Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Trolls and thread spoiling here

… this victimization you and other "skeptics" feel … (Jan 3, 2016 at 1:21 PM)
… by some of your own … (Jan 8, 2016 at 1:00 PM)
Two rather good examples of “absolutism”, as I understand it, on this thread, alone: you are either for the cause or against it; no other options are considered. Such does seem to be your mentality, Raff (note: while I say that you have this thinking, I do NOT automatically consider others of your ilk to have it); you have this in-built assumption that whatever is said by a sceptic will be agreed with by all sceptics. As any sceptic will tell you, that is a patently daft assumption.

Jan 8, 2016 at 2:10 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Radical Rodent, Rarf believes eveything he is told by climate scientists. He has real faith in climate scientists, because without faith, climate science disappears in a puff of logic, and a bit of observation, history, archaeology, geology, and proper science stuff.

Jan 9, 2016 at 12:25 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Ratty, I see what you mean. Actually I do appreciate the varied nature of "skeptic" views. Like I said before, it is like escapees from the asylum wandering freely and randomly across the fields of thought. But I can also say that you all agree on some nutty things. Not explicitly, but by lack of contradiction. For example, in an argument between realists and a "skeptic" on ATTP or *any* other realist blog, if a known realist says something wrong many people will correct her, even though people know that she was on their 'side'. On the other hand, in an argument between a realist and "skeptics" on BH, if a "skeptic" says something wrong, those who know it is wrong will not say so but instead will chip in with things other "skeptics" know to be wrong. Only the realist will comment on the errors and the errors will stand as "skeptic" opinion - all "skeptics" present are then party to the errors. They are shared errors, even if many may know them to be untrue.

Jan 9, 2016 at 2:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

Rarf, we all applaud climate scientists, as they march over a cliff, telling everybody they know where they are going.

We do know where climate science is going, bu climate scientists never listen to warnings. They are too busy issuing their own warnings about events that never happen. That is why the public have given up caring.

Jan 9, 2016 at 3:37 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Barf: examples would be a good idea for people to understand what you are on about. Your post, above, is just a bit of airy-fairy handwaving.

Jan 9, 2016 at 5:57 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Raff "if a known realist says something wrong many people will correct her, even though people know that she was on their 'side'."

Radical Rodent beat me to it - you need to provide some examples. There are plenty of examples of 'correction' on sceptic blogs. eg Sky Dragons are generally shown the door. There have been big bust ups between A Watts and several other bloggers when they did something he really didn't support. When Heartland did that poster about the Uni bomber it was condemned on sceptic blogs before warmists had the chance.

I'm sure that there are a few spats between warmist posters but rarely do warmists criticise their host or the big players on their side like Obama, Charles, Gore, etc. It's happened a few times recently but over the history of warmist science how often have bloggers ripped the bad science apart? A lot of steaming poop was laid down before sceptics ever started digging into it. Where was the withering correction of all the errors in An Inconvenient Truth? Prior to it's launch, where were the warmist voices of reason that said 'you know this 10:10 campaign, are we sure simulating blowing up kids is the best idea?'

Stop demanding higher standards from a bunch of volunteers and bystanders that you've never demanded from paid professionals and their supporters. Sceptics are a reaction to the flaws on your side.

Jan 10, 2016 at 1:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

Climate Science has proved totally incapable of self regulation.

That Climate Scientists get annoyed with unpaid volunteers pointing out their mistakes, sums up what is wrong. Climate Science keeps proving itself to be unreliable and untrustworthy. Time it was unfunded.

Jan 10, 2016 at 1:49 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

TinyCO2: Raff does not seem able to provide evidence to back up any points attempted to be made; however, many of those points can be seen to be subtle (or not so subtle) ad homs – see the reference to those, like us, who are not bogged down in dogma as “…like escapees from the asylum wandering freely and randomly across the fields of thought.” It has to make one wonder what goes on in Raff’s little head, when those trapped in ideology are regarded as “realists”, though. The simple fact that evidence is so rarely, if ever, provided, and that few, if any, questions are ever answered is one reason I do try to resist (admittedly, disappointingly failing all too often) engaging in debate with the person. Our best option is to try to restrict discussion with those who are prepare to make the effort of rational argument.

Golf Charlie: +100 on that point!

Jan 10, 2016 at 1:54 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

But Raff is paying us a massive compliment. He thinks we're important enough to spend a lot of time with a bunch of people who openly dislike him. Think of all the warmist blogs that are solely aimed at fighting or mocking us. The spiral down into just insults like ZDB is a measure of desperation. Think how few upbeat issues warmists discuss. It's a bit sad really.

Jan 10, 2016 at 2:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

A good point, TinyCO2. I recently had a wander over to the “Skeptical Science” [sic - on several counts!] blog. There, the comments rarely (if ever? No idea, and certainly cannot be bothered doing my own research on that one) move into the double figures, which indicates one of two things: (1) the blog is so good, no-one can improve upon it by commenting; or, (2) there are few people reading it, and fewer who consider it worth commenting on. My own feeling is with the (2).

Jan 10, 2016 at 3:12 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

For an example, see the "Let's get real about climate models" thread where Martin presents a graph from Spencer in which the model runs are for the mid troposhpere and don't match the known forcings. The graph is therefore not useful as a comparison with UAH/RSS. This is widely known, probably even here. Even Martin says he knows about the issue of forcings not being predictable. Yet no correction is forthcoming. If this were a blog interested in science, someone would have pointed out this error.

Jan 10, 2016 at 6:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

Maybe if climate science had got something right, I would still believe it was worthwhile. We don't have taxpayer funding for Astrology do we.

Climate Scientrollogy seems to be the new 'big thing', but the evidence does not support it either.

Jan 10, 2016 at 9:41 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Raff

Is that the thread where your Sceptical science answers no longer help you?

Jan 10, 2016 at 11:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterDiogenes

Perhaps this makes 3 threads where Raff and EM have been stopped in their simpleton tracks

Jan 10, 2016 at 11:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterDiogenes

Rarf, this blog is interested in science. Unfortunately climate scientists are not, they just seem to collude to arrive at the politically correct conclusion, bank the cheques, and jet off to sunnier climates to party.

If climate conferences were held in Siberia, there would be less money wasted.

Jan 11, 2016 at 1:38 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

I said:

...the model runs are for the mid troposhpere and don't match the known forcings. The graph is therefore not useful as a comparison with UAH/RSS. This is widely known...
Actually that stuff about it being TMT not TLT is probably not relevant. UAH/RSS do produce TMT indices as well, so I expect he used those in the graph. The forcing mismatch is, however, well known and relevant.

Jan 11, 2016 at 3:12 AM | Unregistered CommenterRaff