also a massive pain in the arse to jump through the endless array of hoops to actually get one. <br /><br />Finally there's this crap about it's all under control of the Government, I mean come on. It pisses me off no end that on the sceptic blogs no body seems to challenge the absloute stupidity of these claims. No Western Government is going to benefit from introducing legislation to address Climate Change, we've just seen the recently departed Labor Goverment basically lose power because of it. The now Liberal party is doing their best to ignore it. If I was some maniacial despot I'd actually be more inclined to do nothing and then reap the rewards when the shit hits the fan.<br /><br />Just a thought...<br /><br />Rational TrollAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-7454345364042483152014-09-21T11:12:55.376+10:002014-09-21T11:12:55.376+10:00About feeling bullied by science, at WUWT deniers ...About feeling bullied by science, at WUWT deniers are used being the 98%, not the 3%. The difference is that the 98% can't agree on anything about climate science, except that they don't want to do anything to stop global warming (though they can't agree on whether or not it exists).<br /><br /><a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/05/about-that-97-not-great-moment-for-wuwt.html" rel="nofollow">http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/05/about-that-97-not-great-moment-for-wuwt.html</a>Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-26743604422499348782014-09-21T11:04:30.756+10:002014-09-21T11:04:30.756+10:00He is a 'persona non data'. Which term app...He is a 'persona non data'. Which term applies to individuals who abhor knowledge. Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge. Say no more.<br />GMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-55104299976165867282014-09-21T10:31:26.923+10:002014-09-21T10:31:26.923+10:00A friend of mine who knows Andrew Bolt related to ...A friend of mine who knows Andrew Bolt related to me how he regards his ignorance as an advantage. Apparently his mistakes ignorance of a subject for independence, or perhaps even for objectivity.<br /><br />Or maybe he knows full well that ignorance is no substitute for knowledge and is just making excuses for his behaviour.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-10323839601198770592014-09-21T10:27:17.102+10:002014-09-21T10:27:17.102+10:00"I'd be more likely to find myself face t..."I'd be more likely to find myself face to face with Australian blogger Andrew Bolt …"<br />This 2 minute Shaun Macallef video may provide some background (at 1 min 15 sec) on the integrity and accuracy of any of Andrew Bolt's <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtabDcnNgzU" rel="nofollow"> "opinion pieces"</a>. Macallef and Bolt both attended Adelaide University; Bolt for 1 year of a BA(failed) [in the apocraphyl tradition of Indian letter writers penning letters for the illiterate] and Macallef for 4 years completing his law degree [worked for 10 years, specialising in insurance law].<br />This blog article may provide some indication of Bolt's struggle with basic research and his <a href="http://grogsgamut.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/andrew-bolt-trends-towards-dodgy-graphs.html" rel="nofollow"> trend towards dodgy graphs</a>; not to mention his lack of mathematical ability and accuracy. <br />Bolt’s favourite mantra that there has been a "statistically insignificant" global warming trend over the past 15/16/17/18 years is "statistically inaccurate" i.e. it's not the trend that's "not statistically significant" (excuse the double negative). This term actually references the wide scatter or variability of the data, i.e. the noise, with the short period of the data so that "firm" conclusions can't be drawn about the actual trend. Although, from the "dodgy graphs" link from Jan 2013, Bolt recants about the GISTEMP data saying that it shows a "mild warming". He's all over the place.<br />GMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-29121835933957370982014-09-21T09:20:52.529+10:002014-09-21T09:20:52.529+10:00@Barry. Haven't a clue why you prefaced that w...@Barry. Haven't a clue why you prefaced that with "ref your comment above". It's not the least relevant to Anthony defaming Professor Lewandowsky or suddenly faking concern about bullying - which is hilarious for a bully, esp given WUWT. But whatever.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-79031293539828160672014-09-21T08:42:56.272+10:002014-09-21T08:42:56.272+10:00I have no doubt that Morano is a sociopath.
