Welcome to HotWhopper Chat
Before you post, read the introduction to HotWhopper Chat in the Wiki.
Welcome to HotWhopper Chat!
Whether you're new to climate topics or an expert you are most welcome. Before you can comment you'll need to register or sign in. Click one of the buttons below.
Forums
In this Discussion
Where Australia's electricity comes from
This widget is updated every couple of minutes and shows why Australia is such a huge GHG emitter.
Scott Adams of Dilbert had a climate "sceptic" rant, my reply
Scott Adams: The Non-Expert Problem and Climate Change Science
http://variable-variability.blogspot.de/2016/12/scott-adams-non-expert-problem-climate-change.html
Comments
The magicians slight of hand that always tracks the eyes away from the real action.
I'm going to try a more direct, less politically correct approach (I hear politically correct has gone out of style in the US, so I'm going to allow myself to give it a try some.)
Hell, now I'm even starting pissing matches
http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2016/12/calling-out-truthoutorg.html
http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2016/12/presidential-vote-recount-truthoutorg.html
but not with you
I'll admit I only know Adams from his cartoons which I've usually found rather dull though I'll do my best not to bring that ad hom into this - don't know much about his following.
Don't get me wrong, what you wrote was good - and needed! Since too many people with some following put out garbage like that which is never confronted.
I just want to try it from a slightly different perspective, unfortunately, today begins with a couple unexpected chores so we'll see if I actually get around to what I'm hoping to write, well and then see if I can make anything out of it.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
CitizenschallengeAE • 12 hours ago
_________________________________
PS. Asimov spoke to the above misconception quite eloquently: The Relativity of Wrong
http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jack D to citizenschallengeAE • 10 hours ago:
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
My response:
How interesting you would choose Eugenics. I didn’t see that coming, but it makes sense for the crowd.
For starters I hope you can at least acknowledge that Eugenics has nothing to do with Darwin's work - it was an opportunistic idea, - sort of like denying the solidity of the science behind Human Driven Global Warming these days, is an opportunistic idea that special interests have embraced and invested a fortunate into, for purely agenda driven, and decidedly dishonest, PR purposes - devoid of all serious commitment to constructive learning.
Seems to me Eugenics was all about achieving an outcome. Thus even though some "scientists" the Lindzens, Singers, Seitzs (I dare say) may show undying support of the contrived fiction - the label "pseudo-science" fits Eugenics as it does the climate science contrarian crowd and the contrived, transparent bs they peddle.
{ But, okay, as has been pointed out in other places, this discussion has nothing to do with considering serious science, it's all about public perceptions and how they are manipulated - as though that should be our guide. }
Back to Eugenics, after a little refresher, I'll admit it seems more scientists supported it than I had imaged - but then that was a pretty racist, bigoted, self-certain bunch of rich white men running America’s academic institutions, who were doing all this "science" - don't suppose that raises any red flags for you?
Eugenics was never a constructive learning process - which to me is how I define science - there was always something purely utilitarian and opportunistic about it.
Again exactly like the climate science denial machine of our own era. I’m glad you brought it up, the more I think about it the more compelling similarities I see.
They eat any flimflam that suits their purposes.
Folks like us, on the other, deal with the world as it is, tougher, but richer experience for sure.
Best concentrate on what they do over what they say.
Every year we get more hard evidence, going into ever more exquisite detail - but all we are doing is documenting unremitting degradation of the geo-physical processes that we are utterly dependent on.
What the hell good is shaving down the error margin from 30% to 3% if there's no increase in appreciation of the fundamental basics which are absolutely certain?
As for what they are doing - look to America, and they are damned successful. So we'd better come up with new strategies because the momentum certainly isn't on the rationalists side.
_____________
Anyways I got sidetracked with something more pressing. How I wish others realized how fleeting our (USAs) moment of opportunity is to minimize the coming destruction. On the other side we have ruthless driven people who's only concern is there own self interest and you'd better bet recking some revenge along the way - against that is the America people and what's left of its Democracy, yet most are too apathetic to even realize what's going down.
It’s Official: Trump will be USA’s Russian Obligate President (at CFI).
REJECT Trump the Russian Obligate - a national security threat
http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2016/12/reject-russian-obligate-trump.htmlThe said he would drain the swamp, but nearly all the cabinet position filled are people who gave money to Trump or the Republican party. What counts is what he does. This will likely be the worst corporate rule America has seen.
Donald Trump: Stop appointing campaign donors to your administration.
https://tytnetwork.com/public_html/petition/
Yes, you should also respond to the dreadful things and the contradictions, but do not keep your eye off the ball. When he tweets insane stuff, this will be spread by other and the outrage loving media, you better spread the more boring factual story he tries to distract people from.
