Really? So unless you have a piece of paper which shows you've been accepted into the priesthood, you have no business discussing the cannons? I would trust physicists quite a bit on this subject. It's main concern is heat flow. It's exactly the kind of of thing that a physical chemist, for example, would study. Oh, and their time series analysis is so rudimentary, that I assure you anyone with a masters in a quantitative discipline from a descent school would be able to understand it and evaluate it. Do you not get that if, for example, a certain biology paper gets its math wrong, then it doesn't take a biologist to dispute the paper. It takes a mathematician. So anybody from a discipline that is related to study of climate may have an interesting point to make on the subject. To insist that only the people who have anything meaningful to contribute are the ones whose thesis was signed by the orthodoxy (which is proving to be very, very intolerant of open research and free inquiry) is insane.
Their argument is for freedom of research. They did not make the argument that the AGW is definitely false. And I with them: the chorus of lemmings and political influence is unquestionably stifling discourse on this subject.
The real tragedy, by the way, is that the WSJ piece did not even make any actual argument against the AGW position itself. They made an argument against the vicious witch hunt that is dominating this debate. And you (by the virtue of calling a group of esteemed scientists "crackpots") have joined the chorus of lemmings conducting the witch hunt. It's unproductive. And it's certainly does NOT help fact finding that is the main goal of scientific endeavor.
I don't mind your judgement. In fact, I welcome any judgement based in fact. You have convinced yourself that lack of judgement is somehow virtuous. It isn't. It's insane. In fact, most of definitions of insanity have lack of judgement as their component. In fact, most of what you claim to be virtuous borders on insanity, so your insults don't bother me as much as you want them to. I simply chuckle at what you have to say as I do at every other crazy person.
Your argument would be somewhat plausible if WSJ or the scientist in question were not mainstream. But that's not the case. While FOX News does thrive on creating occasional controversy storm, WSJ is read by people who put their money where their mouth is. It is generally very accurate. And the scientists who signed the letter are not crackpots. They are esteemed members of the scientific community.
One should also be able to bump/downgrade search rank of sites based on their political standing. For example, if a site supports controversial laws like SOPA, it probably should get a lower rank... oh wait... oh shoot.
Or to paraphrase "Family Guy", anything Rush Limbaugh says must be untrue and even if he says something that is true it becomes untrue because Rush Limbaugh says it. Oh, and insulting my intelligence while accusing me of ad hominems? Really? I wasn't making an ad hominem accusation. I was showing a flaw in the actual logic of the argument presented. While you decided to conclude that I didn't have a "brain capable of understanding skepticism expressed as a joke." That's not an ad hominem? Or is guilt by association not an ad hominem?
I have an even better suggestion. You gather up a crowd of your fellow lemmings and you try to drown me. If I drown, then I am not a witch. If don't drown, then I am a witch and you feel freely justify to burn me at the stake. Because after all, only a witch would fail to give a 100% fanatical support to the One True Faith.
Absolutely not. The point was that you are treating it as such.
Experts aren't to be trusted, unless they're speaking outside their field?
No, experts are to be trusted, or at least considered, if their field has a relation to the question at hand -- not just if they are part of an anointed orthodoxy of experts blessed by those holding the reigns of the field.
but this is illusory. because there is no organizing principle at work here
That's just not true. Editorial decisions are generally biased by the editorial preferences. Is there any doubt what the preferences of, for example, Paul Krugman are? He has editorial discretion at NYT. Do you honestly think he doesn't exercise it? You are asking others to ignore reality and claiming to already be doing so yourself. Why do you believe that is a sane position?
so you are someone who is happy with bad obvious motivations than with motivations you can't easily see. you would rather go with what you can know, regardless of malintent or lack of morality, than be guided by a sense of right and wrong. because right and wrong is cloudy and difficult, see, and you won't have any of that nonsense
I am not sure I would classify greed as immoral any more than I would classify hunger as immoral. It's amoral rather than immoral. But I would definitely trust those who wear their motivations on their sleeves over those who hide them. Even those who are going through the right/wrong conflict that you mention can still be upfront about what drives and motivates their decisions.
thank you for clearly labeling your bad character for us, asshole
Umm. Ok. You are certainly free to judge me, based on what I do or say, as you see fit. I'll exercise the same prerogative.
Good for you. Just as a good Catholic would trust what the Catholic experts say about Catholicism being the one true religion (and publish in their peer-reviewed Catholic philosophical journals). Good for you.
