tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1711691711292789727.post3245172193394710761..comments2023-09-16T04:26:41.475-07:00Comments on The "Real" Truth Project: What to Make of Judith Curry?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1711691711292789727.post-49579433115253988112015-01-10T23:48:40.560-08:002015-01-10T23:48:40.560-08:00The worst and stupidest group are the Pause Denier...The worst and stupidest group are the Pause Deniers. Shocking!Brian Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17895289104798325252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1711691711292789727.post-60461643971844224362015-01-10T15:50:17.996-08:002015-01-10T15:50:17.996-08:00It is wrong to label critics "deniers."
...It is wrong to label critics "deniers."<br /><br />As noted on page 3 of this manuscript (under review) neutron repulsion is only increasingly important in atoms (planets, stars and galaxies) heavier than 150 amu (atomic mass units):<br /><br />I went ahead and completed page 3 on nuclear forces and modes of nuclear decay.<br /><br />https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/20150106Solar_Energy_For_Review.pdfOliver Manuelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04636202634159147481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1711691711292789727.post-69058420681449896522015-01-09T16:55:46.162-08:002015-01-09T16:55:46.162-08:00>One can label those who are impervious to reas...>One can label those who are impervious to reason as rejectionists.<br />OK not sure what this has to do with anything.<br /><br />As to the rest, I would not characterize Nazis primarily as "Holocaust Deniers". The latter are historians or pseudo-historians who insist the account of the Holocaust was a massive hoax. HIV deniers, basically centered around one brilliant scientist with a huge excess of contrarianism, said the idea of HIV causing AIDs was a massive hoax.<br /><br />Lawrence Solomon author of the book The Deniers (see above), in a Huffington Post article called "Why the Press Shouldn't Dismiss Vaccine Skeptics" wrote "Those who question vaccination programs are kooks or quacks, the press repeatedly tells us. The Globe and Mail, CBS News, Mother Jones and even scientific journals like Nature label skeptics as 'vaccination deniers,' but I don't think they were calling Jenny McCarthy or Rosie O'Donnell Nazis. The "vaccination deniers" tend to be more New Age types than right wing, though I'm sure there is some overlap.<br />Hal Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08662079870429206811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1711691711292789727.post-78023590983464687692015-01-09T14:30:24.047-08:002015-01-09T14:30:24.047-08:00" If the critics of "denier" really... " If the critics of "denier" really think the label is so awful, they could come up with something more accurate than "skeptic",<br /><br />There is an easy solution to the "denier" issue. One can label those who are impervious to reason as rejectionists. "Denier" is fundamentally deceptive and dishonest with respect to those who oppose AGW orthodoxy because the clear innuendo (a concept from defamation law) is that those who challenge the idea that CO2 will cause catastrophic problems are linked to holocaust deniers. The fact that the term "denier" is almost universally used by warmists demonstrates that the innuendo is intended. If not, a more accurate term not linked to Nazis would be used by warmists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1711691711292789727.post-27123174881003013112015-01-09T12:48:54.466-08:002015-01-09T12:48:54.466-08:00It isn't the physics that is in question. Eve...It isn't the physics that is in question. Everybody agrees what the no feedback increase should be from physics for a doubling of CO2.<br /><br />This is about 1.2C for doubling from CO2 of 280 ppm to 560 ppm.<br /><br />What is not derivable from physics is the feedback amplification factor (i.e. indirect warming).<br /><br />No observations actually support that this factor is very large (say .1 or .2 C per decade).<br /><br />Right now the data show very low sensitivity to doubling CO2.<br /><br />We will see who is right.<br /><br />We will be able to measure the transient climate response (TCR) when we hit 560 ppm just by measuring the temperature mean that year and subtracting the mean temperature when CO2 was 280 ppm.<br /><br />The we will see whats what.<br /><br />Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06481504964220253016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1711691711292789727.post-81876291859817953312015-01-09T12:46:21.876-08:002015-01-09T12:46:21.876-08:00I can agree somewhat about "denier" by i...I can agree somewhat about "denier" by itself, though people will fall into shorthands when the context is obvious.<br /><br />If you don't like "Climate Change Denier" (kind of long so I can understand people abbreviating it) -- then I'm back to asking what phrase you would substitute that isn't a total euphemism.<br /><br />Every once in a while I run across a climate skeptic, and don't mind calling them that, but once again, "skeptic" is not the word for "those who call global warming a heinous hoax and those who support the idea liars".Hal Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08662079870429206811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1711691711292789727.post-90977103368222872512015-01-09T11:53:41.927-08:002015-01-09T11:53:41.927-08:00One issue with Curry is that she knows very little...One issue with Curry is that she knows very little physics. I pointed out her fundamental misuse of Bose-Einstein statistics for describing cloud nucleation in her recent textbook and was subsequently banned.<br /><br />The key to following climate science is to seek out those that understand science at physics in a fundamental way. Curry is not one of those people.<br /><br />@whuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18297101284358849575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1711691711292789727.post-6159506501217349982015-01-09T11:43:47.383-08:002015-01-09T11:43:47.383-08:00You are right.
