Just before I wrote And, I’m back the other day, I came across this quote that inspired me to press on against the ugliness, the abuse, and the taunting that climate skeptics endure every day, with yours truly in particular being the brunt of many of those. For those who are childish purveyors of ugliness conducted from the shadows of anonymity (you know who you are, Slashdot labels them as ‘anonymous cowards’), this quote serves well as my guide for the future:
“Walk toward the fire. Don’t worry about what they call you. All those things are said against you because they want to stop you in your tracks. But if you keep going, you’re sending a message to people who are rooting for you, who are agreeing with you. The message is that they can do it, too.” ― Andrew Breitbart
Since I’m a regular target of hate mail, hate Tweets, and hate blog essays, for daring to express a consensus-contradictory opinion on Climate, I’ll add a thought of my own: Online, anonymity breeds contempt.
The Internet has created an easy and safe way for people to hurl insults, ugliness, slander, libel, and taunts without having to endure the consequences of their actions or the social shaming that would come if such things were said in polite company. Truly, such taunters comprise an army of social justice warriors insignificant anonymous cowards.
As for WUWT’s role in this, I think it is summed up very well by this comment by drednicolson posted today:
That Alarmist comments appear at all [on WUWT] puts the site far ahead of the curve. Skeptics rarely get the same courtesy on Alarmist sites.
And Alarmism is wrapped heavily in identity politics, so any rebuttal, no matter how politely expressed, will likely be claimed a personal attack.
And using passive-aggressive, pseudo-polite language to attract hostility, then complain about people being mean, is a common ploy of the more insidious trolls.
Sometimes (more often than not) we have to resort to banning such people as they escalate their anger and eventually run afoul of our blog comment policy. But, there are those who can post disagreement without being mean or abusive. Commenter Nick Stokes comes to mind. While he is often maddeningly obtuse (he once got me so irritated I suggested it may be time for him to STFU – my bad, with apology) and mis-directive in the form of “Look! A squirrel!” he is almost always polite. Recently, with a comment where he smeared somebody, he earned being put on moderation (he’s earned several time-outs). Today, having paid his penance, I’m taking him off to see if he behaves. At least he uses his real name, which may be why he’s incapable of ever admitting to error in his comments.
While there are occasions where anonymity is required, such as whistleblowers, criminal informers, and people whose livelihoods are at risk if they speak out, the garden variety anonymous Twitter and blog taunters deserve the Arkell v. Pressdram response. In fact, that’s probably the best way to respond to such things.
Here is my suggestion:
When somebody spews irrational climate-fueled hate, just reply: “See Arkell v. Pressdram“. It’s a great way to get the message across without lowering yourself to their level of lexiconic skill. Then, ignore them. It’s the attention they seek. Deprive them.
So, besides giving that standard response, once. it’s best to just ignore the denizens of the “anonyverse” who want to tear you down, without having the integrity to put their own name to their childish taunts.
Onward!
Welcome back. Your right on.
Remember also that you are experiencing someone else’s five stages of grief.
The Kübler-Ross model, or the five stages of grief, postulates a series of emotions experienced by terminally ill patients prior to death, wherein the five stages are denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance.The Kübler-Ross model, or the five stages of grief, postulates a series of emotions experienced by terminally ill patients prior to death, wherein the five stages are denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance.~wikipedia. Soft science i know, i know… woe the humanities!
Here’s a Nick Stokes post:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/01/analysis-says-noaa-global-temperature-data-doesnt-constitute-a-smoking-gun-for-global-warming/#comment-2625010
I don’t read all the posts and comments, but if this post representative, paint me confused.
How could you be confused? Nick says that a random walk is not a possible real solution to understanding variability in climate change. A random walk allows going to 0 degrees K and to 500 degrees Kelvin. Those temps don’t and can’t happen in a world constrained by physics.
There’s nothing in the tone of that post that would indicate to anyone why he should be kicked off the forum.
That’s why I’m confused.
Just because Nick Stokes says something doesn’t make it true, or even worthwhile to consider.
