Betraying the Planet

[KrazyHorse]

Krugman was a necessary voice during the Bush years. He spoke up clearly and forcefully when much of the US had its head buried in the sand.

That being said, he's been losing some of my respect for a while now.

[DaShi]

A bird in the hand? Seriously? I don't think that saying means what you think it means.

I thought we were just quoting pointless platitudes. Yours certainly didn't relate to the topic on hand.

Krugman speaks as an authority. It doesn't matter that he's not a scientist, because his thesis is that the scientific debate is resolved.

So Krugman is a climatologist in your fantasy world. Is there anything else about it we should know before furthering this conversation?

The point of the Feynman piece is that we have to be careful of people who fail to rigorously attack their own work. Too many people try to make a name for themselves by coming out with a new article in a high profile journal, and they cut corners along the way.

So? Who exactly is doing this and how does it relate to the topic? Names would be nice.

The reason I brought it up is because I feel that a lot of the global warming alarmism is based on science of questionable rigor. Do I think that the deniers are being more rigorous? Not really. I think both sides have allowed politics to debase science though. The deniers just aren't saying ridiculous **** like "treason against the planet."

Oh, so you believe that we are all mindreaders. May I ask what gave you that impression?

How do you feel?

Like I'm wasting my time.

[Felch]

I thought we were just quoting pointless platitudes. Yours certainly didn't relate to the topic on hand.

WTF thread are you reading? The topic is Krugman's piece about how anybody who disagrees with him is a traitor to mother earth. My point is that such rhetoric is bad for science.

So Krugman is a climatologist in your fantasy world. Is there anything else about it we should know before furthering this conversation?

No, Ben, I never said he was a climatologist. I said he was speaking as an authority. An authority isn't just a scientist. It could be a public policy expert.

So? Who exactly is doing this and how does it relate to the topic? Names would be nice.

I don't know. I don't care. I don't collect climatologist trading cards and keep them in a shoebox under my bed. I do know that there have been cases of scientists who let the glamor of a high-profile career cloud their judgement.

Oh, so you believe that we are all mindreaders. May I ask what gave you that impression?

Mindreaders? Seriously, what are you reading? Where did I mention mindreading? WTF!?

Like I'm wasting my time.

Then **** off. I never said Krugman was a climatologist, I never said a single word about mindreading. Maybe instead of fantasizing things I never said or even implied, you could go take a bong hit and chill out.

As far as the science of this goes, I know there have been several models made to simulate climate change. Does anybody know which one has had the best luck tracking with the actual data?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Krugman was a necessary voice during the Bush years. He spoke up clearly and forcefully when much of the US had its head buried in the sand.

That being said, he's been losing some of my respect for a while now.

The unfortunate thing is that Krugman has turned into a complete hack.

[DaShi]

WTF thread are you reading? The topic is Krugman's piece about how anybody who disagrees with him is a traitor to mother earth. My point is that such rhetoric is bad for science.

This reeks of hyperbole. Also, Krugman is a climate scientist?

No, Ben, I never said he was a climatologist. I said he was speaking as an authority. An authority isn't just a scientist. It could be a public policy expert.

Now the personal attacks come out. Anyway, so in your fantasy world public policy experts are experts in climatology, and Krugman is such an expert?

[quote[
I don't know. I don't care. I don't collect climatologist trading cards and keep them in a shoebox under my bed. I do know that there have been cases of scientists who let the glamor of a high-profile career cloud their judgement. [/quote]

So you are judging them with no factual information of your own? Are you sure that the Feynman article wasn't just a cry for help for your own problems?

Mindreaders? Seriously, what are you reading? Where did I mention mindreading? WTF!?

This is an odd response. You post an article that is not related to the topic. Then you expect us to know what you are trying to prove with it. Then you get in a fit when we can't. There are only two explanations for this, and the polite one is that you believe that we can read minds.

Then **** off. I never said Krugman was a climatologist, I never said a single word about mindreading. Maybe instead of fantasizing things I never said or even implied, you could go take a bong hit and chill out.

Which is unfortunate. Your posts would have at least made sense (they'd still be wrong) if you had said those things.

[Lorizael]

Holy ****ing god, Dashi, you're being obtuse. Felch's point is really simple: When public figures speak in absolute terms, it's bad for debate. That's all. Jesus H. Christ.

[Felch]

This reeks of hyperbole. Also, Krugman is a climate scientist?

It's not hyperbole if I rephrase what he said. He said "treason against the planet." I said, "traitor to mother earth." How is that hyperbolic? And where do you get the climate scientist bit from?

Now the personal attacks come out. Anyway, so in your fantasy world public policy experts are experts in climatology, and Krugman is such an expert?

