Over at Scientific American, a place that isn’t hardly Scientific, nor American anymore (its owned by Germans IIRC) there’s a big row over Cook’s shoddy “97% consensus” paper in comments, mainly due to some pertinent ones asking some tough questions being deleted wholesale. SciAm is now citing policy as the reason.
What’s funny, contrary to SciAm policy (for vulgarities) is that the F-word is allowed in the article itself, used by Dan Kahan to describe a bumper sticker about that imagined “97% consensus”.
“We live in a world where the people who make the videos like the OFA one have attached a meaning to this argument—97 percent of scientists [believe in human-caused global warming],” he said. “It’s a bumper sticker, and it says “fuck you” on it.”
You’re welcome.
BTW, the “Hockey? bumper sticker to the left is just a happy accident of the bumper sticker generator.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I am part of the 97%
BTW, the car is not a hybrid! What an outrage.
Consensus has never been a viable way to declare the validity of a hypothesis. Rather, this validity must be proved or disproved by sound objective observations, measurements and analyses, all of which seem to be foreign to the IPCC, the EPA, and a bevy of greedy “green” believers on the dole..
Consensus examples:
1. There was consensus that the world was flat
2. There was consensus that man would never achieve powered flight in a heavier-than-air craft.
3. Margaret Thatcher’s observation: “Consensus: The process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values, and policies in search of something in which no one believes, but to which no one objects; the process of avoiding the very issues that have to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement on the way ahead. What great cause would have been fought under the banner: ‘I stand for consensus’?”
@Poptech
Matt L. no intellectually honest person would ever read HotWhopper blog. It is full of lies, half-truths, misinformation and strawman arguments. The fact that you recommend reading it means you are an abject idiot.
No intellectually honest person? Abject idiot? Nice. Absolutism and and ad hom. Two for two. Are you sure you haven’t been reading HotWhopper? Your language and attitude suggests, while you may not share similar views on climate change with the HotWhopper, you may in fact share some common ground.
@kadaka (KD Knoebel)
I appreciate your breakdown of my comment. I especially liked the bit implying I subject myself to abuse and encourage others to follow suit.
Your entire diatribe was basically thinly veiled insults masquerading as erudite thoughtfulness. Add a few “the moon is made of green cheese” and “yo’ mamma” jokes to your philosophical repertoire and you may run for high office one day.
Re Matt L. on August 6, 2014 at 9:40 pm:
And to think you waited over a week like a sniveling coward to slip in your venomous “last word” when you thought no one would notice but you would have your grand victory as the internet would record your justice for eternity.
Your mother would be so proud. You have demonstrated great patience.
@Matt L. I have in the past and all of my comments refuting her nonsense were censored. Her website is pure garbage – a combination of lies, misinformation and strawman arguments. She follows the Jon Stewart method of telling half-truths to mindless drones who cannot do research. It is one of the worst blogs on the Internet.