615 replies to this topic

[bush_cheney2004]

There was a time when the average Joe realized his limitations and relied on science to do its work, and on the media to report it.

Was that back when the "scientists" donned long robes and hats with stars on them?

[Michael Hardner]

Was that back when the "scientists" donned long robes and hats with stars on them?

...yes... or 50 years ago...

[jbg]

Thanks for pointing out "johnny b good's" reference. I read your comment there. Whew!

I'm "johnny b good" now? Not even close to my name.

[Sir Bandelot]

I'm "johnny b good" now? Not even close to my name.

Oh come on now, don't leave us guessing.

I'm sure we could come up with all kinds of creative possibilities!

[jbg]

Oh come on now, don't leave us guessing.

I'm sure we could come up with all kinds of creative possibilities!

About JBG (link).

When my kids saw their sign they thought it was funny.

[Wild Bill]

Damn you sound like a pompous spoiled child at times. The thread is yours.

You know Waldo, eventually your people skills are going to result in your having no audience at all.

You're going to need a gun to get people to play with you!

[TimG]

This is exactly the problem - people telling average Joe that his opinion on climate is as valid as someone who worked on it their whole life.

Well then the people who worked on climate their whole lives should stop acting like arrogant prima donnas who manipulate the system to suit themselves and put protecting their colleagues' 'reputation' ahead of the truth.

Respect must earned. And somewhere along the way scientist forgot that and started demanding it instead of earning it.

They had help of course - all of the political operatives like Gore who see climate change as a way to achieve their political ends. They were more than happy to massage the egos of the scientists and tell them how wonderful they were. The trouble is these political operatives were a just another minority out for their our self interest. Scientists are now paying the price because the average Joe does not distinguish between a scientist and a political operative.

Edited by TimG, 06 September 2011 - 07:52 PM.

[Sir Bandelot]

About JBG (link).

When my kids saw their sign they thought it was funny.

At first I must admit I hesitated, not wanting to see what you looked like. But then I thought, oh what the heck and clicked the link.

Only to find I was directed to a company site.

Talk about disillusionment! I trusted you, and now I feel so... betrayed...

[waldo]

ah yes, where I was headed... getting TimG to qualify his vaguely sourced/defined declarative is always a challenge... so, we have been able to flush out "attribution", but not yet what constitutes the vaguely offered, "very few" and "few and far between" references. Equally, we don't have a comparative reference point... you know, how many attribution studies, standing with merit attribution studies, have been published offering an alternate linkage... an alternate other than anthropogenic based? How many of those are there, hey?

The only attribution papers in the last while have been responses to skeptical papers on the same topic.

put them up... the ones that, as I said, have standing and merit. Put them up.

The CERN and Spencer papers are two. Then your have the Linzden papers. Your opinion of these papers is irrelevant. Micheal was engaging in the rediculous exercise of judging science by counting the number of papers.

well... now we are getting somewhere. In keeping with this threads OP focus (CERN/CLOUD), let's forgo discussion on the woefully failed Spencer & Lindzen papers/premise. Let's examine your claim that the CERN results... those initial results now just recently released by CERN... are, as you say, presenting an attribution study - one that, as you say, presents an alternate premise/causal link for global warming, one other than anthropogenic based. Please support your claim that the recent CERN/CLOUD paper/results is an attribution study, one that presents a causal basis for global warming.

as for your criticism of whatever you interpret of MLW member Michael Hardner's post, it was you... you... who initiated a comparison reference in regards to, as you stated, "very few" and "few and far between".

[Michael Hardner]

They had help of course - all of the political operatives like Gore who see climate change as a way to achieve their political ends. They were more than happy to massage the egos of the scientists and tell them how wonderful they were. The trouble is these political operatives were a just another minority out for their our self interest. Scientists are now paying the price because the average Joe does not distinguish between a scientist and a political operative.

This is a symptom of our culture, and science is only a reflection of the problem.

I don't think that I would categorize scientists as you have... or to blame them which is really what you're doing. I think that many specialists are becoming frustrated with our system of debate, and this is what you're calling 'prima donna' behavior.

[TimG]

I don't think that I would categorize scientists as you have... or to blame them which is really what you're doing.

