Topic: Episode #346

[chook raffle]

'month of the frog'.



the comedy ninja strikes again

I also liked him as the internet mafia boss..."You want like their website to kind of have an accident or somethin'" 
And of course Bob: "1800-Eat-Shit"

[Rockhead]

Good interview, but I'm surprised that the topic of fracking-induced earthquakes didn't come up.  Whether fracking causes earthquakes, and if so, what is their frequency of occurrence and potential severity, is a controversial and interesting subject.

[Johnny Slick]

Can we please stop filling up the podcast threads with climate denial debates? There's a sub-forum set aside for that sort of thing. A single post in the podcast thread directing interested parties to the sub-forum would suffice.

Sorry, but I find this kind of annoying. So we're not allowed to discuss the topics discussed during the podcast on the thread for that podcast now?

It's not ok to ask that a topic which generally turns into either a) a Flame Fest or b) unending rehashing of the same things over and over, be made in the sub-topic forum constructed specifically for the issue?

I can't think of any other topic on the show which has a specific area for it's discussion.....

That little sub-topic wasn't even about AGW per se, really. It was about one person disputing the evidence that one of the rogues had provided in the podcast, and then another person rebutting that disputal. Why would this *not* belong in the podcast thread?

Since nobody has guessed this week's WTN yet, here is mine: all three are the sounds of cooked milk not causing cancer.

[Demosthenes]

Good interview, but I'm surprised that the topic of fracking-induced earthquakes didn't come up.  Whether fracking causes earthquakes, and if so, what is their frequency of occurrence and potential severity, is a controversial and interesting subject.

Sounds like complete bull, but I’d be interested in seeing the arguments for its plausibility?

[mfsheldon]

We use the term "denial" when is applies to a set of strategies to deny accepted science and sow unwarranted doubt. I find there is a range among those who dissent from the AGW consensus, but at one end of the spectrum there are certainly deniers, and I think Heartland fits into that category.

The use of the term on this podcast is quite pejorative, and intentionally so.  Despite the rantings of Rebecca, whose scientific credentials are ??, there are plenty of legitimate concerns, both scientific and ethical, with the AGW lobby.

On this podcast the term is used for Orwellian effect, in an attempt to stigmatize one side of a legitimate debate.

This podcast seems to forget that AGW science is largely not in the realm of observational science, but instead relies on complex, esoteric computer models and simulations, which ultimately are as subjective as the designer's biases.

To date, 95% of the IPCCs models have been wildly off the mark, to the high side.   When 95% of the model error is in the same direction, it should give any reasonable observer pause to question the priors of the researchers.

Welcome to what Steve calls "denialism."  I always thought that science rested on testable predictions.  When those predictions are incorrect 95% of the time we now call it "denialism." 

Orwellian indeed.

[seaotter]

Bullshit. There is plenty of legitimate debate within the climate science field. The board made it pretty freaking clear the denier label was being applied to ideologues that were disregarding evidence for propaganda. If you are willfully ignoring that to paint the panel in a bad light the Orwellian charge seems apt.

Why pick on Rebecca's credentials in science when she was not critiquing the science but the use of money and propaganda despite the science? As a science communicator I'd say that was a realm she has no small degree of expertise in. Also why no mention that Steven is a medical doctor, which gives him about as much credibility in climate science as Rebecca?

[GodSlayer]

there are plenty of legitimate concerns, both scientific and ethical, with the AGW lobby.

On this podcast the term is used for Orwellian effect, in an attempt to stigmatize one side of a legitimate debate.

whereas "lobby" is used for... properly denoting the 9-5 jobs of climate scientists who accept evidence of AGW?

[mfsheldon]

Bullshit. There is plenty of legitimate debate within the climate science field. The board made it pretty freaking clear the denier label was being applied to ideologues that were disregarding evidence for propaganda. If you are willfully ignoring that to paint the panel in a bad light the Orwellian charge seems apt.

Why pick on Rebecca's credentials in science when she was not critiquing the science but the use of money and propaganda despite the science? As a science communicator I'd say that was a realm she has no small degree of expertise in. Also why no mention that Steven is a medical doctor, which gives him about as much credibility in climate science as Rebecca?

What to say?  The spittle is really flying!   It is a really nice phony disclaimer, except that the term gets bandied about with no distinction on these boards and on the podcasts. 

You know, I don't recall the point when the term "denier" was used to describe those who were proponents of germ theory, quantum mechanics or the double helix.  Strangely, the term is not widely used to describe those with alternative theories in any particular area other than climate science.

You know it is a devilishly clever, albeit transparent, trick.  To use the term "denier" presupposes that the underlying question is an incontrovertible fact.  The amazing thing is that Steve waxes poetic about the importance of the 'back and forth' in the vetting of science.