No, I am not a retard. I have a PhD in math. And I can tell a difference between a chorus of lemmings and a scientific argument. And, you, my friend, are definitely part of a chorus of lemmings.
I certainly would trust a physicist's opinion on heat flow and what may or may not produce a significant drag on heat flow. Just as I would trust an evolutionary biologist's opinion on what how evolutionary trends might interact with uptake or release of CO2. But more importantly, I would trust a group of scientists pointing out that a witch hunt is interfering with scientific method (and that is the main thrust of the editorial).
Yes, guilt by association. That's precisely how scientific arguments should conducted. Oh, the irony. This type of rhetoric is precisely what the piece argues against.
Is your argument pro or against AGW, then? Cause the pro-AGW camp makes its living off the argument. While these guys made their statement without any visible long-term pay out.
If you read the actual paper which studied the effects of acidification, you'll see that over 20% of the species increased in population. That's a natural effect of a changing environment -- the species more adapted to the new environment increase in population while those adapted to the old environment decrease in population. Of course, at the beginning of the change those adapted to the old environment are more dominant. But as time progresses, the ones more adapted to the new environment will become more dominant. So the long-term effect is actually equilibrium.
That's not what he piece said. The main thrust of the argument was that political meddling in scientific discussion distorts the process enough to be counter-productive to uncovering facts.
Well, if Murdoch-owned media is the only outlet for news that doesn't blatantly boot lick the leftist agenda, then, yes, the rest of the media could use to be more objective.
So you think that all these esteemed scientists signed their name under a statement that the witch hunt of the skeptics has to stop because... what? They are looking forward to the witch hunt going after them, too? Maybe they see that the scientific method is being compromised through politics and they want to point out how unproductive this is? Maybe?
Slashdot Mirror
Really? So unless you have a piece of paper which shows you've been accepted into the priesthood, you have no business discussing the cannons? I would trust physicists quite a bit on this subject. It's main concern is heat flow. It's exactly the kind of of thing that a physical chemist, for example, would study. Oh, and their time series analysis is so rudimentary, that I assure you anyone with a masters in a quantitative discipline from a descent school would be able to understand it and evaluate it. Do you not get that if, for example, a certain biology paper gets its math wrong, then it doesn't take a biologist to dispute the paper. It takes a mathematician. So anybody from a discipline that is related to study of climate may have an interesting point to make on the subject. To insist that only the people who have anything meaningful to contribute are the ones whose thesis was signed by the orthodoxy (which is proving to be very, very intolerant of open research and free inquiry) is insane.
Being told "Its all a hoax, we don't need to do anything and it won't cost you anything" by some Right Wing politician is much easier.
You are arguing with a point which hasn't been made. You might want to read the actual editorial. It's not that long.
Their argument is for freedom of research. They did not make the argument that the AGW is definitely false. And I with them: the chorus of lemmings and political influence is unquestionably stifling discourse on this subject.
The real tragedy, by the way, is that the WSJ piece did not even make any actual argument against the AGW position itself. They made an argument against the vicious witch hunt that is dominating this debate. And you (by the virtue of calling a group of esteemed scientists "crackpots") have joined the chorus of lemmings conducting the witch hunt. It's unproductive. And it's certainly does NOT help fact finding that is the main goal of scientific endeavor.
I don't mind your judgement. In fact, I welcome any judgement based in fact. You have convinced yourself that lack of judgement is somehow virtuous. It isn't. It's insane. In fact, most of definitions of insanity have lack of judgement as their component. In fact, most of what you claim to be virtuous borders on insanity, so your insults don't bother me as much as you want them to. I simply chuckle at what you have to say as I do at every other crazy person.
Your argument would be somewhat plausible if WSJ or the scientist in question were not mainstream. But that's not the case. While FOX News does thrive on creating occasional controversy storm, WSJ is read by people who put their money where their mouth is. It is generally very accurate. And the scientists who signed the letter are not crackpots. They are esteemed members of the scientific community.
One should also be able to bump/downgrade search rank of sites based on their political standing. For example, if a site supports controversial laws like SOPA, it probably should get a lower rank... oh wait... oh shoot.
Teachers are so opposed to performance metrics that it's impossible to tell if a B in Colorado is better or worse than an C+ Vermont.
