Comments on: But of Course, Money Only Influences Skeptics http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/02/but-of-course-m.html Sat, 11 Feb 2012 16:51:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.3 By: TCO http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/02/but-of-course-m.html/comment-page-1#comment-805 TCO Sat, 01 Mar 2008 01:00:52 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/02/but-of-course-m.html#comment-805 <p>RFG: keep it here. Until you convince me you are a hot chick with bad eyesight.</p> RFG: keep it here. Until you convince me you are a hot chick with bad eyesight.

]]> By: Kyle Bennett http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/02/but-of-course-m.html/comment-page-1#comment-804 Kyle Bennett Thu, 28 Feb 2008 13:08:22 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/02/but-of-course-m.html#comment-804 <p>"If this trend continues, scientists will need a new cause of the month."</p> <p>That's why global "warming" is now passe. The hip, modern term is "climate change". When they came up with the "warming" label, they didn't realize that it left cooling as a potential counterexample to falsify the theory. They've closed that loophole now. </p> <p>TCU is right, it's an unfalsifiable, circular theory, even more so that it is now any kind of change that the theory warns about. The problem is that circular theories often provide a very rich field of study even without the politics. Tail chasing can be quite vigorous activity that appears to be getting alot done. And if what I've seen lately about string theory in physics is correct, it doesn't require political polarization for that circular tail-chasing to be the hot, well-funded field for researchers to flock to.<br /> </p> “If this trend continues, scientists will need a new cause of the month.”

That’s why global “warming” is now passe. The hip, modern term is “climate change”. When they came up with the “warming” label, they didn’t realize that it left cooling as a potential counterexample to falsify the theory. They’ve closed that loophole now.

TCU is right, it’s an unfalsifiable, circular theory, even more so that it is now any kind of change that the theory warns about. The problem is that circular theories often provide a very rich field of study even without the politics. Tail chasing can be quite vigorous activity that appears to be getting alot done. And if what I’ve seen lately about string theory in physics is correct, it doesn’t require political polarization for that circular tail-chasing to be the hot, well-funded field for researchers to flock to.

]]> By: philneel http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/02/but-of-course-m.html/comment-page-1#comment-803 philneel Thu, 28 Feb 2008 10:32:21 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/02/but-of-course-m.html#comment-803 <p>In the case of global warming, it seems that the discussion of scientific dishonesty is now moot since global average temperature has dropped more in the past year than it had risen in the preceeding 100. Observable facts have quickly discounted the "research". If this trend continues, scientists will need a new cause of the month.</p> In the case of global warming, it seems that the discussion of scientific dishonesty is now moot since global average temperature has dropped more in the past year than it had risen in the preceeding 100. Observable facts have quickly discounted the “research”. If this trend continues, scientists will need a new cause of the month.

]]> By: RJG http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/02/but-of-course-m.html/comment-page-1#comment-802 RJG Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:09:57 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/02/but-of-course-m.html#comment-802 <p>TCO, I've followed your comments with interest on many a blog (CA/JEG/this one) and would love to have a serious discussion with you.</p> <p>Could you e-mail me at robinofg AT hotmail DOT com (no spam please)</p> <p>I'm UK-based and am especially interested in the wider sociology of skepticism rather than any one technical issue.</p> <p>Thanks<br /> Robin</p> TCO, I’ve followed your comments with interest on many a blog (CA/JEG/this one) and would love to have a serious discussion with you.

Could you e-mail me at robinofg AT hotmail DOT com (no spam please)

I’m UK-based and am especially interested in the wider sociology of skepticism rather than any one technical issue.

Thanks
Robin

]]> By: Raven http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/02/but-of-course-m.html/comment-page-1#comment-801 Raven Thu, 28 Feb 2008 02:15:01 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/02/but-of-course-m.html#comment-801 <p>coveman says:<br /> "If you don't believe in Bigfoot, we will have Nuremberg-style trials for you."</p> <p>The scary thing is your hyperbole is not fair from the truth:<br /> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_Committees_on_Scientific_Dishonesty</p> coveman says:
“If you don’t believe in Bigfoot, we will have Nuremberg-style trials for you.”

The scary thing is your hyperbole is not fair from the truth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_Committees_on_Scientific_Dishonesty

]]> By: coveman http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/02/but-of-course-m.html/comment-page-1#comment-800 coveman Thu, 28 Feb 2008 01:36:04 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/02/but-of-course-m.html#comment-800 <p>It's fascinating to watch Science do to itself in a few years what The Church couldn't accomplish over a period of centuries.</p> <p>This AGW madness is akin to the world's political, educational and scientific institutions dumping all of their funding on the study, capture and control of Bigfoot.</p> <p>If you don't believe in Bigfoot, you will get no funding. If you don't believe in Bigfoot, we will have Nuremberg-style trials for you. If you don't believe in Bigfoot, you will be stripped of your credentials and David Suzuki will throw you in jail.</p> It’s fascinating to watch Science do to itself in a few years what The Church couldn’t accomplish over a period of centuries.