If the scientists did not want to get blamed they should not have defended Mann, Jones and the rest of the "team" when the peddle junk science. If they had taken the higher ground and criticized Mann and Jones as they deserved then it would be harder to lump them in with all of the political operatives. But that did not happen. And we see the consequences.

[waldo]

You know Waldo, eventually your people skills are going to result in your having no audience at all.

You're going to need a gun to get people to play with you!

I am... taken aback! I am noted for being a, "people person"... a, "man of the people"! Surely you have misjudged - I am inclined to perceive you have a bias... do you and I have any personal exchange history... anything recent?

perhaps you could offer some of your Dale Carnegie insight: in that one of the expressed MLW forum rules advises against someone putting up a "ta da" link, without offering any personal interpretation towards presenting some, "aspect of an argument or attempt to stimulate discussion", (notwithstanding the GostHacked (GH) "ta da" link was to a most questionable site, one that offered woefully incorrect/fabricated statements, one that only quoted noted prolific deniers)..... tell me, what would Dale Carnegie do when responding to the GH "ta da", particularly given the purposeful GH intent, particularly balanced against the historical expressed GH position? What would Dale do?

[waldo]

This is exactly the problem - people telling average Joe that his opinion on climate is as valid as someone who worked on it their whole life.

Average Joe has a lot of power, and a lot of responsibility but not a lot of interest in what's really going on.

Well then the people who worked on climate their whole lives should stop acting like arrogant prima donnas who manipulate the system to suit themselves and put protecting their colleagues' 'reputation' ahead of the truth.

arrogant prima donnas? You mean like your favoured Spencer's act with Monckton in Cancun... like that? Or Spencer's dance with the earlier Dressler paper's embargo date? Or Spencer's recent FoxNews presence where he helped to push/pump forward the already fabricated mainstream take on his paper... one influenced by the Heartland Institute's Forbes article? Or Spencer, now multiple times, pre-release hyping his own papers? Or Spencer, now multiple times, searching out the most fringe journals, to purposely tout his self-serving gatekeeper meme? Like that? Like any of that?

Respect must earned. And somewhere along the way scientist forgot that and started demanding it instead of earning it.

noted: TimG hyperbole, offered in the context of his underlying conspiracy angle.

They had help of course - all of the political operatives like Gore who see climate change as a way to achieve their political ends. They were more than happy to massage the egos of the scientists and tell them how wonderful they were. The trouble is these political operatives were a just another minority out for their our self interest. Scientists are now paying the price because the average Joe does not distinguish between a scientist and a political operative.

nonsense! The average Joe you speak of doesn't spend an inordinate TimG time trolling the depths of the denialsphere. As for political operatives, I give you your favoured type of scientist, Roy Spencer - PhD Legislator, who unabashedly states:

I would wager that my job has helped save our economy from the economic ravages of out-of-control environmental extremism.

I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.

If I and others are ultimately successful, it may well be that my job is no longer needed.

[waldo]

If the scientists did not want to get blamed they should not have defended Mann, Jones and the rest of the "team" when the peddle junk science. If they had taken the higher ground and criticized Mann and Jones as they deserved then it would be harder to lump them in with all of the political operatives. But that did not happen. And we see the consequences.

squawk! The "team"! squawk! The "team"! squawk! Group think!!! Group think!!! squawk!

just how big is that much ballyhooed denier projection on, the "team"? If one dares to suffer the resultant head-banging from actually reading visitor comments within denialBlogTown, one is continually, repeatedly, deluged with guttural screeches about, the "team"!!! Who is on that, oh so powerful, "team" you keep bleating on about, TimG? Who makes up the "team"?

[Michael Hardner]

If the scientists did not want to get blamed they should not have defended Mann, Jones and the rest of the "team" when the peddle junk science. If they had taken the higher ground and criticized Mann and Jones as they deserved then it would be harder to lump them in with all of the political operatives. But that did not happen. And we see the consequences.

Why wouldn't they defend them ? They believe that their studies are accurate, and beyond that - they are human beings who rightly feel that they're under siege by a popular press that misreports the facts, that personally attacks them, and calls their motives into question. They have had their personal emails stolen and gleefully posted by these same forces.

I'm surprised that the emails didn't show them as being even more hostile.