Josh writes:
Victor Venema’s comment the other day about needing 30 alarmists posts to balance out a Curry post rang true – skeptic arguments are that good!
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Josh writes:
Victor Venema’s comment the other day about needing 30 alarmists posts to balance out a Curry post rang true – skeptic arguments are that good!
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Oops, always an error to read from the bottom. David, UK, sure, I paraphrased. Go read what Victor said for the ungracious meaning within it.
==================
By the way, David, UK, I write purposefully so as to be misunderstood. I’m grateful for your skill.
=========
(y)
Just got back from Vienna and EGU 2014 !
Time to decompress.
😉
A delight!
mike says:
May 2, 2014 at 11:43 am
Thanks for the laugh. I might take a few whacks at that wall to see what sticks. It sounds like a honorific place to be.
re: Dave in Canmore says May 2, 2014 at 12:10 pm
from the CCNF
What? Another stab at a scientific-focused ‘debate site’? What happened with the last one (a year or two back) where the washed and un-washed were kept segregated on separate virtual ‘boards’? Did that site implode?
.
” Climate Dialogue” – maybe this is the site I was thinking of …
The circle is complete; on curryja site CE I found this:
Jim Cripwell | April 27, 2014 at 10:37 am | Reply
When Marcel Crok started Climate Dialogue, I had an exchange of views with him, as to why I thought it would not survive using the ideas he was suggesting. I suspect I was right. There has been nothing new on Climate Dialogue for months. It needs a nice funeral.
…
@cwon14 at 11:35 a.m. –
I’m not sure what you were referencing in citing my post at 10:45, but I agree with you that Dr. Curry isn’t really a skeptic – you may recall from my post on another thread, that I believe that while she may be distressed by the faux aspect of alarmist “science,” she is hoping that the AGW theory will still eventually be substantiated, which would mark her quite indelibly as not a skeptic.
I also agree with you (if I understand your point correctly) that we skeptics must not concede any sort of superior authority to alarmists – indeed, I believe strongly that we must not be content to coexist with them but must aggressively and unforgivingly pursue our case. My other point is that wars do not require absolute uniformity of opinion among the good guys to be won – they just require the will to win.
Your analogy with the Polish Judenrat – in the Lodz ghetto in WWII – is telling, and should be a warning to all of us fighting the good fight. We cannot settle for merely being allowed to exist, because that assures that we will in time not be allowed to exist.
William M. Connolley is responsible for the climate-scientific propaganda section of the wikipedia. Some fine fellas you have there.
I know exactly who he is. But it is he and VV that gave us the valid criticism we needed to complete the task. It will have saved us no end of trouble in the long run and it will be a better paper, too.
The Josh and Judy show – two class acts!
Judith Curry
It’s thirty to one and the battle is set
The talk is all done and the forces have met
The thirty have run, so unnerving the threat
And Curry has won without breaking a sweat
Eugene WR Gallun
From a comment by Judy on her site:
@Mike 11.30am
So you and VV got along quite well then?
re: rogerknights says May 3, 2014 at 1:11 am
Note the update at: May 2, 2014 at 8:49 pm was in response to that comment by curryja.
To wit:
Jim Cripwell | April 27, 2014 at 10:37 am | Reply
… There has been nothing new on Climate Dialogue for months. It needs a nice funeral.
Perhaps curryja simply sees/would rather see things (e.g. climate research progress) moving (and rightfully so, in her perspective) at a ‘glacial pace’ (not that there is anything wrong with that, to paraphrase a standing Seinfeld joke) rather than a break-neck, hell-bent-for leather pace* as our modern ‘world’ (and publishing schedule; on the presses by 3 and ‘film at 11’) seem to demand?
* http://www.word-detective.com/2009/10/hell-bent-for-leather/
.
From what she wrote I don’t think it’s fair to say that she’s happy with its pace. She seems, rather, happy with its format and potential.
As I am. I think consensus types won’t participate unless we scruffy types are kept in a roped-off section. (I think consensus types, who have begged off due claiming to be too busy, should be paid to participate.)
What Venema was implying with his 30:1 ratio is that 97% of climatologists were on the opposite side. So here’s how I’d have labeled (in part) the can in the cartoon:
“Cut through the Crud with Curry’s 3% Solution.”
Chad Wozniak says:
May 2, 2014 at 8:50 pm
Chad, my main point is that Dr. Curry isn’t a “skeptic” and is an expert authoritarian which is a basic premise of greenshirt authority (an underlying of greenshirt morality and AGW religious views). So she is a perfect tool for skeptic mollification which is as central a disease as Michael Mann torturing tree rings for the green thugs. Bolsheviks deserve most of the blame of 1917 but don’t kid yourself, armchair social “reformers” equivocating behavior in London and the West deserve much of the blame of the 20th century results. They were both part of the decline and the results. So Dr. Curry and her admirers are PART OF THE PROBLEM.
Dr. Curry knows which way the wind is blowing in the same way “Patriots” crawled out of the wood work in 1781 but were scarce to find in the winter 1776. She’s played every-side against the middle for years. That many think her a skeptic hero speaks volumes about the incoherent political views of many “skeptics” and why the losses have been so great and this will drag on for decades more.
How many left dead in Africa/Asis due to idiotic energy rationing as being “green” in the west while this farce plays out?
Anthony Watts, could you maybe remove the worst transgressions from this comment of mike?
[noted. mod]