Steve,
He is still around because 95% (or should I say 97%) of the time he is civil and mostly cogent if a little over impressed by some really dodgy data. However in that last 5% (3%?) he gets a little testy and lets his rhetoric get a little personal. Granted there have been a few times his sparring partner probably should have gotten a time-out with him, but as I learned as a kid – ’tis the second blow that draws the foul.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/12/extreme-poverty-usa-the-true-cost-of-climate-madness/
Steve, i think this is the latest that got nick into trouble. He kicks the discussion off at the top of the thread. (Anthony’s response is a dozen comments below that)…
rs, you didn’t understand what the guest blogger was talking about either. Nick created a Red Herring,which is why many in that thread tried to point out what Nick missed.
That point was fully addressed in the post, so I assume Nick didn’t read it all the way through (it was pretty long).
“Nick says that a random walk is not a possible real solution to understanding variability in climate change.”
Neither is linear trend analysis.
Random walks – no. Chaos – yes.
Reading the replies he got indicates they didn’t find his argument persuasive.
Is that his problem?
When many make credible replies to his argument,then yes he might not have a good case for his position.
So you, and I guess them, think that 0 degrees K is a possibly ???? I mean really, the early, randomly, could go to absolute zero? That is crazy thinking.
I am getting to hate spell checker.
early must be earths temperature.
Have you notice yet,that I have not supported anyone in that thread on this discussion?
so, are you saying that you agree with Nick’s position, and that other commenters on that post did not? If so, that was not clear.
No rs,
read it again:
“Have you notice yet,that I have not supported anyone in that thread on this discussion?”
Meanwhile there is a reply,Nick NEVER replied after three days:
” Phoenix44
October 1, 2017 at 11:40 am Edit
You don’t seem to have read the piece.
If a random walk can simulate the data, then the data can be a random walk.It is that simple.”
hmmmm…….
Okay.
A random walk can simulate anything. really. It’s random. Monkeys can do Shakespeare.
Nick was arguing from first principles. A random walk allows temp to go outside of physical reality.
Why does that need clarification?
Apparently you don’t even know what the objections are to what Nick talks about.
meanwhile………
The problem on that thread, at least initially, was that he was arguing by deflection – trying to make those unaware of that tactic think that his “counter” had anything to do with the thesis of the post. That is what I called him out for. It’s actually a favorite tactic of Nicks – as exhibited in the one comparing “temperatures” to a bounded random walk. (Where he seized on the “random” and completely ignored the “bounded” – which was pointed out to him many times, not that it did any good.)
BTW, concerning anonymity – my “handle” is my WP account, which I set up for my own blog (moribund at the moment). For those who can’t even click on the handle and read the blog, my real name is Richard Skinner.
Before that, there are probably many comments back in the archives with “Reality Observer” on them; those were me too. That was an anonymous handle, for continued employment purposes. (I still use it over on other comment platforms. Mainly because someone who keeps on changing their screen name is automatically considered “fishy” for very good reasons. I finally gave up on changing it manually every time I go onto a WP site.)
I “came out of the shadows” because I now really don’t give a damn. Regarding the remote possibility of my being riddled by a couple dozen rounds from the local SWAT team – well, the wife has always wanted San Diego beachfront property. Eight figures should take care of that dream for her…
Ome can’t prove much from a random walk. In a random walk, one would ‘take a random walk’ many many times which would give you a distribution of possible “where am I now?”s. This distribution is the statistical description of the null hypothesis. Using this, one can determine how likely it is you are where you are, assuming that the only influence was chance (.e. that your walk was random). In other words, one can ask a question like “How likely is what i observed given chance and only chance is operating?” If it turns out that the answer is “Not that effing likely!” Then one wpild tend to infer that something other than chance is at work. That something other than chance made you go in one direction vs. the other.
Since the walk in question involved a relatively brief time span, it struck me as an appropriate test.
Nothing prevents one from adjusting the observations to compensate for apriori factors and then running the random walk. One is just baking these factors into the null hypothesis.
It is annoying but is an admission that they have no case.
A while back I posted on RealClimate, and while there were folks who were unhappy, Gavin replied and he was polite.
Steve, you are getting vague here…..
I of course join all of the others here who applaud and thank Anthony for this great website and wish him continued success with it. I would surmise here that one’s blog does not easily get over 300 million hits in ten years unless one is doing something right. Anthony is a thorn in the side of those who have been wrongly brainwashed in believing the climate alarmist narrative and a thorn in the side of those who are using it as a pretext for their political/activist agenda knowing down deep inside that it is faulty. Al Gore is perhaps one of them.