This AGW madness is akin to the world’s political, educational and scientific institutions dumping all of their funding on the study, capture and control of Bigfoot.

If you don’t believe in Bigfoot, you will get no funding. If you don’t believe in Bigfoot, we will have Nuremberg-style trials for you. If you don’t believe in Bigfoot, you will be stripped of your credentials and David Suzuki will throw you in jail.

]]> By: TCU http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/02/but-of-course-m.html/comment-page-1#comment-799 TCU Thu, 28 Feb 2008 01:24:29 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/02/but-of-course-m.html#comment-799 <p>They're all like that, hypocrites. There's no way to falsify or contradict the models. They're unfalsifiable. Anything that happens---anything at all, is just global warming, anthropogenic. It's just got to be, that's how they make their living. If the public ever catches on to the scam, there's gonna be hell to pay.</p> They’re all like that, hypocrites. There’s no way to falsify or contradict the models. They’re unfalsifiable. Anything that happens—anything at all, is just global warming, anthropogenic. It’s just got to be, that’s how they make their living. If the public ever catches on to the scam, there’s gonna be hell to pay.

]]> By: TCO http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/02/but-of-course-m.html/comment-page-1#comment-798 TCO Thu, 28 Feb 2008 01:04:12 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/02/but-of-course-m.html#comment-798 <p>Wrong. I already said the opposite of that. I disdain AGWers who like anything that is on their side regardless of quality. And feel the same about skeptics with same behavior. I AM a skeptic. You just don't think I am, because to you a skeptic should accept any sophistry, any crappiness, as long as it is on his side. </p> Wrong. I already said the opposite of that. I disdain AGWers who like anything that is on their side regardless of quality. And feel the same about skeptics with same behavior. I AM a skeptic. You just don’t think I am, because to you a skeptic should accept any sophistry, any crappiness, as long as it is on his side.

]]> By: Raven http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/02/but-of-course-m.html/comment-page-1#comment-797 Raven Thu, 28 Feb 2008 00:43:25 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/02/but-of-course-m.html#comment-797 <p>Well done paper according to TCO: supports AGW<br /> Poorly done paper accoring to TCO: opposes AGW</p> <p>You see the same hypocrisy on RC all of the time. They expect anti-AGW papers to meet high standards but the let shoddy pro-AGW papers off the hook (see Briffa and his data deletions or Mann and his meaningless statistical analysis).</p> <p>The letter from Dr. Joanne Simpson on Pielke's blog speaks volumes: http://climatesci.org/</p> <p>"Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receive any funding, I can speak quite frankly"</p> <p>Scientific funding affects what scientists can do - deny it if you like but it won't change the facts.<br /> </p> Well done paper according to TCO: supports AGW
Poorly done paper accoring to TCO: opposes AGW

You see the same hypocrisy on RC all of the time. They expect anti-AGW papers to meet high standards but the let shoddy pro-AGW papers off the hook (see Briffa and his data deletions or Mann and his meaningless statistical analysis).

The letter from Dr. Joanne Simpson on Pielke’s blog speaks volumes: http://climatesci.org/

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receive any funding, I can speak quite frankly”

Scientific funding affects what scientists can do – deny it if you like but it won’t change the facts.

]]> By: TCO http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/02/but-of-course-m.html/comment-page-1#comment-796 TCO Wed, 27 Feb 2008 23:32:58 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/02/but-of-course-m.html#comment-796 <p>There are some aspects of truth to what is being said here. It is natural social dynamics though. Just like how skeptics will tend to overlook weaknesses in arguments on "their side". BTW, anyone can get a quality paper published that is anti AGW if it is well done. There are just so many journals out there. The main problem is that skeptics are NOT WRITING PAPERS. And when they do write them, they are just gawdawful in method and quality. And they prefer to pull each other's puds on friendly blogs.</p> There are some aspects of truth to what is being said here. It is natural social dynamics though. Just like how skeptics will tend to overlook weaknesses in arguments on “their side”. BTW, anyone can get a quality paper published that is anti AGW if it is well done. There are just so many journals out there. The main problem is that skeptics are NOT WRITING PAPERS. And when they do write them, they are just gawdawful in method and quality. And they prefer to pull each other’s puds on friendly blogs.

]]>