tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4141773058444547921.post1228119567120129038..comments2024-03-28T22:57:59.129-07:00Comments on Ingenious Pursuits: Deniers crying in their beersCatmandohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12313870265499015076noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4141773058444547921.post-71686004773489933252014-10-20T14:15:54.167-07:002014-10-20T14:15:54.167-07:00Thank you for the compliment. And I could not agr...Thank you for the compliment. And I could not agree more with your last sentence.Catmandohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12313870265499015076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4141773058444547921.post-13915035083315117542014-10-20T06:52:17.719-07:002014-10-20T06:52:17.719-07:00Thanks, what can I say my mama told me always ask ...Thanks, what can I say my mama told me always ask (when possible). ;- )<br />I appreciate your endorsement and probably will repost from here again, you write some good stuff. Now if only some of it would soak into the faith-based thick skulls that need the learning the most, such as our pal Mr. Steele, the world would be a better place.citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4141773058444547921.post-29726326786145584132014-10-19T23:08:25.095-07:002014-10-19T23:08:25.095-07:00Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier. I lik...Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier. I like what you have done with my post and fully endorse it. Thank you for your efforts in improving my modest effort. You don't have to ask in the future if there is anything you want to use. Just go ahead and use it.Catmandohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12313870265499015076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4141773058444547921.post-75918782304415129432014-10-19T21:39:58.654-07:002014-10-19T21:39:58.654-07:00Well Catmando actually,
if I don't do this to...Well Catmando actually, <br />if I don't do this tonight, who know's when I'll be able to get to it. Besides, I have a good feeling that you'll tell me "of course" I haven't for gotten your Feynman quotes ;-) .<br /><br />Furthermore, the more I thought about it, the more I liked "Catmando does Jim Steele" - if you have objections, I'll change it.<br /><br />http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/10/catmando-does-jim-steele.htmlcitizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4141773058444547921.post-46421411515613868812014-10-19T19:55:22.588-07:002014-10-19T19:55:22.588-07:00Catmando, excellent review of the game that Jim St...Catmando, excellent review of the game that Jim Steele is playing.<br />In fact. so good, I would very much like to Repost great swaths of it at WUWTW, about 1,000 words worth. I've clipped most of the Years Of Living Dangerously specific paragraphs, but kept all the Feynman related paragraphs. I'd love to give it a title like "Catmando does Jim Steele" but will come up with something more restrained. ~~~ what do you think, can I have your blessing?citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4141773058444547921.post-82974690760951237432014-05-10T22:40:54.968-07:002014-05-10T22:40:54.968-07:00From Sagan: don't believe in the argument from...From Sagan: don't believe in the argument from authority, authorities have been wrong in the past.<br /><br />I notice that almost your first response is to claim that the thing is about the person. Not so. I was writing about your specious moan. You seem to act as if question everything should have the added corollary "except Jim Steele".<br /><br />Of course, the quotes you give are about scientists doing science. They are not about scientists throwing paper in the air and going, yeah, you've been right all along. Global warming isn't real. Perhaps you understand that.Catmandohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12313870265499015076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4141773058444547921.post-9569828169038917212014-05-09T23:39:23.058-07:002014-05-09T23:39:23.058-07:00Sweden's top climate scientist and IPCC member...Sweden's top climate scientist and IPCC member recently explains it best.<br /><br />"There is not a single well educated scientist that question that greenhouse gases do affect climate. However, this is not the issue but rather how much and how fast. Here there is no consensus as you can see from the IPCC report where climate sensitivity varies with a factor of three! Based on observational data climate sensitivity is clearly rather small and much smaller that the majority of models."<br /><br />Why do you ignore the answers such well qualified scientists who say the issue of climate sensitivity is totally unsettled???<br /><br />Or the answers from Germany's leading climate scientists and IPCC member Dr von Storch who says "“If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations."<br /><br />I started off teaching students that Co2 warming was real. My questioning led me to ask why were there so many bogus papers suggesting ecological catastrophe had been caused by such a small rise in temperature.<br /><br />You claim I misunderstood Sagan's baloney detector? Really ??? How so? Are you suggesting attacking the arguer is better science than examining the argument simply because that is what you prefer to do??Jim Steelehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02652430670493741009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4141773058444547921.post-76757028765581692262014-05-07T23:21:00.201-07:002014-05-07T23:21:00.201-07:00Jim, I will posit something. Einstein said questio...Jim, I will posit something. Einstein said question everything. Do you think he meant ignore the answers? Do you think he meant ignore the evidence? Do you think he meant having a mind so open that your brains fall out? <br /><br />I recall a few weeks back that you misunderstood Carl Sagan's baloney detector. I read that book too. <br /><br />My journey to my present position began more or less on your side of the fence. What I did do was question things. One of the things I questioned was why those people who studied climate science told me one thing and journalists, engineers and others who were not so well qualified in climate science were trying to tell me something different. The questions have answers that put me firmly in the AGW camp. Catmandohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12313870265499015076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4141773058444547921.post-46238421659122597242014-05-07T22:18:43.978-07:002014-05-07T22:18:43.978-07:00I was commenting on what you wrote, not the show. ...I was commenting on what you wrote, not the show. At great length you told me that you were upset that the show did not do what you wanted it to do. Sorry, but it is a TV show and the producers set out to give a particular point, are you going to moan about Cosmos next? It kicks the deniers, a word with at least 150 years of history of being used in this context so don't get uppity about the Holocaust denier non-link. <br /><br />I don't need to be Feynman's ideal scientist either. Like I said, I thought you'd arrive here and misrepresent. I am character assassinating all skeptics. I don't need to, they do a very good job of showing themselves up.Catmandohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12313870265499015076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4141773058444547921.post-50862033553802791382014-05-07T21:01:50.453-07:002014-05-07T21:01:50.453-07:00The rest of Feynman's quote was left out for b...The rest of Feynman's quote was left out for breivty purposes but you can twist it as you may. It is exactly the rest of the quote that prompted me to write my essay. It was the producers who failed to provide even a hint of the abundant peer reviewed science that shows it was not climate change but watershed management that was hurting oyster fisheries. You really should be attacking the producers for not honoring Feynman's ideal scientist.<br /><br />The documentary's producers and yourself fail Feynman's ideal. "Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can—if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong—to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. In summary, the idea is to try to give all the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution, not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another. "<br /><br />I do not knwo anything more about Joyner or his beliefs other than how he acted in the documentary. But his sincere openness to opposing views is an example of how we should all act when we are faced with contrary viewpoints. And in that regard you too could learn much from the pastor's behavior. But despite my presentation and my references to peer reviewed science that debunks the documentaries fear mongering, you try to redirect people's attention away from the evidence via character assassination of all skeptics. I suggest you practice what you preach.Jim Steelehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02652430670493741009noreply@blogger.com