Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
robinessex said:
gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
Grid supply teetering on the edge. Wind at 0.6%. Peak demand is in the orange. Start them diesel generators up lads !!!
Wrong thread. 
That should be in the renewables thread. I know you deniers like to cross-pollute many threads with this drivel but this one sees enough spam without wind farms being brought into it.
ks. Running out of electricity is politics. You wait until the day lights go out. Then you'll see politics in action !!gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
Grid supply teetering on the edge. Wind at 0.6%. Peak demand is in the orange. Start them diesel generators up lads !!!
Wrong thread. That should be in the renewables thread. I know you deniers like to cross-pollute many threads with this drivel but this one sees enough spam without wind farms being brought into it.
like windymills have never been discussed on here and have no relevance to politics It’s just another pointless post by you to have a dig. But carry on digging it’s so amusing.
Snow...a rare and exciting event, children won't know what snow is, due to agw and according to (at that time) a Senior Research Climate Scientist at the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia. Infamous stuff - and not the snow.
Charles Moore said:
Also in Davos were Sir David Attenborough and Prince William, in conversation. This, I feel, is a mistake, though an understandable one. One of the annoying features of greenery is that it involves rich and powerful people telling poorer, less powerful people to get poorer still
...
Sir David says he was there because ‘If you care about the future of the world… this [the Davos crowd] is the most important community you can find’. Until recently he would, unfortunately, have been right, but peak Davos has passed, and world leaders, opinion-formers and future kings would be well-advised to avoid the ensuing avalanche.
.
...
Sir David says he was there because ‘If you care about the future of the world… this [the Davos crowd] is the most important community you can find’. Until recently he would, unfortunately, have been right, but peak Davos has passed, and world leaders, opinion-formers and future kings would be well-advised to avoid the ensuing avalanche.
.
gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
Grid supply teetering on the edge. Wind at 0.6%. Peak demand is in the orange. Start them diesel generators up lads !!!
Wrong thread. That should be in the renewables thread. I know you deniers like to cross-pollute many threads with this drivel but this one sees enough spam without wind farms being brought into it.
ks. Running out of electricity is politics. You wait until the day lights go out. Then you'll see politics in action !!king up our energy supply because they've swallowed the AGW bks to save the planet is politics. Don't what else you would call it.dickymint said:
gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
Grid supply teetering on the edge. Wind at 0.6%. Peak demand is in the orange. Start them diesel generators up lads !!!
Wrong thread. That should be in the renewables thread. I know you deniers like to cross-pollute many threads with this drivel but this one sees enough spam without wind farms being brought into it.
like windymills have never been discussed on here and have no relevance to politics It’s just another pointless post by you to have a dig. But carry on digging it’s so amusing.
You mean like digging into the list of supposedly scientific institutions posted by your leader only to find they are all bullshine?
Yep, that’ll be carrying on.
Germany’s Climate Agenda On The Brink Of The Abyss
Klimapolitik article in Die Welt, 23 Jan 2019
German original version
https://www.welt.de/debatte/kommentare/article1875...
English translated version
https://www.thegwpf.com/germanys-climate-agenda-on...
Klimapolitik article in Die Welt, 23 Jan 2019
German original version
https://www.welt.de/debatte/kommentare/article1875...
English translated version
https://www.thegwpf.com/germanys-climate-agenda-on...
gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
Grid supply teetering on the edge. Wind at 0.6%. Peak demand is in the orange. Start them diesel generators up lads !!!
Wrong thread. That should be in the renewables thread. I know you deniers like to cross-pollute many threads with this drivel but this one sees enough spam without wind farms being brought into it.
Diderot said:
gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
Grid supply teetering on the edge. Wind at 0.6%. Peak demand is in the orange. Start them diesel generators up lads !!!
Wrong thread. That should be in the renewables thread. I know you deniers like to cross-pollute many threads with this drivel but this one sees enough spam without wind farms being brought into it.
gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
Grid supply teetering on the edge. Wind at 0.6%. Peak demand is in the orange. Start them diesel generators up lads !!!