Or to paraphrase "Family Guy", anything Rush Limbaugh says must be untrue and even if he says something that is true it becomes untrue because Rush Limbaugh says it. Oh, and insulting my intelligence while accusing me of ad hominems? Really? I wasn't making an ad hominem accusation. I was showing a flaw in the actual logic of the argument presented. While you decided to conclude that I didn't have a "brain capable of understanding skepticism expressed as a joke." That's not an ad hominem? Or is guilt by association not an ad hominem?
Go piss up a rope.
I have an even better suggestion. You gather up a crowd of your fellow lemmings and you try to drown me. If I drown, then I am not a witch. If don't drown, then I am a witch and you feel freely justify to burn me at the stake. Because after all, only a witch would fail to give a 100% fanatical support to the One True Faith.
Oh so science is religion now?
Absolutely not. The point was that you are treating it as such.
Experts aren't to be trusted, unless they're speaking outside their field?
No, experts are to be trusted, or at least considered, if their field has a relation to the question at hand -- not just if they are part of an anointed orthodoxy of experts blessed by those holding the reigns of the field.
but this is illusory. because there is no organizing principle at work here
That's just not true. Editorial decisions are generally biased by the editorial preferences. Is there any doubt what the preferences of, for example, Paul Krugman are? He has editorial discretion at NYT. Do you honestly think he doesn't exercise it? You are asking others to ignore reality and claiming to already be doing so yourself. Why do you believe that is a sane position?
so you are someone who is happy with bad obvious motivations than with motivations you can't easily see. you would rather go with what you can know, regardless of malintent or lack of morality, than be guided by a sense of right and wrong. because right and wrong is cloudy and difficult, see, and you won't have any of that nonsense
I am not sure I would classify greed as immoral any more than I would classify hunger as immoral. It's amoral rather than immoral. But I would definitely trust those who wear their motivations on their sleeves over those who hide them. Even those who are going through the right/wrong conflict that you mention can still be upfront about what drives and motivates their decisions.
thank you for clearly labeling your bad character for us, asshole
Umm. Ok. You are certainly free to judge me, based on what I do or say, as you see fit. I'll exercise the same prerogative.
Good for you. Just as a good Catholic would trust what the Catholic experts say about Catholicism being the one true religion (and publish in their peer-reviewed Catholic philosophical journals). Good for you.
Will you trust a sociopath who clearly expresses his intent to murder your friend? And trust him with what exactly?
I would trust him to attempt to murder my friend, yes.
What would you "trust' a corporation with?
I would trust a corporation to engage in commerce for profit.
The fact that they will lobby and corrupt democracy with corporation favoring laws?
If the democracy in question made political influence profitable, then, yes, I would expect a corporation to try to gain political influence.
No, I am not a retard. I have a PhD in math. And I can tell a difference between a chorus of lemmings and a scientific argument. And, you, my friend, are definitely part of a chorus of lemmings.
I certainly would trust a physicist's opinion on heat flow and what may or may not produce a significant drag on heat flow. Just as I would trust an evolutionary biologist's opinion on what how evolutionary trends might interact with uptake or release of CO2. But more importantly, I would trust a group of scientists pointing out that a witch hunt is interfering with scientific method (and that is the main thrust of the editorial).
Yes, guilt by association. That's precisely how scientific arguments should conducted. Oh, the irony. This type of rhetoric is precisely what the piece argues against.
Is your argument pro or against AGW, then? Cause the pro-AGW camp makes its living off the argument. While these guys made their statement without any visible long-term pay out.
If you read the actual paper which studied the effects of acidification, you'll see that over 20% of the species increased in population. That's a natural effect of a changing environment -- the species more adapted to the new environment increase in population while those adapted to the old environment decrease in population. Of course, at the beginning of the change those adapted to the old environment are more dominant. But as time progresses, the ones more adapted to the new environment will become more dominant. So the long-term effect is actually equilibrium.
That's not what he piece said. The main thrust of the argument was that political meddling in scientific discussion distorts the process enough to be counter-productive to uncovering facts.
Well, if Murdoch-owned media is the only outlet for news that doesn't blatantly boot lick the leftist agenda, then, yes, the rest of the media could use to be more objective.
So you think that all these esteemed scientists signed their name under a statement that the witch hunt of the skeptics has to stop because... what? They are looking forward to the witch hunt going after them, too? Maybe they see that the scientific method is being compromised through politics and they want to point out how unproductive this is? Maybe?
I am not sure they have even close to the kind of money that the pro-AGW camp (supported through treasuries of governments) has.
Even the ones written by scientists?
Good thing that all the accusations that the skeptics are silenced through smear campaigns turn out to be false.