Yet these rules are somehow different for this field that relies almost exclusively on extrapolations from computer models, which so far, have failed to make reliable predictions.

In this area, the science is established fact.  Thus the 'back and forth' is now rebranded as "denialism." 

Orwell would blush at this behavior.   It is the height of arrogance, and a likely fatal conceit.

[Chew]

It is the height of arrogance,

And your claim that thousands of climate scientists are wrong isn't?

[Caffiene]

mfsheldon, after calling out Rebecca for having unknown scientific credentials, you dont seem to have shared you own climate science credentials.

Height of hypocrisy, perhaps?

Or do you just realise the flaw in trying to imply someone needs credentials in order to comment?

[seaotter]

Bullshit. There is plenty of legitimate debate within the climate science field. The board made it pretty freaking clear the denier label was being applied to ideologues that were disregarding evidence for propaganda. If you are willfully ignoring that to paint the panel in a bad light the Orwellian charge seems apt.

Why pick on Rebecca's credentials in science when she was not critiquing the science but the use of money and propaganda despite the science? As a science communicator I'd say that was a realm she has no small degree of expertise in. Also why no mention that Steven is a medical doctor, which gives him about as much credibility in climate science as Rebecca?

What to say?  The spittle is really flying!   It is a really nice phony disclaimer, except that the term gets bandied about with no distinction on these boards and on the podcasts. 

You know, I don't recall the point when the term "denier" was used to describe those who were proponents of germ theory, quantum mechanics or the double helix.  Strangely, the term is not widely used to describe those with alternative theories in any particular area other than climate science.

You know it is a devilishly clever, albeit transparent, trick.  To use the term "denier" presupposes that the underlying question is an incontrovertible fact.  The amazing thing is that Steve waxes poetic about the importance of the 'back and forth' in the vetting of science.

Yet these rules are somehow different for this field that relies almost exclusively on extrapolations from computer models, which so far, have failed to make reliable predictions.

In this area, the science is established fact.  Thus the 'back and forth' is now rebranded as "denialism." 

Orwell would blush at this behavior.   It is the height of arrogance, and a likely fatal conceit.

Love how you just willfully ignored what I posted and just restated the smear. Again there is plenty of debate within climate science. The panel wasn't addressing the science. They were addressing the propaganda techniques of apparent deniers. Again again those that ignore the science in favor ideology.

Your response is talking point on things that were unadressed in the podcast. What do we call that oh yeah, a straw man. And I note your mischaracterization of the tenor of my post and your failure to address the questions about the relevance of Rebecca's credentials.

I also note your big beef is the use of the term denier although you do equivocate it's meaning, and yet in your first post you use the term alarmist to refer to the proponents of agw and Rebecca. And charge others of hypocrisy.

Close your eyes and listen to her monologue again.  Imagine that she is, in fact, talking about Gleick et al "trying to create confusion...trying to create controversy where there is none...using PR tricks."  It is hilarious.  She is, to a word, describing the desperate tactics of the climate alarmists.

[mfsheldon]

I am not the one calling those who question the scientific status quo "deniers" am I?

That is the purview of the objective members of the panel.

...and I do not need to call IPCC models wrong.  Mother nature did.  In the very year after the 2007 assessment, 19 of the 20 IPCC models were already substantially overestimating temperature changes.  It took a single year for 95% of the error to go in one direction.

I never said climate scientists were wrong about anything.   Read my words closely.

I said their predictions have thus far been unreliable.

Further, I never mocked Rebecca's scientific credentials.  I simply have no idea what they are.  It seems to never come up as a topic.  So what are they?

What I do know is that she seems to believe donor lists somehow constitute a smoking gun of some sort...about something.  Whatever it is, it is not science.  Apparently she believes that energy companies are anti-science, by definition.  Yet ironically this industry employs more scientists than any other, except health care.  It is very odd.  It is quite political.  It is not science.

You can refute Heartland Institute on the merits of their claims, or you can avoid doing that and argue that they are guilty because they have an anonymous donor.

Which path did she choose?

It tells us a lot about the intellect and disposition of someone, no?

But at least ThinkProgress confirmed it, right?

Which journal is that again.

[seaotter]

Again again again neither is the panel. They are calling those who use propaganda as opposed to science deniers.

Perhaps you would clarify what an alarmist is to contrast or compare to the above character of a denialist?

[mfsheldon]

Who writes a major strategy memo for a major board presentation...

Without saying who it is from.


...or without saying who it is to?

Or without dating it?

Or without putting it on letterhead?

Or without using any kind of consistent typography and software that other documents within that organization are created with?

Who does all of these things at the same time?



/ a partial list of simple questions that Rebecca Watson never asked.

[mfsheldon]

An alarmist is someone who raises alarm regarding something they view as a danger.

A denier is someone who refutes an established fact.


How is that? 


I did not say "climate fear mongers" or "climate hoaxers."