Wrong thread. That should be in the renewables thread. I know you deniers like to cross-pollute many threads with this drivel but this one sees enough spam without wind farms being brought into it.
ks. Running out of electricity is politics. You wait until the day lights go out. Then you'll see politics in action !!ks!! Why are you trying to keep everything ‘nice and tidy’ to one thread only? Weird. You do realise this is but one of many threads on PH - their is more to life than this thread......oh sorry and football....must try to introduce global wombling into that as well 
Edited by dickymint on Thursday 24th January 21:33
the mans a cock but what pointless point are you trying to make?dickymint said:
bks!! Why are you trying to keep everything ‘nice and tidy’ to one thread only? Weird. You do realise this is but one of many threads on PH - their is more to life than this thread......oh sorry and football....must try to introduce global wombling into that as well
Dicky’s been stalking again...ks!! Why are you trying to keep everything ‘nice and tidy’ to one thread only? Weird. You do realise this is but one of many threads on PH - their is more to life than this thread......oh sorry and football....must try to introduce global wombling into that as well 
gadgetmac said:
dickymint said:
bks!! Why are you trying to keep everything ‘nice and tidy’ to one thread only? Weird. You do realise this is but one of many threads on PH - their is more to life than this thread......oh sorry and football....must try to introduce global wombling into that as well
Dicky’s been stalking again...ks!! Why are you trying to keep everything ‘nice and tidy’ to one thread only? Weird. You do realise this is but one of many threads on PH - their is more to life than this thread......oh sorry and football....must try to introduce global wombling into that as well PS. I follow all the football threads - I chose to leave the Man United thread years before your arrival due to a couple of trolls called Digikal and Vivaronaldo ................. seen em come and seen em gone!
Back on topic what's the problem with mentioning windymills on the politics thread?
dickymint said:
gadgetmac said:
dickymint said:
bks!! Why are you trying to keep everything ‘nice and tidy’ to one thread only? Weird. You do realise this is but one of many threads on PH - their is more to life than this thread......oh sorry and football....must try to introduce global wombling into that as well
Dicky’s been stalking again...ks!! Why are you trying to keep everything ‘nice and tidy’ to one thread only? Weird. You do realise this is but one of many threads on PH - their is more to life than this thread......oh sorry and football....must try to introduce global wombling into that as well PS. I follow all the football threads - I chose to leave the Man United thread years before your arrival due to a couple of trolls called Digikal and Vivaronaldo ................. seen em come and seen em gone!
Back on topic what's the problem with mentioning windymills on the politics thread?
gadgetmac said:
dickymint said:
gadgetmac said:
dickymint said:
bks!! Why are you trying to keep everything ‘nice and tidy’ to one thread only? Weird. You do realise this is but one of many threads on PH - their is more to life than this thread......oh sorry and football....must try to introduce global wombling into that as well
Dicky’s been stalking again...ks!! Why are you trying to keep everything ‘nice and tidy’ to one thread only? Weird. You do realise this is but one of many threads on PH - their is more to life than this thread......oh sorry and football....must try to introduce global wombling into that as well PS. I follow all the football threads - I chose to leave the Man United thread years before your arrival due to a couple of trolls called Digikal and Vivaronaldo ................. seen em come and seen em gone!
Back on topic what's the problem with mentioning windymills on the politics thread?
This is very apt for this thread...
RealClimate recently published an article called “The Climate Scientists are Alright“.
The article is about the “climate scientist blues”.
The following is my comment that got put in “The Bore Hole”."
"The following is an additional comment for Gavin to think about:
Gavin, you claim that NOT calling people “deniers”, would be avoiding the truth.
It is possible to tell somebody that you disagree with them, without calling them a nasty name. You can even show them evidence to support your view, without calling them a nasty name.
I expect scientists to act like mature adults. Not like 5 year old bullies.
If you want my respect, then you need to earn it. I am willing to give you the chance to convince me. It is now up to you."
RealClimate recently published an article called “The Climate Scientists are Alright“.
The article is about the “climate scientist blues”.
Sheldon Walker said:
I am willing to believe that most climate scientists are trying to do a good job.
However, it must be depressing to find that a large number of people don’t “trust” what climate scientists are saying.
This is because global warming is a “toxic” issue. There is a lack of trust on both sides, and a high level of nastiness.
Climate scientists need to continue doing a good job. But they need to work on building “trust”. Stopping calling people “deniers” is the first step.
So an important question is, CAN climate scientists stop calling people “deniers”. If they can’t, then perhaps we are all doomed.
However, it must be depressing to find that a large number of people don’t “trust” what climate scientists are saying.
This is because global warming is a “toxic” issue. There is a lack of trust on both sides, and a high level of nastiness.
Climate scientists need to continue doing a good job. But they need to work on building “trust”. Stopping calling people “deniers” is the first step.
So an important question is, CAN climate scientists stop calling people “deniers”. If they can’t, then perhaps we are all doomed.
Gavin Schmidt's reply said:
Trust is based (or should be) on telling the truth. The existence of climate denial – the reflexive gain-saying of any scientific result that might indicate that we might need to do something about carbon emissions – is undeniable. By demanding that scientists ignore this, or refuse to name it, you are asking that they avoid the truth. I would suggest rather that if people don’t want to be rightly accused of climate denial, they don’t go around denying climate science. – gavin
"I tried to post another comment, in reply to Gavin’s comment. But my comment was put into “The Bore Hole” (which is described as “A place for comments that would otherwise disrupt sensible conversations”).The following is my comment that got put in “The Bore Hole”."