I will suggest however that, as good as Internet technology is today for interacting with others over long distances, it also makes the climate alarmist narrative much easier to sell to the naive and gullible populace for one’s activist purposes. I suggest that it is (unfortunately) far easier to do so today with the Internet than it probably would have been 50 years ago without it. I cannot imagine the narrative being sold to the masses as easily and lasting this long as it has if it had come into being in the 1950’s or 60’s. Of course, the mainstream media (and especially the cable/satellite 24 hour news channel) has played a big role in selling the narrative and keeping it alive as long as it has.
Still, I have faith that the truth will eventually win out in the end. I just hope I live long enough to see it. Ma Nature is going to do whatever she wants and no doubt has little interest in those that are politically, emotionally, eco-religiously and financially vested in the alarmist narrative. I believe there is an old saying with says: A lie (or is it a rumor?) travels halfway around the world in the time it takes for the truth to put its boots on.
In general, I think that blogs like WU should _publicly_ document banned commenters, saying why they are banned. I also think that the “convicted” commenters should be released from banishment after some set time, maybe a time that gets longer for each banishment.
And I think that commenters should use their real names if they wish to be taken seriously. What’s your’s?
The whole fake name real debate seems like useless virtue signalling to me. Who really cares if someone wants to protect their real identity or if someone else throws caution to the wind and posts their real name? Oh but what about the ones who post a fake but real sounding name! Who honestly cares!? After all, they get the boot or get suspended when they cross the line. Leave it at that or debate the line or the enforcement productively. Or even better, debate climate science.
Well, I use “my” name mainly because it’s been my nickname for more than 20 years. Probably more people know me by that than the one in my passport. And No, it does not refer to “Doctor Who” though I am sometimes jesting about it. I think people should make up their mind whether they agree with my comments (or not!) based on what I actually post not on who I am.
Many commenters here know my “true” name, profession, official email address etc. (when I think it’s their business). Since I don’t consider myself a full-time anti CAGW activist I don’t look happily forward to get my regular email (and “snail-mail” box) littered with abusive insulting trash from misguided fanatics and other trolls …
I once commented using my real name at some other site and had to learn the hard way that it was not a smart choice.
Call it cowardice if you want to – I call it reasonable.
Sounds like a reasonable plan that you should implement for your blog, reallyskeptical.
Please let us know how well it works there.
Sou shouldn’t be released ever! You don’t make a site like the one she did on a nearly named domain and use it to slander, libel and misrepresent another site. Generally internet stalking is an unforgivable sin.
rs, some people who got banned should NEVER be given a second change because what they said was so wrong,that it was common sense not to reconsider them. Miriam (Sou) was one of them,since she made no decent effort to debate on the topic. She made a lot of personal attacks,with a heavy dose of Fallacies and being plain stupid.
Meanwhile Anthony stated earlier, that they VIOLATED Site Policy,which is the dominant cause of being banned.
You are zooming deeeep into the Twilight Zone,since you mock me who posted a real name,while you still don’t post yours.
You wrote,
“Oh. And poor sunsettommy, great, your name is tommy. I know 100s of tommys. so useful.”
It is really hard to take YOU seriously who mock me over a real name I post,while you continue to hide behind yours,unless of course you came from hippy parents who decided to name you, reallyskeptical.
You are looking really stupid now.
” I think that commenters should use their real names”
So ban most of your commenters. Do it.
Excellent phase shift, good bs skills with this one. Question remains.
What is YOUR real name,thy hypocrite…..
Mine is Thomas aka, (Sunsettommy)
rs,
you didn’t provide the entire quote:
“And I think that commenters should use their real names if they wish to be taken seriously. What’s your’s?”
He never said he ban anyone if they didn’t post their real names,surely that is obvious as many here have posted under a different name for years,as I have for at least 8 years.
Maybe it is time for you to slow down on this, since it is becoming a bore to read you whining about it.
“Excellent phase shift, good bs skills with this one. Question remains.”
“And I think that commenters should use their real names”
Wow. Why are you asking for my name when most of your posters don’t use theirs.
Or do you mean that you don’t take what most of your posters say seriously, because they don’t use their real names.
Oh. And poor sunsettommy, great, your name is tommy. I know 100s of tommys. so useful.
