Yes, we are descending into scientific minutia here, but realize that Steve McIntyre has been hailed as a scientific hero for a process of reasoning that would embarrass a retarded chipmunk.
Thursday, October 08, 2009
A Staggering Display Of Incompetence
Shorter Deltoid: McIntyre was asking the wrong guy for data he already had.
Yes, we are descending into scientific minutia here, but realize that Steve McIntyre has been hailed as a scientific hero for a process of reasoning that would embarrass a retarded chipmunk.
Yes, we are descending into scientific minutia here, but realize that Steve McIntyre has been hailed as a scientific hero for a process of reasoning that would embarrass a retarded chipmunk.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Gee, when I read the header I thought this must be a thread on Dalton McIncompetent and his One Billion eHealth fiasco. But no, just more warmer bilge. You disappoint me.
I was expecting more discussion regarding the Liberal party machine..
But, I do find the discussion interesting.. though in some respects it ignores the bigger question:
Even if we assume the "theory" of global warming is accurate, what accurate science do we have on the future affects? Will we be growing thousands of more acres of food north of Alberta and Saskatchewan to help feed the millions of starving people.. will oceans REALLLLY rise to consume Miami and New Orleans?
And - more importantly - do you REAAALLLY think that the current problem with citizen motivation is truly "disinformation". Or perhaps people are more concerned with their immediate self-interest and are tired of being treated like rubes.
Don't expect me to buy in because some UN organization tells me to. We distrust the UN, we accept that their agenda is frequently to deceive the world for some other hidden agenda.
So - let's get some more fruitful discussion that doesn't treat us like idiots. More science and less politics. Admit what you DON'T know and we're more likely to believe what you say you DO know.
Just sayin'
But, I do find the discussion interesting.. though in some respects it ignores the bigger question:
You're trolling, Rob.
You made a similar point earlier TG.. that the debate over the details has become tedious.. I've been reading the back and forth, and so much of it has nothing to do with the conclusions, it has to do with the process..
If I can be devil's advocate regarding my own soft-AGW position.. ok, so, McIntyre, even if I accede to your point regarding method, what's YOUR evidence that global warming is NOT occurring. Can YOU say with certainty that it ISN'T happening?
And.. if so, what is the downside of being better "safe than sorry"?
Point being, we're debating the placement of deck chairs instead of discussing how far away the iceberg is and how best to respond to it, taking into account the position of "true believers" and "non-believers".
..and, in so doing.. respecting the reality that non-believers are out there, and instead of attacking them, say, "Ok, so, let me understand why you believe that.. and then suggest that, like the existence of God - it's not just that I can't prove to you he doesn't exist, I have to also concede that I can't prove to you that he does exist. So let's start with that common understanding and see what we can agree upon..
Like - do you think it's a good thing that we pump millions of tons of refuse into the air every day?
Do you think it's a good idea that North America has such a reliance upon mid-east oil?
I just think the "side taking" is detracting from forward momentum on SOME basis.
You made a similar point earlier TG.. that the debate over the details has become tedious...
Not tedious. Hard to follow.
And I didn't go on to suggest that this specific instance of minutia is an attempt to "ignore the larger" point, which to you, is always the issue that people who, quite obviously, can't handle all the science involved and who don't have immediate, local evidence of climate change (two conditions that will likely never change) have legitimate reasons for being agnostics about global warming, if not outright deniers.
It's absurd. It's like asserting that people who know nothing about quantum physics have legitimate reasons to believe that science is dubious.
I don't know what you expect to get out of this blog when you come here. If I care to, I follow the links in the post. I have none of the grandiose ambitions you seem to think these discussions should be in support of.
"respecting the reality that non-believers are out there, and instead of attacking them, say, "Ok, so, let me understand why you believe that.."
That's pretty funny Rob. You obviously don't follow this issue very closely.
How many times should one say "OK, so, let me understand..."?
I'd say that after you've seen the same denialist myth presented and debunked 100+ times, and presented again regardless of whether the debunking is done politely, sensitively, rudely, condescendingly, etc, you'll realize how worthless your advice is. When you can no longer count the times you heard "blogscientist totally disproves global warming!!1!! click here!!111!!1!", watched as blogscientist's claim is shredded, then watched as the deniots respond with "interesting.. though in some respects it ignores the bigger question", then demand that they be spoon fed answers for the nth time to their recycled questions; at that point I think you'll agree that the natural response of even the most civilized is "Fuck of roblaw, you retrograde ignoramus", or some variation thereof.
However, having infinite patience I'll simply suggest you get a library card and spend some time becoming informed, rather than trolling the internet demanding that your ignorance by respected and accommodated
That's pretty funny Rob. You obviously don't follow this issue very closely.
Oh God, don't say that. He'll be back with a 3000 word comment about how that's the UN's fault, or something.
I don't really care what roblaw has to say. These people are morons of the same calibre as creationists and birthers, and they should be marginalized and treated as such.
They demand to be described as "skeptics" when in fact they're as credulous as newborn babes.
They immediately and unquestioningly believe every blog-issued utterance from any untrained crank regardless of whether they've been repeatedly shown to be dishonest and/or incompetent, while refusing to believe anything refereed and published in journals by the world's experts.
Oh, I forgot, roblaw actually has a "soft-agw" position. Whatever that means.
I suspect a lifetime of clicking the idiot box has convinced people that they can choose whichever reality they find the most conforting. And every story has a happy ending anyhow.
Post a Comment