tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post6620514745432903076..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: What motivates Walter Donway to reject climate science?Souhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-78910563928271897502016-10-02T01:13:53.116+10:002016-10-02T01:13:53.116+10:00The term "free market" and the denial of...The term "free market" and the denial of climate change are signals to which group they belong. Pledges of allegiance. <br /><br />We will not solve this problem by discussing science, we will solve the problem in the USA by getting money out of politics and making the country more democratic again.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-29074488102920979522016-10-02T01:10:27.246+10:002016-10-02T01:10:27.246+10:00Dear Walter, do not worry there is vigorous and op...Dear Walter, do not worry there is vigorous and open debate in climate science and there are real difficult problems, such as changes in extreme weather and local (rather than global) changes.<br /><br />It is hard to be confident about reality. But with with a clear head it is easy to see that the trivial nonsense and conspiracy theories of WUWT & Co. are wrong. <br /><br />I do not know why mitigation sceptics focus on fake problems, but it may be related to such fake problems being easier to explain to people who have only a casual understanding of climate change. (Like I only have a casual understanding of most topics outside of climate change.)Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-64813054180245519372016-10-01T00:35:52.273+10:002016-10-01T00:35:52.273+10:00@ sou
yes it's shame the actual science is s...@ sou <br /><br />yes it's shame the actual science is so much more interesting than all the pseudoscience/politics/economics that the "skeptics" seem to buy into <br /><br /><br />and imo mentioning ones views on "markets" or "liberty" is a red flag when discussing science<br /><br />they do it so often I don't think they actually realise Tadaaahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07736188830660481871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-23854025283579024962016-09-30T18:24:54.436+10:002016-09-30T18:24:54.436+10:00Tadaa, Walter can't hear you. He is deafened (...Tadaa, Walter can't hear you. He is deafened (and blinded) by his ideology, claiming that climate science is an affront to free markets and free thought. Yes, he rejects climate science because he thinks it conflicts with his Ayn Rand religion and free market ideology (which isn't really free market but is ideology). He made that very clear multiple times in his article and his comments there.<br /><br />However, I'm sure other people will be reading the article with interest, if they haven't already. It's worth it.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-19611911712813106832016-09-30T18:20:26.728+10:002016-09-30T18:20:26.728+10:00@WDonway
Autocorrect!@WDonway <br />Autocorrect!Jammy Dodgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08360437479098314946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-10237643378743626442016-09-30T18:19:02.657+10:002016-09-30T18:19:02.657+10:00@WON WAY
"I can't understand why she spe...@WON WAY<br /> <i>"I can't understand why she spends so much time on it."</i><br /><br />Why do you spend so much time on it? Or WUWT?Jammy Dodgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08360437479098314946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-52068209221079840552016-09-30T18:13:57.475+10:002016-09-30T18:13:57.475+10:00@WDonway
You offered praise also to another denier...@WDonway<br />You offered praise also to another denier who was equally vacuous. No thanks to anyone who disagreed with you! Of course, you do not want to be seen disagreeing with them however poor their critical thinking.<br /><br />Perhaps it would be better if you said what you actually think.<br /><br />Jammy Dodgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08360437479098314946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-31973536423566361182016-09-30T17:08:38.867+10:002016-09-30T17:08:38.867+10:00@walter
an interesting and well written article I...@walter<br /><br />an interesting and well written article I read yesterday (ht attp)is here <br /><br />http://www.corporateknights.com/channels/climate-and-carbon/sensitivity-training-14750388/#.V-vc3WY0cNc.twitter<br /><br />what is great about the article is that it articulates very clearly what we do know - about the climate (and climate science) and what the uncertainties are<br /><br />it is often the case that climate science is accused of being "settled" - presumably a technique to push the "arrogant elitist scientist" meme<br /><br />this is off course like many arguments against climate science a gross over simplification and simply belies an ignorance of the actualities<br /><br />the linked article gives a clear explanation, with examples of why this is not the case<br /><br /> <br /><br /><br /><br />Tadaaahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07736188830660481871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-26387518736479092732016-09-30T15:00:49.136+10:002016-09-30T15:00:49.136+10:00Both of the quoted "fads" are not from t...Both of the quoted "fads" are not from the physical sciences and are used as a convenience to support a personal view of the conclusions from an area of a totally unrelated field of science. <br />In strict terms, lobotomies or leukotomies were not a "fad" and still occur today although in very small numbers (an average of around 5 per year would be common in some Western countries). In a historical context, leukotomies were not a fad as there were no alternative therapies such as neuroleptics for treating psychoses when leukotomy was first used in the 1930s to treat affective disorders and schizophrenia.George Montgomeryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07042191140401441348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-8757311522975879092016-09-30T12:32:17.222+10:002016-09-30T12:32:17.222+10:00Correction: One surgical procedure and one psych p...Correction: One surgical procedure and one psych practice, neither of which was embraced by "entire" professions, by the way. The argument that 97% (plus) of the entire field of climate science is wrong because a couple of medical practices were flawed some decades ago, is nuts.