The spread of 'debate is over' syndrome

[DarrinS]

I don't really care. 97%, 92%, 89.3%, 62.33333%, etc.

A general consensus among the people who actually study something is about all I would look to.

The source is your buddy, John Cook, the dude who runs SkepticalScience website. That paper has received a LOT of criticism, and rightly so.

People should be intolerant of intellectual dishonesty and pseudoscientific garbage.

And yet, you are more than willing to accept pseudoscience when it comports with your beliefs.

John Cook has also published a paper that likens CAGW skeptics to conspiracy nutters. That, too, is getting slammed for the pseudoscience it represents.

[pgardn]

The source is your buddy, John Cook, the dude who runs SkepticalScience website. That paper has received a LOT of criticism, and rightly so.



And yet, you are more than willing to accept pseudoscience when it comports with your beliefs.

John Cook has also published a paper that likens CAGW skeptics to conspiracy nutters. That, too, is getting slammed for the pseudoscience it represents.

What pseudoscience is he believing?

[MannyIsGod]

we had this guy fly in from out of country to give a seminar on something...his research was meticulously done, his methods and analysis were solid and presentation great.

then some random academic drills this dude during questioning about ethics and how he didn't go through the right mediums....all the guy could do was sit there in silence because the whole ethics portion of the study was done by someone else in the very department that invited him to talk.

i swear there are some real McAssholes in academia. and as far as everyone else was concerned, the ethics were fine. they had to be approved by a committee anyway...

I've been to quite a few contentious seminars but they don't stem from like ethics but rather the assertions and conclusions. Never felt its been malicious.

[MannyIsGod]

The source is your buddy, John Cook, the dude who runs SkepticalScience website. That paper has received a LOT of criticism, and rightly so.



And yet, you are more than willing to accept pseudoscience when it comports with your beliefs.

John Cook has also published a paper that likens CAGW skeptics to conspiracy nutters. That, too, is getting slammed for the pseudoscience it represents.

Did anyone here post the John Cook paper? Did anyone support it?

[MannyIsGod]

there is a reason, and as an academic, i see it everywhere. it isn't anything new though. it has been around a long time.

to debate the status quo in academics is a huge gamble. chances are you'll be completely ostracized from the field. if not, you start your own "black box" so to speak.

that's the beauty of academics though. without "follow the leader" academics, nothing really substantial gets done. however, it takes one screwy theory or academic to throw it all out of line. that's why academics are so cynical because it takes one asshole to spoil a whole field of work and every one will be out of the job or have to translate their work without sounding like a hypocrite.

or as often the case, two (or more) different schools of thought spring up and academics usually feel they have to "assign" themselves to one or the other.

usually your best bet is to agree with the consensus and add your own brick to the wall.

There's some truth to the fact that it takes more effort to move against the status quo than it does to go with it but that's because of how the status quo is built to begin with. I suspect that our two fields are actually quite different in many respects, though.

But there's also a difference between political beliefs and research ideas. But even if this were extended to political beliefs, there's been a move away from the status quo the past couple of decades as academic political identification has shifted to a more liberal makeup.

[DarrinS]

Did anyone here post the John Cook paper? Did anyone support it?

RG posted a video that cited the 97% line.

[DarrinS]

Cook's latest paper, equating skeptics to 9/11 twoofers (something RG loves to do), is based on the equivalent of a SpursTalk poll. What could go wrong?

[MannyIsGod]

Cook's latest paper, equating skeptics to 9/11 twoofers (something RG loves to do), is based on the equivalent of a SpursTalk poll. What could go wrong?

Who cares? Who here is using that paper to make any points? I get that you want to erect an easy target here so that you can tear it down but no one here is supporting that paper or brandishing it to make a point. No one brought up that paper but you. CLASSIC strawman.

Keep on with the crusade against a paper no one here is supporting if it makes you feel better.

[MannyIsGod]

FYI - Cook is not the person behind the 97% consensus figure.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus#ft1

[Wild Cobra]

I hope everyone realized that consensus is not science. There are real scientists who take the skeptical view. If there was real evidence the alarmist view was correct, there would be no skeptics. They would see and accept the science.

[DarrinS]

FYI - Cook is not the person behind the 97% consensus figure.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus#ft1

lol

"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming."


Well, Kook et. al. are one of the sources of this crock.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The article isn't about climate change. It's about intolerance.