You are zooming deeeep into the Twilight Zone,since you mock me who posted a real name,while you still don’t post yours.
You wrote,
“Oh. And poor sunsettommy, great, your name is tommy. I know 100s of tommys. so useful.”
It is really hard to take YOU seriously who mock me over a real name I post,while you continue to hide behind yours,unless of course you came from hippy parents who decided to name you, reallyskeptical.
You are looking really stupid now.
I’m sorry, are you real?
So if I said my real name is Really, would you be happy?
Or if I said George, then would you be happy?
A real name is something that track you as an individual. So “Tommy” doesn’t cut it. It’s as fake as all the other names out there.
RS, remember i wuz tellin’ you ’bout that nietzsche thang?
So Mr. Skeptical…I can call you that right? Mr. Really Skeptical.
So anyway, Mr. Skeptical, you do realize that you are quickly denigrating yourself down to troll status with this thread, right? You are trying to dictate to Anthony how he should handle his site behind an anonymous handle which is the exact opposite of what you really are.
You might be a highly educated person, but right now you are acting like a basement internet tough guy.
NO… a blog is a blog owner’s personal property. And he or she should run it however he or she sees fit! All that ‘democracy’ and ‘fairness’ does is burn out a blogger. (Anthony, with his recent sabbatical, perhaps being exhibit A)…
I mean, really, you can ban people on your blog, and many people would agree with you. But why not make it public? There are examples of this, PZMyers comes to mind, but now I go to his blog and can’t find it. Oh well, whatever.
And why make it permenant, at least always. (You don’t for Nick)
(If you owned and/or Modederated operated several forums and blogs as I have,you would understand why Bannings are rarely made public.I have seen a forum be destroyed because the owner foolishly allowed debate over the merit of a ban) MOD
A blog be destroyed because of debate over a ban? This I have never heard of. Could you enlighten me?
My good friend and ex-lab mate PZMyer’s pharyngula site used to have this but I can’t seem to find it after he moved his site to freethoughtblogs. He has been on the web since about 2002, so he might know something about it.
I don’t recall big, well, huge flaps at WUWT over bannings. I think that’s mainly because people don’t get banned until they worn out their welcome multiple times and the great majority is glad to see them gone.
AW,
The following is excerpted from a letter to the editor in my daily newspaper. The letter addressed the LV shooting, but the sentiment applies everywhere, including climate.
“I’ll make it simple. We have a hate problem in this country. We throw around hate from dusk to dawn. We hate people in comment sections because they have a different opinion. We hate people because we don’t like their profile picture. We hate people because of where they come from. We are a country that loves to hate. That hate will continue to drive mentally unstable people, like the shooter tonight, to take hundreds of lives.”
Well, there are a couple of people that I would shoot on sight, considering their profile picture. You identify with “Alex” from “A Clockwork Orange,” and expect to be allowed anywhere near my family? Nope.
“We are a country that loves to hate.”
The author presumes to speak for everyone. I think he presumes too much.
We are a country of lovers and haters. I, personally, think the lovers are in the majority. That’s been my experience. The Las Vegas massacre is a good example of all the angels we have in our society.
Americans rise to the occasion when the time comes.
Not just Americans, your allies too.
http://www.forces.net/news/british-troops-help-treat-wounded-mass-shooting-las-vegas
They recognised the sound of gunfire and ran towards it.
“Not just Americans, your allies too.”
Well, since Americans are made up of people from every nation on Earth, that is essentially what I am saying.
I do think it helps that Americans (and our allies:) have a culture of self-sufficiency and independent thought and action which enhances the “rising to the occasion”.
Finally Canada is doing something to fight climate change and it involves kids.
Thank you O Liberal Minister McKenna wife of of the inimitable Scott Gilmore, great defender of Freeland, for offering this beauty to our kids in the style “Honey a shrank the kid’s brain”:
https://climatekids.ca/
Really, Thank you!
The “FeedBack” link is Inoperative – I do not wonder why.
“And using passive-aggressive, pseudo-polite language to attract hostility, then complain about people being mean, is a common ploy of the more insidious trolls.” Yes, they do. It has been a recent development and is probably best ignored, since anything one says is twisted like a floor mop and wrung out by the troll.