Watts...I have no doubt that Morano is a sociopath.<br /><br />Watts is very stupid, and shows evidence of being very insecure about it. His defensiveness, his need for attention and approval, his arrested emotional development. He's the weak kid who hangs with a bully's cronies.<br /><br />Lindzen I despise because he had a choice how to be, and chose to be who he is. Spencer and Christy only rate contempt.Cugelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-33373014799860822402014-09-21T08:04:57.081+10:002014-09-21T08:04:57.081+10:00Sou- ref your comment above - Anthony is 80% heari...Sou- ref your comment above - Anthony is 80% hearing impaired and that type of (very noisy) environment is difficult for him.. The Cabot Institute were very professional and had made suitable accessibility arrangements for the talk. but before and after must have been difficult<br />Barry Woodshttp://www.unsettledclimate.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-83657864388824129332014-09-21T07:19:51.152+10:002014-09-21T07:19:51.152+10:00Morano is also a skilful media performer away from...Morano is also a skilful media performer away from CD. That's how he earned MMA's Misinformer of the Year award.PGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10807913317731807617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-10142932281639878522014-09-21T07:05:43.139+10:002014-09-21T07:05:43.139+10:00In-person meetings can be fun to watch.
Back ~2005...In-person meetings can be fun to watch.<br />Back ~2005, friends across the street invited me to a <a href="http://www-group.slac.stanford.edu/do/brichter/presentations/2004_10_05.htm" rel="nofollow">talk by Burt Richter</a> on climate and energy in their homeowners' association meeting room, about 30 people. Burt is a Nobel Physicist (which does not per se make him a climate expert), but after he "retired" he studied up on climate by talking to experts, noting in his book that a Nobel does tend to open doors.:-) He drove an APS task force on energy efficiency and later wrote a book ("Smoke and Mirrors"). I.,e., serious guy<br /><br />So, here was a meeting of local people. The first part of Burt's talk resembled Inconvenient Truth, although less flashy. When we got to Q&A, 2 guys sitting together started to pepper Burt with questions right out of the dismissive playbook well cataloged by now at Skeptical Science.<br /><br />Burt answered them patiently, but finally got tired, and said something like:<br />you guys are repeating nonsense started by physicists* I know personally, who've gone to the dark side and I don't think much of them.<br /><br />At that point, the pair visibly shriveled in their seats, suddenly realizing that:<br />a) Nobel physicists who've studied up on climate might know more than they did<br />b) They'd just looked like fools in front of their neighbors<br /><br />When we broke for coffee, they slunk out without talking to anyone.<br /><br />*I had a pretty good idea who he was talking about, as would anybody who's read Merchants of Doubt.John Masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-25719250552803825952014-09-21T06:17:16.629+10:002014-09-21T06:17:16.629+10:00The John Oliver video only looks like bullying bec...The John Oliver video only looks like bullying because you have the 97 in the same room and all speaking at once as the 3. It was a brilliantly satirical bit showing how isolated the 3% actually are. I thought it odd that Anthony posted it since he clearly didn't get the point of it.Catmandohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12313870265499015076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-45945390252399287002014-09-21T06:07:48.255+10:002014-09-21T06:07:48.255+10:00Seconding that recommendation. Weart's book sw...Seconding that recommendation. Weart's book sweetly illustrates the smooth continuity of investigation leading to our present assessment. dbostromhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13885863615343906724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-73186103747250601712014-09-21T05:46:31.314+10:002014-09-21T05:46:31.314+10:00Watts and Morano are both old enough to know bette...Watts and Morano are both old enough to know better, but I don't see them in quite the same light. <br /><br />Watts, I think, is simply not as smart as he thinks he is, to put it politely, and apparently incapable of self-reflection -- hence his blatant hyporcrisy (e..g, saying Hansen and Mann should be fired while howling loudly when that loony chem instructor from U of Oregon was let go). <br /><br />Morano, on the other hand, has a long track record of political dirty tricks. It's hard for me to see him as anything other than lying liar who tells lies. palindromnoreply@blogger.com