Date: 23/11/18
Andrew Montford, GWPF
Some climate scientists still struggle to cope with people who disagree
So a few days back, Cliff Mass – a Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Washington as well as a radio weatherman – decided to write something about the wildfires in California, and in particular, the question of whether climate change had played a role. At the end of a long analysis of climatological trends in the area, he drew his conclusions:
Was Global Warming A Significant Factor in California's Camp Fire? The Answer is Clearly No. https://t.co/FjphH8N5tj pic.twitter.com/MhbjsEjSnN
— Cliff Mass (@CliffMass) November 20, 2018
Unexceptionable, you might think. Agree or disagree: show us your data and talk about it.
Well, not in the Alice in Wonderland world of climate science. Take a look at some of the replies, particularly those from a moderately prominent climate scientist called Sarah Myhre.
This. Is. Propaganda. https://t.co/8loAkr0Ey4
— Dr. Sarah E. Myhre (@SarahEMyhre) November 20, 2018
There were many other responses in similar vein. One more moderate-minded reader tried to bring a little sanity to the exchange, but was told in no uncertain terms to be quiet:
Sorry Charles. That's white male identity politics to a T.
— Dr. Sarah E. Myhre (@SarahEMyhre) November 20, 2018
Read the rest of this sad episode here.
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2018/05/meet-scientist-feminist-activist-sarah-myhre/
What’s a T?
Toto,
Maybe it is an abbreviation for a “Texas T-shirt.” 🙂
The commonly understood definition of:
Violence — the unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force
behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something
Dr. Myhre characterizes a point of view that differs from hers as … “violence”.
So, we have yet another instance of a PhD trying to hijack a word with her own newly ill-conceived, false definition. Who is exercising “violence” now ? — SHE is, … by trying to FORCE people to adopt her twisted definition of a commonly understood word that has nothing to do with a factual opinion, which happens to cause her some cognitive dissonance, and to which she has zero rational response.
There has been a lot of hijacking of words.
Optics now means how something looks, instead of something you look through. What was wrong with “visuals”?
Gender now means sex, instead of behavior.
Calculus now means “done the math”, instead of actual Calculus.
Dr. Myhre tweets thus:
“I can always tell when I get trolled and profiled on WUWT. The volume of garbage elsewhere goes up significantly. It’s one of their bat signals.”
That’s a good illustration of how many skeptical visitors there are at WUWT, most of whom are either scientists, scientifically literate or interested in how science works. Engineers too (lest we forget).
I had no idea what a “bat signal” is so I looked it up:
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Bat%20Signal
Oh dear, it must be awful to harbour so much anger. Something must have happened to make her like that. It couldn’t be having her career being derailed by white male privilege because she seems to be doing more than just OK there. Something more personal, then. There are some pretty good drugs that can ease the pain, and psychoanalysis can’t hurt.
Back to her tweets:
“I haven’t sunk 18 years of my life into a professional scientific career to cowtow to blatantly false, misleading, and harmful rhetoric. That’s not what I was trained to do.”
She was referring to Cliff Mass’ statements as “rhetoric”. Tragic. Whereas that tweet is pretty close to being a type example of rhetoric; using strong, emotionally charged language to make a point. As opposed to citing factual data.
It’s post-science science.
Apparently, someone, somewhere, gave this person a PhD. I feel degraded.
Propaganda. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Let me suggest that people go to the actual tweet and answer her madness in the place where she’s fomenting it. Here’s what I tweeted:
Also, see the WUWT post “The Sad Case of Dr. Sarah Myhre“.
Best to all, keep fighting the good fight,
w.
Don’t you have to have a twitter account to participate ?
I don’t, and I wouldn’t lower myself to signing up for such an account now.
Sorry, I don’t get the twit.
Indeed, Robert. I can’t bring myself to stoop to such a low level.
I don’t have a cellphone so I can’t tweet to the twit.
How many ad hominems and logical fallacies can you fit into Twitter? The capacity seems almost infinite… with Dr Myhre’s use of such blatant examples, you could be forgiven for thinking her real intent is to undermine the very argument she purports to support.
Sorry Sarah. That is hysterical white female pseudo-feminist posturing, masquerading as politics, to a T.
More like nonsense masquerading as sense.
I haven’t practised science for nearly 30 years, but nonetheless….
Did Ms Myhre’s PhD thesis have a title? Mine did. Everyone I read or saw did.
Usually it’s something that the candidate is trying to figure out, but a list of topics is not a thesis title.
I dug mine out to have a look, in case I’d forgotten. Title, intro, references, check. Data, ooh yes, lots of tables. Graphs, lots of those too. Sampling methods, analytical methods, standardisations. Discussion, argument, conclusions. Yes all there.
Science used to go: Here’s my idea, and how I got to it. Now please try to find any mistakes in my work.
Is there some special ‘right-on’ form of science now that goes: Here’s my idea, and because it’s fully politically compliant you’re not allowed to criticise it esepecially if you’re white/male/old/dog-owner/lumberjack or anything else deemed scary or ‘oppressive’.
I might just test my resolve and see if I can listen to one of her lectures.
Or maybe I’ll just go to the pub.
😎
It seems for some time now you can get a PhD by saying (with a bunch of words) what those who got their PhDs from those who got their PhDs from those who …. (How many times do I have to repeat that to get to the point that their conclusion was what they wanted to hear?)
(That corruption probably predates “peer-review” corruption.)
Sorry, Sarah, that’s science.
She/her/they/paleocenographer Dr Sarah E. Myhre tweets:
“Hey students and activist scholars going to AGU. I’m gonna finalize my calendar this week. Please get in touch if you’d like to be added to my calendar.”
Self described “Public Scholar” Dr. Myhre…
“…has more than 100 speaking engagements, columns, blogs, radio and TV appearances and is ready to light a carbon-free fire under any group as to what you need to get with the program of helping stop climate warming ”
Among her speaking topics for purchase is this ironic gem: “Everyone Can – and Should– Speak about Their Own Science”.
http://sarahmyhre.com/how-you-can-join-sarah/
Carbon-free fire? That’ll be a nuclear reaction then, surely?
Oh, but that’s old white male sciency-engineeringy stuff isn’t it…
Can’t have that.
As a human,she has the right to her opinion!! As a human I have the right to disagree!
“human” ? — that’s sexist, because it has the word, “man”, in it, and she’d be the first to point this out to you.
“Huperson” might be less sexist. Or, I think the proper protocol now is “humyn” — notice the word, “my” replaces the word, “man”, which makes it more selfish (as in “my my my my my” to focus on how it is MY point of view, … MY idea, … MY understanding, … play by MY rules, etc.)
As a huMYn, she most certainly does have a right to HER (my my my) opinion. As a huMAN, well, she doesn’t, because she is NOT a huMAN. I think that she would have to agree, … by definition.
Robert,
But, “person” literally means “of a male child,” although I believe it was derived from “persona” from a period of time when all actors were male. So, if the feminists were to give it some thought, they would probably also reject “huperson.”
In as much as so much TV and vast amounts of the internet are just mental massage for the hard of thinking, twitter and facebook type developments are largely displays of onanism by the ignorant.
I’m at https://twitter.com/null
On the bright side, she got a nose job. And wrote about it!
https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2018/03/01/25869908/why-i-got-a-nose-job-a-scientists-confession
“Sorry Charles. That’s white male identity politics to a T.” is not an argument.
It’s a proof that climate alarmists don’t have arguments.