Josh was inspired by posts from Zeke at Lucia’s and Judith Curry’s websites.
Lucia’s post: Agreeing
Judith’s post: Agreeing(?)
Josh was inspired by posts from Zeke at Lucia’s and Judith Curry’s websites.
Lucia’s post: Agreeing
Judith’s post: Agreeing(?)
Reminds one of Monty Python and the Argument Sketch.
M: An argument isn’t just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can’t. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn’t.
M: Yes it is! It’s not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that’s not just saying ‘No it isn’t.’
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn’t!
http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm
But Who’s on first and Watt’s on second. Surely that’s a bases for initial agreement?
Or maybe not. I Don’t Know.
While I did not agree with Zekes list of statements of what we could agree on, I do agree than it is a worthy effort, for what is left of man made global warming (the case for)?For a manmade effect I would expect a change in the natural cycles. Where is it? Does an understanding of the natural cycles exist?What I have lost in my reaction to the authoritarian assault on my life and property is any understanding of, science of value from the consensus crew, is there any?
Tom T. & Pointman;
I agree; Rummy took a lot of unfair stick for that rather insightful distinction, presumably from those unwilling to admit they know they don’t know everything, let alone that there might be things they don’t know they don’t know.
I read through Zeke’s contribution on Judith Curry’s blog, plus most of the resulting comments.
I gave up in disgust in the end.
Obviously there were not many trained statisticians in that mob.
Putting probabilities on vague subjective concepts is not scientific.
Glossing over unknowns and unknowables is not scientific.
The whole thing sounds much like the belief (I’ll not grace it with hunch or insight or any of the other precursors towards the development of a tentative hypothesis).
So I’m reminded of that idea which held sway for many centuries, that the universe revolved round the earth.
It was wrong.
There is no scientific evidence that suggests that CO2 is the sole or even a significant controller of the climate
The end.
Let me translate:
“trined statisticans” can be read as “trained statisticians” if you speak English.
Me, I’m an illiterate Au[s]sie, who can’t type or spell for nuts.
(I’m a very poor proof reader as well).
[Fixed that one. Plus a couple others. 8<) Robt]
About JC’s thread: it’s a kind of “coming out” party. She accepts a whole busload of very dubious assumptions in trying to keep the discussion firmly on AGW territory, running under its rules.
And the equation of “>95% confidence” with “extremely likely” is risible from the get-go. That doesn’t even qualify as “highly suggestive” in real science. The bar should be set at least 3 sigma higher.
AusieDan says:
February 28, 2011 at 7:18 pm
Let me translate:
“trined statisticans” can be read as “trained statisticians” if you speak English.
————–
I just assumed you were writing that way to reflect the Aussie accent 😉
Unbelievable how many have fallen hook, line, & sinker for academia-based Climate Etc., which generously dishes out narrow, biased pre-fab reframing (e.g. “uncertainty”, chaos, expertise rank, etc.) [“We’ll sort your thinking our way deviants!” (/sarc)]
The illusion of objectivity demands a never ending run of untenable assumptions. Everything must (/sarc) have its abstract box.
Tied up at committee in a wasteland of tangled messages is all you get. (Why volunteer to be worn down soldier?)
Spot on Paul.
Reminds me of the decade I spent around math & stats departments in academia tallbloke: Tied up at committee in a wasteland of tangled abstract theorems, the fundamental assumptions of which FAIL catastrophically at the FIRST sign of complex natural data.
1000 comment jungles are a convenient way to “recondition” the perception of “subjects” via (suffocating) immersion.
The golden handshake means academics have TIME in their arsenal. In most types of conflict, academics’ preferred strategy is to BUILD IN DELAYS (e.g. by tying you up at committee, torquing the calendar, etc.)
The golden handshake affords academics the extreme luxury of passionately & fiercely defending ILL-conditioned axioms (failed assumptions of randomness, i.i.d., etc.) as a unified collective. This is one of the most fundamental threats faced today by our society & civilization and leadership is not always related to “rank”.
The sensible thing to do is dismiss the reframing initiative (preferably without indulging further delay tactics) as a failed academic exercise, opting to get back to seriously investigating natural variations without paying attention to the restless parade of abstract academic distortions & distractions. There’s no need to engage an incompetent enemy.
Best Regards to All.