Bart R,
I’m glad that you admit that you’re an unreliable source. Had you not admitted to something, anything, denizens (go team!) might have been tempted to classify your act (not you, as it would be against blog rules) as one reminding of a Tireless Rebutter:
(Source: judithcurry.com)
Lazar,
Your sketch in #206 of how to conduct an empirical audit deserves to be promoted (in a technical sense):
(Source: collide-a-scape.com)
Anteros,
I acknowledge that you consider Hansen wrong about his definitive statements outside his area of expertise and that you share Lindzen’s opinion that CAGW is all but a scare in an echochamber, if I may paraphrase what you are saying in #71. Lindzen might not have any particular qualification in the psychology of masses, but he sure can find effective images, the one you underline sounding a lot like an ad superbiam. In the field of rhetoric, we can both surmise that Lindzen is a natural.
(Source: collide-a-scape.com)
Popper’s criterion of falsifiability [1] was meant to be applied to theories, not to single scientific statements like predictions, nor to models.
(Source: judithcurry.com)
Anteros,
Your caveat does make sense: there is a concern that imagination that runs wild can become counterproductive. Someone that find the projections counterintuitive won’t be convinced with eschatological stories.
(Source: collide-a-scape.com)
We are playing a game. We are playing at not playing a game. If I show us I see we are, I shall break the rules and we will punish me. I must play our game, of not seeing I see the game.
http://www.oikos.org/knotsen1.htm
(Source: neverendingaudit)
David Wojick,
Thank you for your explanation, which makes more clearer where you come from. If I hear you right, the inverse is simply the node above a question. This means that the root can’t be a question.
(Source: judithcurry.com)
This is where the IPPCs authority – and authoritarianism – crested, and the oft repeated claims of “scientific consensus” about CAGW veer into uncritisizable (save for the ‘saintly “climate science” contributing scientists) propaganda claims.
Lots of success-words there: authoritarianism, crested, saintly, propaganda.
(Source: judithcurry.com)
Dear mike,
Your comment at 11:43 could very well be a record, even by the Denizens team standards (?).
(Source: judithcurry.com)
Dear mike,
Your last comment dearly lacks your effortless inventiveness. The last time this happened, the conversation was soon brought to a closure. So let me summarize what happened in this conversation.
(Source: judithcurry.com)
Lazar,
While cleaning up my archives, I stumbled upon this episode that might interest you. The episode starts with this claim:
In the battle over smoking efforts to deny a link between smoking and health risks seems to have been completely a lost effort.
http://rabett.blogspot.ca/2006/04/effective-tobacco-advertising.html
I’m not sure how we can reconcile this claim with this other one:
The methods were improved more and more, until people ran out of objections, at which point the conclusion that smoking increased the risk of lung cancer became justified. But it was not wrong of all those people who held out and raised objections for all those years to have done so. It was only because they did so that we can now have confidence that smoking really does increase cancer.
I’m quite confident that there is a way to reconcile these claims. But you have to admit that there are counfounding factors. I blame the lack of cafeine progress.
(Source: collide-a-scape.com)