Sheldon Walker said:
Gavin,
Most of the people who get called “deniers”, are not “deniers”. They are just people who disagree with what you, and the other name callers, believe.
Most of the people who get called “deniers”, are intelligent people. When you insult them, by calling them a nasty name, they become your enemy. That means that you have lost.
If you listened to them, rather than calling them names, then you might get somewhere. There are no guarantees, but the name calling strategy isn’t working.
I have been following the global warming debacle since before the original climategate (for over 10 years). In all that time, I have NEVER claimed that global warming is not happening. But I have been called a “denier” constantly, because I question some aspects of global warming.
I agree with you, that trust should be based on telling the truth. But it is a mistake to think that you have the only version of the truth.
Climate denial exists. But to categorize everybody who disagrees with you, as a “denier”, makes you even worse than a “denier” (if that is possible).
I will put modesty aside for a minute, and say that I am an intelligent person. I have a number of university level scholarships and prizes to prove it. For my Bachelor of Commerce degree (21 papers), majoring in Finance and Economics, I got 12 A+’s, 5 A’s, and 4 A-‘s.
I also have a good science education. I specialised in science from my second year at high school. I got A+’s at university for stage 1 Physics and biology, and I got an A+ for Stage 2 Chemistry Honours (direct entry to Stage 2 Chemistry Honours School from high school).
But Alarmists constantly call me a denier, and insist that I am a “science denier”, who doesn’t know any science. I suspect that I am better qualified than most of them, but I am too modest to point it out.
I hate Alarmists for how they treat me. They treat me as if I am evil, and not human. I will oppose most of the things that Alarmists want, just because I hate them so much. I don’t need any other reason.
If you want to know what I think about global warming, then you should visit my website.
https://agree-to-disagree.com
Even though I hate Alarmists, I still try to listen to them. Because I know that I don’t know everything. I am still hopeful that some “nice” Alarmists will appear, and have a friendly debate with me about global warming.
I can be reasoned with. But not by a person who calls me a “denier”.
Most of the people who get called “deniers”, are not “deniers”. They are just people who disagree with what you, and the other name callers, believe.
Most of the people who get called “deniers”, are intelligent people. When you insult them, by calling them a nasty name, they become your enemy. That means that you have lost.
If you listened to them, rather than calling them names, then you might get somewhere. There are no guarantees, but the name calling strategy isn’t working.
I have been following the global warming debacle since before the original climategate (for over 10 years). In all that time, I have NEVER claimed that global warming is not happening. But I have been called a “denier” constantly, because I question some aspects of global warming.
I agree with you, that trust should be based on telling the truth. But it is a mistake to think that you have the only version of the truth.
Climate denial exists. But to categorize everybody who disagrees with you, as a “denier”, makes you even worse than a “denier” (if that is possible).
I will put modesty aside for a minute, and say that I am an intelligent person. I have a number of university level scholarships and prizes to prove it. For my Bachelor of Commerce degree (21 papers), majoring in Finance and Economics, I got 12 A+’s, 5 A’s, and 4 A-‘s.
I also have a good science education. I specialised in science from my second year at high school. I got A+’s at university for stage 1 Physics and biology, and I got an A+ for Stage 2 Chemistry Honours (direct entry to Stage 2 Chemistry Honours School from high school).
But Alarmists constantly call me a denier, and insist that I am a “science denier”, who doesn’t know any science. I suspect that I am better qualified than most of them, but I am too modest to point it out.
I hate Alarmists for how they treat me. They treat me as if I am evil, and not human. I will oppose most of the things that Alarmists want, just because I hate them so much. I don’t need any other reason.
If you want to know what I think about global warming, then you should visit my website.
https://agree-to-disagree.com
Even though I hate Alarmists, I still try to listen to them. Because I know that I don’t know everything. I am still hopeful that some “nice” Alarmists will appear, and have a friendly debate with me about global warming.
I can be reasoned with. But not by a person who calls me a “denier”.
==============
"The following is an additional comment for Gavin to think about:
Gavin, you claim that NOT calling people “deniers”, would be avoiding the truth.
It is possible to tell somebody that you disagree with them, without calling them a nasty name. You can even show them evidence to support your view, without calling them a nasty name.
I expect scientists to act like mature adults. Not like 5 year old bullies.