As for anonymous postings, I refused to use my name for a long time on my web pages—not because I have anything to hide (currently, my name, occupation, etc are on the sites as is the state where I live) but because I firmly believe that ideas are separate from the speaker. I learned that in college when taking philosophy classes and science classes—you evaluate WHAT is said, not WHO said it. It completely eliminates any appeal to authority. However, I found that people really don’t understand the concept, most like a name attached to a website so I gave up and used my name. I still wish there were NO real names used because ideas and facts are what count, but I’m a realist…..
“As for anonymous postings, I refused to use my name for a long time on my web pages—not because I have anything to hide (currently, my name, occupation, etc are on the sites as is the state where I live) but because I firmly believe that ideas are separate from the speaker.”
I agree with Sheri. It’s what you say, not who you are that is important.
T and A are my initials. My name is in my email address registered with Anthony.
I can post under my name if people insist because I have nothing to hide. I have posted on Usenet in sci.space.policy and alt.politics since about 1994, until I came to this website a couple of years ago, under my real name, so I’m not afraid to use my real name on the internet.
But not everyone is free to use their real names for many reasons, so I don’t think pressure should be put on people who wish to remain anonymous.
Not sure what to do about this since I naturally resist when I feel like someone is pressuring me, and changing my handle seems kind of like legitimizing Stokes and Nick’s criticisms of anonymous posters.
It’s what you say that is important, not your handle. Using one’s name or position to bolster one’s argument, is basically an appeal to authority.
Tom Abbott is my name, in case you were wondering.
That should be “Mosher and Nick’s”
They don’t care. A fanatic by any other name is still a fanatic. These people spewing the hate will get worse. They have replaced one religion with a new one – saving the planet! They are no different than those who ushered in the French Reign of Terror or the communists revolutions which slaughtered millions in Russia, China and Cambodia.
“They have replaced one religion with a new one – saving the planet! ”
I drink a lot. I believe in drinking. So drinking must be a religion, as least for me.
Those people who are engineers, they believe in engineering. So engineering is a religion, too.
It seems like calling a “religion” is now religious.
And meaningless.
Huh?
rs
If you are ‘really’ interested in the concept of environmentalism vs religion, I suggest that you spend a few minutes with Michael Crichton here. I think you will find that his anthropological explanation has nothing at all to do with drinking or engineering.
Best
JW
Some people become quite rapturous regarding nature, describing their emotional connection to it using religious terminology. Such feelings may be initiated and later heightened by an LSD trip along with some cannabis.
“So drinking must be a religion, as least for me”
Explains why most of your posts are incoherent nonsense.
Zero-science.. all alcohol. !
# Forrest Gardener
No engineer worth his degree “believes” in engineering. They know how to apply it properly.
I’ve run into Nick “Navier” Stokes on Judith Curry’s website, and found his trolling to be tolerable and easily dealt with. His website is interesting, sometimes, though not in the way he intends. It’s fine to have him post, as long as it is not in a libelous way. He does, in fact, sometimes offer arguments (rather than assertions or appeals to authority) that can be instructive. In other words, he is sometimes part of an actual debate, which is refreshing..
“Online, anonymity breeds contempt.
The Internet has created an easy and safe way for people to hurl insults, ugliness, slander, libel, and taunts without having to endure the consequences of their actions or the social shaming that would come if such things were said in polite company”
That’s why I use my real name when posting. I may sometimes be mistaken, but I avoid making childish
ad hominem attacks which I will later be ashamed of.
I could get a new g mail address and use a fictitious (real sounding) fake name.I could use a vpn that would mask my location.
I simply don’t care if people use fake names or pseudonyms as long as they use them consistently. It doesn’t take me long to establish their agenda or what kind of personality they have.
I don’t use my full name because if you google it then I pop up on the first line with my photo.
It only takes one vindictive nutcase to stir up trouble if they chose to.
Of course I could be lying.
I’m really only interested in what people say, rather than who they are.
Agree, in my case my picture and bio. would appear on the company web site of hard working colleagues who might be embarrassed by the attention (and my spelling).
I quiet like the ‘Joseph K’ association too!
WHO we are is IRRELEVANT to any logical, rational debate. The ONLY thing that matters are the conclusions that can logically and reasonably be drawn from the premises provided by those involved in the discussion. A serial killer can make strong, logical arguments and a PhD can make weak, illogical ones.