BTW, now that The Donald has selected Rex Tillerson as Sec'y of State, we're more or less officially the United States of Exxon rather than the United States of America. Maybe we're being more honest with the world now.
Then I finished that Scott Adams roast, now I'm going to bed.
You know I don't want to get too pissy, but it sure worked good for those guys.
Most of his blog posts include Adams professing to believe in climate change. He then explains this is because that is the socially safe choice. He would be ridiculed for being a denier, so it is better to be a believer.
His current blog post "What if climate change causes more CO2" is a typical exercise in self contradiction. If Venema. CitizensChallenge, or Sou want to snark a little bit in their next posts about Adams, here is a thought.
- He opens his current post with his standard profession that climate change is real and important
- He reiterates: "My view is that climate scientists are more likely right than not, but
the quality of their persuasion is worse than that of the skeptics on
this topic."
At the same time:- He presents hooey theories and generally tries to throw a lot of denialist doubt around.
- He repeatedly ridicules climate scientists for not following his (Adams') rules of persuasion.
Many of Adams' posts are about how he is a "Master Persuader," and often promote his book on this topic. While many of his climate change posts have the same bullet points as above.So my question to Scott Adams is: Why don't *you* pick up the mantle of persuading the public of climate change? If you believe climate science is correct, and you are a master persuader, and the climate scientists are doing it all wrong, shouldn't *you* be showing us how to do it right?
Current 2 Jan 2016 post:
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/155304094981/what-if-climate-change-causes-more-co2 .
Great point.
Just visited over there. Boy talk about visiting Lalaland, are all those commenters just hired guns or are their really that many totally uninformed people around.
His most recent blog post is a hoot. Except that a lot of his commenters eat it up.
Adams starts out by assuming that perhaps 99% of climate scientists don't interact with the production and analysis of any data, they just use other peoples' data. What he is talking about, it turns out, is reconstructions of mean troposphere temperatures. He then goes on to explain that these reconstructions are very difficult to produce, requiring a lot of aligning and massaging of data.
And since (he guesses) 99% of climate scientists just use the stuff, without being involved in its production, they don't know what they are talking about. Conclusion: the consensus on climate change is a house of cards, it is bunk built on air.
Wow.
I had trouble getting my mind around this "persuasion" from the get-go. Scientists without data? 99% of them? People studying ice sheets are up to their elbows in data on ice sheets. People studying coral bleaching are up to their necks in data on corals and oceans. People studying moving habitat zones are up to their keisters in data on ....
Seriously, do you know a lot of scientists who are not involved in the production and analysis of data somehow? And all those data sets, from the ice sheets, the corals, the wildlife habitats, you-name-it, point to the same conclusion. *That* is a main reason for the consensus. Each person, in their own specialty, sees the same darn climate change.
What Adams said is: If you throw out the work of 99% of climate scientists, then he might be able to argue that the consensus was built on very little.
And to top it off, he adds some self-congratulatory curlicue at the end claiming to have just used a clever rhetorical trick.
Recall that this bunk is from a self-described "master persuader." And I'm guessing he is right that a lot of folks read it and indeed find new arguments to reinforce their denier inclinations.
Which is why I wonder if Adams deserves his very own Deniosaurs Whopper thread.
Link to his 10 Feb 2017 blog posting: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/157072093411/about-the-97-of-climate-scientists
But then he goes on yodeling like a self-certain clueless fool.
Thanks for sharing, I seem to love the diversions and I left a few choice words here and there.
The Scott Adams posts on global warming are weird. He seems proud of having (in his little mind) produced clever new irrefutable arguments that climate change isn't to be believed. Climate change isn't real because he can think of some very contrived logical traps. I think he believes he is contributing in some way. Quite odd. And very self-important.
I retract my suggestion that Adams is worth addressing however. I looked through some of the swill that sluices through his comment threads. He attracts a good many wack-a-doodle alt-right haters. That they feel at home makes me want to stay away.
BatesMotel#1-US Rep Lamar Smith, Koch ties shackles behavior
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2017/02/usrep-smith-koch-shackles-behavior.htmlBatesMotel#2 - US Rep Lamar Smith - Follow the money. A collection.
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2017/02/2usrep-smith-koch-money-collection.htmlto be continued
_____________________________
But you know there is one aspect of duking it out with some of those wackos. Writing is a matter of practice, practice, practice, after that comes rewriting, rewriting, rewriting. So I see it as a sort of homework, honing skills, plus it's healthy to be forced to pursue some investigations that you otherwise may have had little interest in. It's all a learning process. But dang it all, if only some of the learning went in the other direction too.