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-61342671843309175962016-09-30T12:23:58.062+10:002016-09-30T12:23:58.062+10:00BTW - it wasn't a huge effort. HotWhopper spec...BTW - it wasn't a huge effort. HotWhopper specialises in debunking wacky pseudo-science. I've learnt a lot about climate pseudo-science over the years, the types of people who push it or embrace it, and their various motivations. Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-76254781920285963952016-09-30T12:05:46.075+10:002016-09-30T12:05:46.075+10:00Walter, as I suggested to you on Savvy Street, you...Walter, as I suggested to you on Savvy Street, you would benefit from getting out of the deniosphere and learning a little bit about climate science.<br /><br />To compare two poorly executed surgical techniques with an entire field of science going back 200 years, as if they were directly comparable, shows you have no conception of climate science. (It's like claiming medical science is a hoax because - "Helicobacter pylori".)<br /><br />If someone who has barely the vaguest of understanding of something rejects it anyway, they just look like a dill. If they refuse to learn about it, and publish multiple articles arguing it's a passing fad, it <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/08/marginalised-alienated-and-put-upon.html" rel="nofollow">shows them to be more</a> than merely being a dill.<br /><br />At least take a few months and learn some more about what it is you think is nothing more than a passing fad. There are plenty of <a href="https://www.hotwhopper.com/wiki/doku.php?id=climate:climate_resources" rel="nofollow">easy to read websites</a> that will explain how CO2 is a whole lot more than plant food. Then there are the <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml" rel="nofollow">IPCC reports</a>, which you wrongly dismissed as being "political" (when you don't even know what the IPCC is or how the reports are compiled).<br /><br />If you start to investigate your own claims and the various alternative claims you'll read at places like WUWT, and go to the science itself, you'll learn about <a href="http://sealevel.colorado.edu/" rel="nofollow">sea level</a>, and <a href="https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/" rel="nofollow">ocean heat content</a>, and <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/09/crikey-hottest-august-on-record-vies.html" rel="nofollow">surface temperature</a>, and <a href="https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/bulletin-of-the-american-meteorological-society-bams/explaining-extreme-events-from-a-climate-perspective/" rel="nofollow">extreme weather</a>, and you might even get to understand what the greenhouse effect is. If you explore the<a href="https://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm" rel="nofollow"> history of climate science</a>, you'll see it is not a passing fad.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-49844223101831804002016-09-30T08:32:13.406+10:002016-09-30T08:32:13.406+10:00Well, this is LOT of work by HotWhopper to devote ...Well, this is LOT of work by HotWhopper to devote to one article deemed just another false, badly motivated, and supposedly not well written article in a very small online publication ("Savvy Street"). I can't understand why she spends so much time on it. When Anthony Watts picked it up for his site, publishing it unknown to me, it did attract more hits. I since have linked a few more things to his site, but I am troubled by his site, as I am by this one, that ALL its readers and commentors seem ONLY to agree with one another, affirm one another, and attack the motives and intelligence of the other side. There is very little other contemporary science with which I have any disagreement. Fads do run through science and can become incredibly destructive. The developer of the "frontal lobotomy," who received a Nobel Prize in Medicine for his work, led to crude brain surgery that left tens of thousands of patients in mental hospitals for life (one was my uncle Tony in Worcester State Hospital). A more recent incredibly damaging scientific fad was sudden recall of repressed memories of sexual abuse, that put some thousand parents in court accused of abusing their children until the whole craze collapsed and disappeared. There ARE fads in science, and always have been, that seize the whole profession and its professional organizations...and then collapse. My guess,not proven here, of course, is that "global warming" will be one these. It has all the signs of these earlier crazes. But, apart from these few issues, I enjoy, support, and glory in the discoveries of science. I was founding editor of "Cerebrum: The Dana Forum on Brain Science." WDonwayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03377822672846969586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-89874914756508840632016-09-30T08:11:52.997+10:002016-09-30T08:11:52.997+10:00My reply about "very interesting" was a ...My reply about "very interesting" was a careless euphemism, I guess. I should have said, which I meant, "I am too say the least noncommital until I see some evidence that that.WDonwayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03377822672846969586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-11789891227223461952016-09-30T08:09:02.923+10:002016-09-30T08:09:02.923+10:00I believe that Vinay Kolhatar cleared up that prob...I believe that Vinay Kolhatar cleared up that problem right away and you acknowledged and thanked him that all your comments are posted, now.WDonwayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03377822672846969586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-3460910806774000922016-09-30T08:03:12.748+10:002016-09-30T08:03:12.748+10:00I think the editor Vinay Kolhatkar, has cleared up...I think the editor Vinay Kolhatkar, has cleared up that problem, now.WDonwayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03377822672846969586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-52301153770996311492016-09-22T05:45:13.730+10:002016-09-22T05:45:13.730+10:00http://www.thesavvystreet.com/why-i-deny-big-clima...http://www.thesavvystreet.com/why-i-deny-big-climate-alarmism/<br />Walter Donway • 5 hours ago<br />For those who want to know more about the ruthless persecution of scientists who challenge Big Climate alarmisn, and what are the tactics of these attacks, see my article listed at the top of the Home Page, "Another 'Climate Denier' Stomped" about the incredible attack on Willy Soon, an astrophysist, who has been extremely strong and consistent in producing peer-reviewed scientific papers that undercut the supposed case for Big Climate alarmism.