If you have to resort to using flawed logical premises about the person you are debating, it indicates that your argument sucks and you arent rational enough to engage with at all.
I am glad you are back Anthony,
Just a comment on this:
The main reason I read some of these posts is that the forum is open to knowledgeable people from all sides. Nick Stokes is probably the person I appreciate most of all. He shows that he has deep technical knowledge; excellent analytical skills and he present his views with a good and polite language.
The reason you find him obtuse could perhaps only be that you disagree with him?
/Jan
I agree. I always look out for Nick’s comments, and I appreciate that he takes the time and trouble to post on this site. Unfortunately, many people are not as polite as they should be when debating with Nick. He puts his head above the parapet and needs a thick skin.
Richard I agree. I hate when comments I reply to are filled with people who ‘agree’ to my position but devolve to insulting without substance.
The abuse isn’t bad. Its some of the dishonest replies dressed up as reasoning. I wrote a quick ( and not that great) explanation of why saying the ocean is warmed by the atmosphere through conduction is silly ( because the bottom 1 m of atmosphere would need to cool by about 1000 degrees to warm the top 1 m of ocean by 1 degree)
“No robert the first metre of atmosphere will not raise the first mete of ocean by the same amount in terms of temperature due to the differerent heat capacities of air and wate,r as I have already stated. The total energy (measured in joule)transfered from the atmosphere by conduction must be the same as that taken up by the ocean (and land). First and second laws of thermodynamics.”
If you didn’t pick up on it. He’s not actually disagreeing.
Well, its difficult bringing an opinion to the web… (and even more difficult to keep on presenting it: hat off to Anthony there)
The web is not a safe space
Its also difficult trying to comment across the lines on the web -for they are drawn more closely than in real life debate (in pub, office or political meeting)
And since I do that, I try (despite occasional strong feelings or anger) to keep within the local rules and keep it civil
And I get just as much abuse as any skeptic doing it. And I see just as much abuse heaped on leftists, leftards, progressives, climate scientists and other folk from commenters here as I see skeptics get elsewhere.
So I’d say ‘remove first the beam’
and then ask yourselves do you genuinely want debate, or just an internal debate?
what I want from this is a genuine ten shilling argument, an exchange of views on the science across 2 viewpoints.
If you don’t want that, you are free to have an internal discussion. block the non-skeptic view. That’s OK. A blog like Neven’s on sea ice just blocks all skeptic posts as declared policy.
I venture to suggest that this would be an even better site without the politics (those which do not bear directly on science or climate that is). That would remove a lot of controversy and abuse attracted, arising from issues which don’t bear on the main subject: climate.
(And I’m only anonymous in that it isn’t safe to put your name and address out there on the web. So Griff has to do)
I certainly wouldn’t deny that you are on one side of the debate that is in a minority on this website.
But I have tried explaining my skeptical views on prominent “elsewhere”[*] sites and quickly found my views were just deleted after it became clear I was serious about them and wouldn’t go away. You, on the other hand, are still commenting here at WUWT despite expressing views that are at odds with the blog owner.
[*Of the sites biggest elsewhere sites I consider to be completely ‘warmist’, the BBC still does fairly well in one respect: When they choose to allow comments, they do allow most opinions to be aired. However, I suspect this is just because they know that if they allow their bias to overcome the moderators obligations then I can ultimately write to my Member of Parliament. They will have the final say over BBC funding, even if it takes years or decades for the BBC to called to account. In the meantime, an MP can make life difficult for the BBC]
The thing is Griff, EVERYONE has their own opinions and they are allowed to have different ones. Even scientists last time I checked.
But OPINIONS are not FACTS. They are different words with different definitions. Science, hard cold science is about facts. What can be determined vs what cannot be. What can be replicated vs what cannot be. What can be predicted, and validated, vs what cannot be. What can be logically extrapolated vs what cannot be.
Logical fallacies will NEVER convince a rational mind. And they should NEVER be used or tolerated in ANY debate or argument of any degree of importance.
Science is about facts, truths and evidence. Opinions often involve emotions, personal interpretations, and cognitive biases. None of those things belong in “science” at all.
The sad fact is: Too many people “out there” actually believe something like 2+2=5 is a valid(!) alternative opinion.
The human desire to understand, from which all science is motivated, is an emotional desire.
