Best Recent Content - HotWhopper Chat HotWhopper Chat
Follow HotWhopper:

Welcome to HotWhopper Chat

Before you post, read the introduction to HotWhopper Chat in the Wiki.

Best Recent Content

  • Why was Karl targeted by Bates - Karl et al. 2015 wasn't producing a CDR?

    I've just read Bates 2016 - One of the things that has me most confused, and that this reading has reinforced - is why Karl 2016 became a target in the first place?

    It is clearly not for scientific reasons, even Bates said the data is okay.

    It is clearly not for administrative reasons, it was clear to every reader that the paper was about a dataset produced for the paper, not a climate data record.

    That leaves personal and political reasons. The news articles on the "scandal" provide evidence for problems working with others and Bates being transferred to a position without personnel to supervise. Thus personal reasons would be the best guess. It very often is.
  • Okay, what's the deal with the Global Surface Temperature

    Victor, okay all caps does distract, even as it's supposed to drive home a point.  I just hope you also noticed that I very much appreciated you taking the time for your thoughtful comment and in fact chewed on it for awhile.

    I'll admit between the reality of this Trump Presidency and a still very sleepy USA citizenry, Lamar Smith and his science bashing Congressional committee, Bates' malicious bull poop, Fyfe took me for an emotional spin.  The failure of my first attempt drove me to try to come up with a short (I managed to keep it <500 words*, not including quotes from the study I used.) elevator pitch.  I posted it at my blog yesterday and I've sent it out to the authors today, I imagine that's the last I'll hear of it.  

    What I'm left with is that I gave it my best effort considering the 
    constrains I'm stuck with.  

    Elevator pitch to co-authors of Fyfe et al. 2016 - need for clarification
    Okay I snuck in another 150 words below my signature.

  • Okay, what's the deal with the Global Surface Temperature

    That is because the did not arrive at his position by reason. The position of a GOP politician is the one of his donors. Because it is indefensible, even within the conservative ideology, an adult conversation is not possible. This is completely different from decades ago or from conservatives in Europe. Fighting corruption (in both parties) does more than fighting Fyfe.
  • Okay, what's the deal with the Global Surface Temperature

    Unfortunately they got Fyfe 2016 et al.  Mention of that gold mind worth of tidbits to misinterpret and misrepresent seems to be popping up in the most unexpected places.

    And tragically the bottom line, no matter what anyone tries explaining, nothing soaks in.

    I've got my new analogy - Trying to get through to the GOP is tougher than trying to reason with a three year old, its more like trying to hold a dialogue with a profoundly autistic child.

  • Scott Adams of Dilbert had a climate "sceptic" rant, my reply

    True enough, bigger fish to fry.  'Trenchant' sounds like BBC   =)  and it is close to incisive, I like it.

    BatesMotel#1-US Rep Lamar Smith, Koch ties shackles behavior

    BatesMotel#2 - US Rep Lamar Smith - Follow the money. A collection.

    to 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.
  • Scott Adams of Dilbert had a climate "sceptic" rant, my reply

    Maybe Scott Adams deserves a thread to himself in the Deniosaurs category? He seems fond of blogging on the topic. As a self-described "master persuader" he rather obviously thinks he is throwing out clever new persuasive memes in the denialist cause.
      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.
      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:

  • Scott Adams again

    It took me a while, but I'm coming to understand Adams and his posts on global warming.
    Scott Adams is an entertainer. His acolytes find this entertaining. From their reactions, it seems they have witnessed a bull fighter doing battle with the AGW bull, goring it a few times. They stand and cheer.
    Then Adams takes a bow. He tells his acolytes how smart they are. Then he lets them in on a few secrets of his bull-fighting, which he calls "persuasion." So they can talk knowingly about the sport and go do battle themselves.
    Of course in the reality-based community Adams looks like a foolish figure waving a stage sword at straw bulls. None of his posts make a lick of sense.
    But his followers see a blood sport. With their side scoring points and wounding the enemy. They are enchanted.
  • Scott Adams again

    That was good.

    There's the flip side to that.

    'The Drunken Driver Has the Right Of Way'


    The loudest have the final say,
    The wanton win, the rash hold sway,
    The realist's rules of order say
    The drunken driver has the right of way.

    The Kubla Khan can butt in line;
    The biggest brute can take what's mine;
    When heavyweights break wind, that's fine;
    No matter what a judge might say,
    The drunken driver has the right of way.

    The guiltiest feel free of guilt;
    Who care not, bloom; who worry, wilt;
    Plans better laid are rarely built
    For forethought seldom wins the day;
    The drunken driver has the right of way.

    The most attentive and unfailing
    Carefulness is unavailing
    Wheresoever fools are flailing;
    Wisdom there is held at bay;,
    The drunken driver has the right of way.



  • Scott Adams again

     Some of the analogies in this rant are tailored to Adams' particular bugaboos, most are more generic. But they aren't going to appreciate it over on Scott Adams' blog, so I'll post it here.


    Why do I keep driving around drunk? It is possible that the alarmists are right. But I'm not qualified to know. I just look at the patterns. And the patterns tell me that they can't persuade me to stop.

    Think about it. Drunken behavior is a complex model. Can't be accurately predicted. Notoriously so. You can model reaction time, and judgment, just create a bunch of different predictions and one of them would be right. They *might* be scientific, but it looks to me just like what the scammers do. Nobody has ever created an accurate model of what a drunk person would do.

    And the predictions of doom require another complex model after that of what happens during the drive home. Seriously, I have driven home many times. And the alarmist models that said I would kill myself and others have been 100% inaccurate in my experience.

    I agree that 95% of the people I know tell me I need to stop this, and disaster will happen. How is that distinguishable from a mass delusion? There have been many mass delusions in history. They all look the same.

    Did you know that alcohol is natural? And some organisms feed off of it? What is the 'correct ' percentage of alcohol. You can't tell me. There are records showing that in historical times in Europe a lot of people drank mostly beer, not plain water. I won't go so far as to call it the Medieval Beer Period, but it's the truth. And that was when European civilization was flourishing and advancing. The notion that alcohol is a pollutant is nonsense. And the notion that a mere one part per thousand in your blood could cause you to kill yourself and others simply doesn't pass the smell test.

    Can you seriously claim that alarmist organizations like MADD and the National Safety Council don't have their own filters on? They see money. They see prestige. They have their point of view, and they will always see the world in a way that reinforces it.

    Want to witness some cognitive dissonance? Just ask some MADD person what fraction of an accident was caused by the alcohol, and what fraction was caused by natural variability. Accidents happen without people getting drunk. They can't answer that simple question. Ask how often driving home drunk *doesn't* cause an accident. They just freeze up, they don't want to know the truth that they know.

    And anyway I'll believe the alarmists when they all give up driving. The spokesperson for the National Safety Council drives to work. While at the same time warning everybody about drunks driving on the roads. Har har. Clearly he makes his money from drunk driving alarmism and at the same time doesn't really believe driving is dangerous. Very unpersuasive.

    They tried to make me go to rehab, I said No No No! I am not a denier. It's just that you can't persuade *me*. So there.

  • Fyfe et al. 2016 elevator pitch to the co-authors.

    There be sludge in that paper. I can certainly imagine a snappier and clearer presentation. (Not that I'm the one who would know how to write it.)
HotWhopper Chat Close
Follow HotWhopper:

Welcome to HotWhopper Chat

Before you post, read the introduction to HotWhopper Chat in the Wiki.