<br /><br />Following response removed (with and without my comment):<br /><br />https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry<br />"A prominent academic and climate change denier’s work was funded almost entirely by the energy industry, receiving more than $1.2m from companies, lobby groups and oil billionaires over more than a decade, newly released documents show.<br /><br />"Over the last 14 years Willie Soon, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, received a total of $1.25m from Exxon Mobil, Southern Company, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and a foundation run by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers, the documents obtained by Greenpeace through freedom of information filings show.<br /><br />"According to the documents, the biggest single funder was Southern Company, one of the country’s biggest electricity providers that relies heavily on coal..."<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Soon<br />"Soon disputes the current scientific understanding of climate change, and contends that most global warming is caused by solar variation rather than by human activity.[7][8] He gained visibility in part due to scientific criticism of the methodology of a paper which he co-wrote.[9] Climate scientists have refuted Soon's arguments, and the Smithsonian does not support his conclusions, but he is frequently cited by politicians opposed to climate-change legislation.[4][10]"<br /><br />Don't kid yourself, buddy, you're not supporting "scientific" scepticism. You're just a common or garden-variety denier whose views are based on incredulity and ignorance. Dennis Hornehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578896991480042320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-88320237242928537362016-09-21T06:01:27.096+10:002016-09-21T06:01:27.096+10:00Isn't it, Victor? Can't wait!Isn't it, Victor? Can't wait!Jammy Dodgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08360437479098314946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-29429265699312533172016-09-21T05:40:22.352+10:002016-09-21T05:40:22.352+10:00Cliffhanger! Cliffhanger! Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-47921005486586297422016-09-21T04:21:26.727+10:002016-09-21T04:21:26.727+10:00I noticed that too, Jammy.
What's the bet he...I noticed that too, Jammy. <br /><br />What's the bet he claims he is another born again denier. He used to "believe" until he found a denier blog that said what he wanted to believe, and then he stopped looking any further.<br /><br />That's the usual way of things. He'll have to work hard to come up with a fresh angle. He's a writer, so he might have a brainwave and come up with something original.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-57137887240458661252016-09-21T04:02:03.436+10:002016-09-21T04:02:03.436+10:00And also in that comment:
"In the second par...And also in that comment:<br /><br />"In the second part, I intended to state my reasons for "denying big climate alarmism. So I have not even gotten around to a formal statement of my reasons."<br /><br />So that's why Walter's article did not answer the question of "Why I Deny Big Climate Alarmism". He is saving it all up for another fact free article!Jammy Dodgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08360437479098314946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-43643930316542845252016-09-21T03:23:47.292+10:002016-09-21T03:23:47.292+10:00Walter singled out the wackiest comment of them al...Walter singled out <a href="http://www.thesavvystreet.com/why-i-deny-big-climate-alarmism/#comment-2905940458" rel="nofollow">the wackiest comment</a> of them all, <a href="http://www.thesavvystreet.com/why-i-deny-big-climate-alarmism/#comment-2906544321" rel="nofollow">thanking the commenter and saying</a> the comment was "very interesting". The commenter thought that the US military was going to use guns to enforce Agenda21 - an "Oh My!" comment if ever there was one.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-72801983797544615122016-09-21T02:32:59.895+10:002016-09-21T02:32:59.895+10:00Ah, libertarians. God's gift to... well, someb...Ah, libertarians. God's gift to... well, somebody, I suppose.<br /><br />(Perhaps they're more of a re-gift.)Magmanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-48042042166379757472016-09-21T02:12:35.101+10:002016-09-21T02:12:35.101+10:00Yes, the dialogue is very badly written. Hard to b...Yes, the dialogue is very badly written. Hard to believe it is real.<br /><br /><a href="http://easthamptonstar.com/Letters-Editor/2012718/Letters-Editor-071912" rel="nofollow">I found this gem</a> from 2012: "<i>David Koch is not a billionaire suddenly jumping into politics to skewer Mr. Obama. For decades, he has been one of the most intellectual, principled, and active players in politics. His millions have helped to found and support political-intellectual think tanks, from the Cato Institute to the Reason Foundation. This was not election politics; this was intellectual research and education over the long term. ...<br /> That this educated, talented, generous, and politically committed man should be crudely attacked outside his home with bad puns and jeers at his guests (“Go Home Koch Whores”) by protesters as rude as they are uninformed and unintellectual, makes me wonder what I am doing in the Hamptons, beaches and scenery or no.<br />WALTER DONWAY</i>"Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-2841604696532192772016-09-20T18:29:52.767+10:002016-09-20T18:29:52.767+10:00I'm guessing that the mods at the site where W...I'm guessing that the mods at the site where Walter penned his article are in favour of selective free speech, and show it by not polluting the comments section with posts that link to articles like this one. (My first comment got through, but not <a href="https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B3vgLnArj2aXeWxTd25faDh3RTQ" rel="nofollow">the second</a>, so far.)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.com