Because of the imperfection of our senses, we cannot infallibly claim that facts, derived from our observations, are truth. We can only believe they are.
Thus, completely separating humanity from human knowledge is not possible. We are not logic-bots, as much as some seem to wish they were.
And it’s possible to think logically and irrationally at the same time. Logic is a method, only as good as the premises you plug into it, and just as vulnerable to GIGO as a computer climate model.
Debate does not have to be an a priori zero-sum game. Even Plato recognized thesis, antithesis, and *synthesis*.
Dred-
And that is your opinion.
🙂
“If truth is by nature subjective, the truth of the proposition “truth is subjective” is subjective, which means it is not necessarily true. However, for it to be false would mean that the proposition “truth is objective” can be true. But for this to be so would entail that truth is necessarily objective, for if the proposition “truth is objective” can be true, it must be true. This is not so of the proposition “truth is objective”, which is not self-contradictory. Ergo, either truth is objective, or the question is basically meaningless as for truth to be (by nature) subjective would mean that what is true isn’t necessarily true including the statement that what is true isn’t necessarily true.” Andrew Messing, Harvard University
Syllogism A–
Premise 1:
Nothing unreal exists.
Premise 2:
Objective truth exists.
Conclusion:
Objective truth is real.
Syllogism B–
Premise 1:
Only what we can sense and perceive, and induce or deduce from the same, is real.
(So we reject for argument’s sake the possibility of “revealed truth”, a domain of religion.)
Premise 2:
Our senses, perceptions, inductions, and deductions are fallible.
Conclusion:
We cannot infallibly sense, perceive, induce, or deduce what is real.
Syllogism C–
Premise 1:
Objective truth is real.
Premise 2:
We cannot infallibly sense, perceive, induce, or deduce what is real.
Conclusion:
We cannot infallibly sense, perceive, induce, or deduce what is objectively true.
🙂
There is a good proof of 1+1 doesn’t equal 2. Good because the logical fallacy is difficult to spot despite being a simple argument.
(Spoiler alert) The fault is that the square can be a negative number, not just the positive. Can you imagine a debate where such an objection is howled down as denierism? Its such a beautiful proof that I sincerely think that 97% of climate scientists couldn’t spot it even if their career didn’t hinge on the scam continuing.
I was corrected:
Matter of fact 2+2=5 ! You just have to choose a high enough value for “Two” 😉
Dred,
Here are the problems I had with your initial post.
“The human desire to understand, from which all science is motivated, is an emotional desire.”
Curiosity is not listed anywhere as a human “emotion”, nor did you offer evidence to support the claim that “all science is motivated” by the exact same thing.
“Because of the imperfection of our senses, we cannot infallibly claim that facts, derived from our observations, are truth. We can only believe they are.”
Corrected I might agree with you:
Because of the imperfection of our senses, we cannot infallibly claim that our CONCLUSIONS, derived from our observations, are FACTS/CORRECT.
“Thus, completely separating humanity from human knowledge is not possible. We are not logic-bots, as much as some seem to wish they were.”
Never suggested otherwise. But we CAN examine our premises and conclusions (And those of others) and determine whether those premises and conclusions are logical or not. We can identify the human biases and ( if we want our conclusions to be as rational, logical, and as correct as they possibly can be) reject them
“And it’s possible to think logically and irrationally at the same time.”
Evidence to support this conclusion please.
“Logic is a method, only as good as the premises you plug into it, and just as vulnerable to GIGO as a computer climate model.”
You provided no premises, or evidence, to support any of the conclusive statements you made. So logically, I can only assign them the value of being your opinion at this point.
“Debate does not have to be an a priori zero-sum game.”
I never said it did.
As far as your other response, objective truths or FACTS exist whether we can perceive, sense, induce or deduce them. That’s why they are OBJECTIVE rather than SUBJECTIVE. It is not human knowledge or discovery or understanding that makes them REAL. They exist outside of our imperfect senses.
I consider that it is very important to have Nick (and his ilk) regularly commenting on this site. Nick usually posts well constructed arguments, and backs his position up with data/links. This site requires a range of views and standpoints if it is not to get bogged down in group think, and preaching to the converted. A sceptic should be sceptical of both sides of the argument, so it is always good, and can only assist knowledge and understanding to see a range of views expressed. This site would be much poorer if Nick did not comment.