If you make **** up, expect to be called Ben. And no, public policy experts are not experts in climatology. They are experts in public policy. When I say otherwise, feel free to correct me.

So you are judging them with no factual information of your own? Are you sure that the Feynman article wasn't just a cry for help for your own problems?

When politics and prestige get mixed in with science, bad things happen. That's the point I was making. Other people understand it. You obviously don't.

This is an odd response. You post an article that is not related to the topic. Then you expect us to know what you are trying to prove with it. Then you get in a fit when we can't. There are only two explanations for this, and the polite one is that you believe that we can read minds.

The topic is Krugman saying that anybody who disagrees with him is a traitor to the planet. I posted an article that I thought was worthwhile, about how science is ill-served by the push prestige and the decay of rigor. Try very hard, and you might be able to connect the dots.

Which is unfortunate. Your posts would have at least made sense (they'd still be wrong) if you had said those things.

How would I have made any sense at all if I were talking about mindreading.

[DaShi]

Holy ****ing god, Dashi, you're being obtuse. Felch's point is really simple: When public figures speak in absolute terms, it's bad for debate. That's all. Jesus H. Christ.

That wasn't clear from the lengthy article he posted. He stated it as an attack on the scientific method. Krugman is not a scientist. Well, not in this field. Thus, the target would seem to be either the MIT scientists or the "disreputable" sources that Krugman refers to. Do you not agree with these possible interpretations given the information at hand?

I did so I inquired further about it because I was expecting him to demonstrate what the weaknesses of the science on which ever side he was arguing for were according to the criteria of the article. Sadly it turned out the be targetted toward Krugman (by one measly little paragraph from that whole article). I thought, this is a hefty burden to put on a layman. Further inquiry showed that Felch didn't think this through and, I believe, just wanted to post that article to pretend to be clever (supported by the platitudes he posted later). Forgive me for challenging what I see.

However Lori, if it is so clear for you, why do you explain how the entire article addresses how public figures speaking in absolute terms is bad for debate and not anything else.

[Jon Miller]

People who believe that global warming is the most serious environmental problem are blind or something.

JM

[Felch]

The target was the climate scientists. The point is that they are being turned into political pawns, and that politicizing science leads to bad science. I'm sorry that you seem to get a kick out of misunderstanding people. Not my intention to become your piss pot.

Was the Feynman article posted to be clever? Yes. Feynman, even long dead, is still smarter than Krugman at his peak.

I had a question earlier, and I'm interested in the answer.

"As far as the science of this goes, I know there have been several models made to simulate climate change. Does anybody know which one has had the best luck tracking with the actual data?"

[Lorizael]

That wasn't clear from the lengthy article he posted. He stated it as an attack on the scientific method. Krugman is not a scientist. Well, not in this field. Thus, the target would seem to be either the MIT scientists or the "disreputable" sources that Krugman refers to. Do you not agree with these possible interpretations given the information at hand?

I did so I inquired further about it because I was expecting him to demonstrate what the weaknesses of the science on which ever side he was arguing for were according to the criteria of the article. Sadly it turned out the be targetted toward Krugman (by one measly little paragraph from that whole article). I thought, this is a hefty burden to put on a layman. Further inquiry showed that Felch didn't think this through and, I believe, just wanted to post that article to pretend to be clever (supported by the platitudes he posted later). Forgive me for challenging what I see.

However Lori, if it is so clear for you, why do you explain how the entire article addresses how public figures speaking in absolute terms is bad for debate and not anything else.

Don't pretend you're engaging Felch in real debate. Your posting record clearly indicates that you viciously attack anyone who disagrees with your point of view. I have no desire to prove the point that Felch is making; he's doing a fine job of that himself, and I'm sure most of this thread's participants understood his point.

[DaShi]

It's not hyperbole if I rephrase what he said. He said "treason against the planet." I said, "traitor to mother earth." How is that hyperbolic?

What? Really?

And where do you get the climate scientist bit from?

Let me ask you something. If the Surgeon General comes out saying that the Large Hadron collider is dangerous and will create a blackhole, are you going to protest its use? Or better yet, Maureen Dowd says that Dick Cheney had sex with the devil to become vice president, are you going to consider what you would do for your career options?

If you make **** up, expect to be called Ben. And no, public policy experts are not experts in climatology. They are experts in public policy. When I say otherwise, feel free to correct me.

What have I made up? I'm sticking solely to the facts of this thread. Now who gives a **** what a janitor in New Mexico thinks about cellphone radiation?

When politics and prestige get mixed in with science, bad things happen. That's the point I was making. Other people understand it. You obviously don't.