It's called empiricism and deduction. Deduction is what it is and sorry that ideas like man's CO2 production does not have a tangible effect or your magic sky man have been deducted from reality based on empirical evidence.

It is an objective manner in proving something to be true or not. Lies and fiction inserted for reality should not be tolerated. Noting your comfort in misleading people you position is not surprising.

[pgardn]

I hope everyone realized that consensus is not science. There are real scientists who take the skeptical view. If there was real evidence the alarmist view was correct, there would be no skeptics. They would see and accept the science.

What?

[boutons_deux]

I hope everyone realized that consensus is not science. There are real scientists who take the skeptical view. If there was real evidence the alarmist view was correct, there would be no skeptics. They would see and accept the science.

consensus is, by definition, nothing but opinion. Science is by definition fact finding, facts, proof.

the majority of "scientists who take the skeptical view" were or are or will be paid by BigCarbon for their "view".

"If there was real evidence the alarmist view was correct, there would be no skeptics" there would still be self-interested, paid "skeptics"

there's tons of evidence, dear ideological AGW denier.

[spurraider21]

consensus is, by definition, nothing but opinion. Science is by definition fact finding, facts, proof.

the majority of "scientists who take the skeptical view" were or are or will be paid by BigCarbon for their "view".

"If there was real evidence the alarmist view was correct, there would be no skeptics" there would still be self-interested, paid "skeptics"

there's tons of evidence, dear ideological AGW denier.

meh, scientists who disagree with what i believe "are paid off." it's an awfully convenient excuse. note that i'm not taking sides on this issue here, but at least try harder than that

[boutons_deux]

meh, scientists who disagree with what i believe "are paid off." it's an awfully convenient excuse. note that i'm not taking sides on this issue here, but at least try harder than that

I don't "believe" they are paid off. The AGW denier scientists have nearly all been debunked as on the take from BigCarbon, much like the 1000s of corrupt doctors push BigPharma's .

[DarrinS]

I don't "believe" they are paid off. The AGW denier scientists have nearly all been debunked as on the take from BigCarbon, much like the 1000s of corrupt doctors push BigPharma's .

Corporate sponsors of AGU Fall Meeting, a top meeting of the world's climate science community. AGU is the American Geophysical Union.


http://fallmeeting.agu.org/2013/gene...-our-sponsors/




boutons -->

[boutons_deux]

Corporate sponsors of AGU Fall Meeting, a top meeting of the world's climate science community. AGU is the American Geophysical Union.


http://fallmeeting.agu.org/2013/gene...-our-sponsors/




boutons -->

green washing!!

All those asshole BigCarbon companies spend $100Ms more sponsoring climate deniers and killing regulations, carbon taxes, etc.

DarrinS --> suckered shill

[DarrinS]

It's called empiricism and deduction. Deduction is what it is and sorry that ideas like man's CO2 production does not have a tangible effect or your magic sky man have been deducted from reality based on empirical evidence.

Nice try, but I know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and affects the climate. I know this because it can be empirically demonstrated. What can't be empirically demonstrated -- is some future enviropocalypse.

[DarrinS]

green washing!!

All those asshole BigCarbon companies spend $100Ms more sponsoring climate deniers and killing regulations, carbon taxes, etc.

DarrinS --> suckered shill

http://berkeleyearth.org/funders

"Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($150,000)"

[Winehole23]

What can't be empirically demonstrated -- is some future enviropocalypse.

it can't be proven, but the prospect entails bottom line outcomes for business. the speculation is surely of interest well short of civilizational failure to businessmen with long term plans, no?

isn't wanting to know how bad the damage might be, and what kind, germane to economic rational self-interest?

[DarrinS]

isn't wanting to know how bad the damage might be, and what kind, germane to economic rational self-interest?

Sure. It's also in our economic self-interest to know how little damage there might be.


Consideration given to any prediction must be weighed against a growing track record. For example --> http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-757713.html

[Winehole23]

Sure. It's also in our economic self-interest to know how little damage there might be.

you seem determined to minimize it no matter what. you look as inflexible and biased to me as the catastrophists you scoff at.

[DarrinS]

you seem determined to minimize it no matter what. you look as inflexible and biased to me as the catastrophists you scoff at.

Believe it or not, I used by be a hardcore believer.

[Winehole23]

you seem to have traded one bias for another.

in the real world, one doesn't have to be right; both can be wrong.