Nick is a very competent mathematician and that is the reason why he knows that all the time series thermometer temperature reconstruction sets are meaningless, and that it is impossible to make any comparison of temperature fluctuations with respect to time, because the sample set (the source data from which the temperature is obtained) for any one year is continually changing over time.
I have made this point to Nick many times. The data set from which the 1880 temperature is assessed, is not the same data set from which the 1900 temperature is assessed, which in turn is not the same data set from which the 1920 temperature is assessed, which in turn is not the same data set from which the 1940 temperature is assessed, etc and so forth. This means that at no stage is it possible to make a like for like comparison. One cannot look at the time series reconstructions and conclude that temperatures are rising (or have changed) because this may be nothing more than the consequence of using a different sample set.
It is akin to seeking to ascertain whether the height of men has changed over time, by measuring the height of adult men in Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Netherlands during the period 1961 to 1990 and finding an average of all these heights, and then compare it to the height of Spanish men measured in 1880 and conclude that the height of men has dramatically increased over time. One cannot from that conclude that in 1880 men were less tall than they are in 1960.
Nick recognises this fact, which besets all the time series thermometer temperature reconstruction sets (eg., GISS, HadCrut etc). Nick states:
There is no way that they can be carefully corrected for the difference, and it is absurd to even try. What one needs is good quality unadjusted RAW data that can be compared directly with good quality RAW data with no adjustments whatsoever,
I have outlined many times how to go about such approach, and why BEST was a lost opportunity in failing to audit the stations and failing only to use the most prime stations and in failing to utilise a different paradigm to that used by the likes of NOAA/GISS/HadCrut etc. BEST have used the same approach as the other heavily adjusted reconstruction series, but with a different algorithm. These algorithms are simply a fudge seeking to render poor quality data into something better. What is needed is to use only good quality data, and throw out, and not work with the rubbish.
richard verney October 5, 2017 at 5:51 am
I have made this point to Nick many times. The data set from which the 1880 temperature is assessed, is not the same data set from which the 1900 temperature is assessed, which in turn is not the same data set from which the 1920 temperature is assessed, which in turn is not the same data set from which the 1940 temperature is assessed, etc and so forth. This means that at no stage is it possible to make a like for like comparison. One cannot look at the time series reconstructions and conclude that temperatures are rising (or have changed) because this may be nothing more than the consequence of using a different sample set.
But even though the dataset is changing it’s still possible to do the random walk analysis. In my experiments on random walks I start out with a certain number of organisms at the center of the field of view which start wandering all over the plate. When I analyze the data I find they’re obeying random walk statistics, after a while some of them leave the field of view but the remainder still show random walk statistics. The data gets noisier with time of course until the number remaining gets too small to do the test.
Arkell v. Pressdam reminds me of Mark Steyn. And not of his publisher in question.
paranoia |ˌperəˈnoiə|
noun
a mental condition characterized by delusions of persecution, unwarranted jealousy, or exaggerated self-importance, typically elaborated into an organized system. It may be an aspect of chronic personality disorder, of drug abuse, or of a serious condition such as schizophrenia in which the person loses touch with reality.
• suspicion and mistrust of people or their actions without evidence or justification: the global paranoia about hackers and viruses.
And CAGW
Thanks for all Anthony.
And I still miss Andrew Breitbart.
I’ve definitely benefited. Thanks
It also helps to know the intellectual adversary if you could call them that. They look mostly hollow by all observations. I gravitate to the deeper information pool like WUWT. Others prefer the kiddie pool at NYT or the wet spot at HuffPo.
if you are a “a regular target of hate mail, hate Tweets, and hate blog essays”
Then it proves you are on the right track.
REAL science does not need to vilify people to “prove itself” – E.G We might poke some fun at “Flat Earthers”… but we don;t send hate mail or attack them… becasue “spheroid Earth” is REAL science, Flat Earth is not.
Same here – ACC is the “non-science” (you could shorten that to “nonsense” and it still has meaning)… and it needs to attack you to divert attention from your REAL science.
‘Recently, with a comment where he smeared somebody, he earned being put on moderation’
I’ve been on moderation for years. It’s not that tough. Though it is curious.
It’s like this:
“Anonymous sources say…”
Most never get grew out of middle school.