Yes, but your target was off or you used the wrong method. Feynman article calls for scientists to be more thorough. It is an attack against modern scientific practice. It is not an attack against politics (well remotely). Thus, you either shouldn't have been targetting Krugman with it or you should have used a different approach to explain yourself. Regardless, you should have been clear what you were saying with such a long article.

How this "Here's what another Nobel Laureate had to say about the scientific method, and its decline in modern settings" equals "Paul Krugman's beliefs rhetoric on climate change is wrong" is a far stretch.

The topic is Krugman saying that anybody who disagrees with him is a traitor to the planet.

Hyperbole.

I posted an article that I thought was worthwhile, about how science is ill-served by the push prestige and the decay of rigor.

And what rigor was Krugman supposed to put into climate science? Should he have repeated the past experiments of the researchers he quoted before writing the article. If you don't think that is unreasonable, then everything you've said would make sense under an insanity plea.

How would I have made any sense at all if I were talking about mindreading.

You post an article that is not related to the topic. Then you expect us to know what you are trying to prove with it. Then you get in a fit when we can't. There are only two explanations for this, and the polite one is that you believe that we can read minds.

[DaShi]

Don't pretend you're engaging Felch in real debate. Your posting record clearly indicates that you viciously attack anyone who disagrees with your point of view. I have no desire to prove the point that Felch is making; he's doing a fine job of that himself, and I'm sure most of this thread's participants understood his point.

Oh please. This is the equivalent of a personal attack to escape having to defend your wrongful (yes, you are wrong) claims. I've not attacked Felch once and have given him plenty of opportunities to explain his side while presenting my own. If you don't like it, there are more mature ways to handle it.

[DaShi]

The target was the climate scientists. The point is that they are being turned into political pawns, and that politicizing science leads to bad science. I'm sorry that you seem to get a kick out of misunderstanding people. Not my intention to become your piss pot.

How could I not misunderstand you? You had just said earlier that Krugman was your target. In fact, so did Lori, who you then confirmed it with. Now you're saying something completely different (although it nice that it is what I said your initial target should have been ). You're just being dishonest now. And Lori is just being a jerk. Is this what passes for civil discourse under your moderation Lori? Insults and deceit?

[Felch]

What? Really?

Yes, really. The question is, what are you going to do about it?

Let me ask you something. If the Surgeon General comes out saying that the Large Hadron collider is dangerous and will create a blackhole, are you going to protest its use? Or better yet, Maureen Dowd says that Dick Cheney had sex with the devil to become vice president, are you going to consider what you would do for your career options?

Isn't the part of the point of the LHC to create blackholes in a controlled setting?

Was Cheney butch or *****? Was he the Asher or the Wiglaf?

What have I made up? I'm sticking solely to the facts of this thread. Now who gives a **** what a janitor in New Mexico thinks about cellphone radiation?

Absolutely. Turkeys are delicious. But the pancakes stole my oatmeal!

Yes, but your target was off or you used the wrong method. Feynman article calls for scientists to be more thorough. It is an attack against modern scientific practice. It is not an attack against politics (well remotely). Thus, you either shouldn't have been targetting Krugman with it or you should have used a different approach to explain yourself. Regardless, you should have been clear what you were saying with such a long article.

How this "Here's what another Nobel Laureate had to say about the scientific method, and its decline in modern settings" equals "Paul Krugman's beliefs rhetoric on climate change is wrong" is a far stretch.

Fair point. How about you calm down and say that to begin with instead of random weird crap?

Hyperbole.

NO. It's a ****ing paraphrasing of the article. Not hyperbole.

And what rigor was Krugman supposed to put into climate science? Should he have repeated the past experiments of the researchers he quoted before writing the article. If you don't think that is unreasonable, then everything you've said would make sense under an insanity plea.

Krugman should recognize that being skeptical is not a sin. Some people are skeptical for political reasons, but there are others who have a sincere desire to not let the mob mentality take over. His rhetoric demonizes anybody who would consider the possibility that climate change is either unpredictable or possibly benign. Personally I suspect it will be benign. But I'm not a scientist.

You post an article that is not related to the topic. Then you expect us to know what you are trying to prove with it. Then you get in a fit when we can't. There are only two explanations for this, and the polite one is that you believe that we can read minds.

I didn't get irritated until you started making crap up. If you felt the article was irrelevant then you should have ignored it, or reported me for spamming. Instead you were sarcastic. Krugman is a hack who runs his mouth and says ignorant **** about treason to the planet. The researchers at MIT are back to the drawing board because their models are worthless crap. I made a point about how science is facing a decline in rigor and you crapped a cannon ball.

As far as the MIT climatologists go, I don't blame them. They made these models because the scientific culture calls for immediate answers. The models are worthless because you can't possibly expect to accurately model something like that (not just the climate, but the growth in technology, and the aggregate of all human behavior).