I shouldn't have said "...You are right. <br /><br />I shouldn't have said "You shouldn't call people denier".<br /><br />I should have said people shouldn't call other people denier.<br /><br />The label shouldn't be used at all because it is meaningless and just name calling (in my opinion).<br /><br />That is what I was trying to say (badly).<br /><br />I am talking about the utility of the denier label in general - I think it has no utility.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06481504964220253016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1711691711292789727.post-11817318443948461622015-01-09T11:41:30.453-08:002015-01-09T11:41:30.453-08:00Oh, I forgot to give the URL of that article I was...Oh, I forgot to give the URL of that article I was just describing: http://therealtruthproject.blogspot.com/2015/01/obama-to-disband-marine-corps.htmlHal Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08662079870429206811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1711691711292789727.post-28744500438197009702015-01-09T11:39:35.804-08:002015-01-09T11:39:35.804-08:00Richard: You are wrong.
I'm afraid you have an...Richard: You are wrong.<br />I'm afraid you have an overactive "denier"-name-caller detector. It looks as if you see certain word combinations, and your {rant at liberal 'denier'-name-caller} is triggered. You need to actually read the words and in the right sequence. Other people have called Curry a climate denier but the fact that I do not runs all through the article beginning with <br /><br />"while continuing to publish studies supporting the general trend of global warming, has done more to impugn the integrity of her colleagues, and encourage those who call them liars than most actual climate change deniers "<br /><br />The whole point of my article is why on earth would she be dealing with 2-300 comments per day largely from people who think in the way you've just been illustrating so well? I spent a long time reading and occasionally posting on that site, and could not imagine a life of wading through such 95+% unilluminating stuff. I started out rather sympathetic to her, and here is an illustration of what I thought we had in common.<br /><br />Earlier today, I posted an article that ended with:<br /><br /> ANTI-LIBERAL: <br /> Your condescension obscures your valid point<br /> You need to let go of that. Propoganda works because it works even if you're intelligent.<br /><br />Yeah, in this case, the anti-liberal came off more civil.<br /><br />Yeah, I agree he (the one I called "liberal") needs to let go of that, the condescension, the calling people stupid. Hal Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08662079870429206811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1711691711292789727.post-32716477022218373182015-01-09T10:55:50.963-08:002015-01-09T10:55:50.963-08:00On the issue of "denier" - you say "...On the issue of "denier" - you say "it has always seemed to mean someone who denies some position".<br /><br />That is true.<br /><br />However, to use the label when the person agrees with the position seems to be inaccurate.<br /><br />For example, Judith Curry believes the world has warmed - so to call her a global warming denier is not accurate.<br /><br />Judith Curry believes the climate changes - so to call her a climate change denier is not accurate.<br /><br />I think you get my drift.<br /><br />People don't actually use the label because someone disagrees with their position so much as they use it as name calling and an insult.<br /><br />When children are name calling, we do not place the burden on the children being called names to suggest what they should be called. Instead we chastise the name caller for calling names.<br /><br />You shouldn't call people denier.<br /><br />It is name calling.<br /><br />Here is my suggestion.<br /><br />Call me wrong.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06481504964220253016noreply@blogger.com