If you want my respect, then you need to earn it. I am willing to give you the chance to convince me. It is now up to you."
phillip bratby said:
The one thing I learned about RealClimate.org many years ago (probably around the time of Climategate) is that they deny a voice to anybody they disagree with. I was banned for expressing a scientific criticism of one of their postings (and I am a physicist with two degrees and was accused of not being a scientist and not knowing what I was talking about). Their behaviour is not what proper scientists do.
I have totally ignored them ever since, because their behaviour told me that they were political and not scientific.
I have totally ignored them ever since, because their behaviour told me that they were political and not scientific.
Bill said:
To do as Sheldon requests, debate the existence of their God, would shake the faith of those followers. Therefore, their only position can be to call out those wishing to question their dogma as heretics. It is simply not possible to change the approach of the church elders for they have a church and revenue stream to protect.
L Brown said:
“Climate alarmists are Leftists.”
From the French Revolution – and whatever prior manifestation Leftism operated under before the end of the 18th century – those on the left may have great intellectual/scientific knowledge, but they lack all self-awareness and are slaves to whatever emotion or politics rule them at the moment. In short, Leftists are not rooted in wisdom, and therefore, can easily drift into unscientific or absurd positions.
From the French Revolution – and whatever prior manifestation Leftism operated under before the end of the 18th century – those on the left may have great intellectual/scientific knowledge, but they lack all self-awareness and are slaves to whatever emotion or politics rule them at the moment. In short, Leftists are not rooted in wisdom, and therefore, can easily drift into unscientific or absurd positions.
CIW said:
Gavin is sort of honest in a way – he is completely intolerant of differing opinions – and admits it. He cannot bear the thought of being challenged by a peer. He therefore, and thereby, cuts himself off from intelligent conversations from which the spark of truth would shine. He is smart enough to use rhetorical devices to paint others with brushes of various hues and as often demonstrated, censors the conversations. Well, stop wasting time talking to him. One could hardly ask for a better result – that they sever themselves from the general population and retire to their monastery to interpret their runes.
I do like the honesty of comments sections (that aren't censored) so just a couple more...
James said:
Yes…I cringe every time a skeptic on this site stoops to the same level as the name-callers on the other side. It happens far too often. I would love to see more skeptics making the choice to stay above such tactics. Yet I still acknowledge that the other side has seemingly nothing more than name calling and appeals to authority in their debate arsonal. If the science was so rock solid, there would be no need for such fallacious arguments. In fact, it would be extremely foolish to make such arguments at all, unless that was all they had that ‘worked’.
Joel said:
Since climate science is basically observational, we cannot do laboratory experiments to test any hypothesis. (Note: I typed “confirm any hypothesis” at first. We have no way of confirming a hypothesis!) Some might question is such an activity appropriately even called a science.
There is simply no way that we can create realistic climate models, for example. It would be like making a computer model of a human and using that model to test drugs to treat cancer.
There is simply no way that we can create realistic climate models, for example. It would be like making a computer model of a human and using that model to test drugs to treat cancer.
M Reno said:
Gavin isn’t a scientist. He’s a climate modeller. Big difference. Gavin specifically eschews scientific methods to advance his computer toys to a more “scientific” state. I salute you for trying, but I fear you will never crack this particular nutshell. Because Gavin knows the level of the inner meat. He knows he’s got a very thin gruel but trying to sell it as Filet Mignon.
He gets results by bullying, censoring, cronyism, and having expanded his influence within the teat-suckling interest group that is climate research. He’s been a success, too. At least in that he has helped climate science as a whole to strongly shift away from the very objective, but problematic remote sensing tasks (problematic because the data don’t always back up his case), and towards climate modelling, which is vague and which can always be found to be in agreement with a tiny amount of opacity and prestidigitation with some FORTRAN code. Furthermore, this is a great political and financial victory for him.
But the science of climate models is worthless, the outputs they generate are merely innumerable and innumerate hypotheses that we’ll never be capable of testing, even if an honest person was in charge, rather than people like Gavin, who seem to be running the show. Oh, geez, did I just hint that I think Gavin is a dishonest person? I guess I did. And I think he’s a terrible coward, too. (witness: the borehole, John Stossel show, etc.)
I once had your experience of trying to speak some sense, calmly to the other side. This was at BadAstronomy, the blog run by CAGW alarmist Phil Plaitt. It went nowhere. But I gave the audience at that blog a prediction of the future that gives me great comfort.
I told them that when all the dust of the great CAGW debate settles, in the end, the use of the term Climate De NYE r will define it’s accusers far more effectively than it will define it’s targets. I told them that the climate hysteria of the late 20th and early 21st centuries would become a phenomenal sociological case study in mass delusion and political brainwashing. I hope that tiny seed took root in a young, impressionable mind or two.
He gets results by bullying, censoring, cronyism, and having expanded his influence within the teat-suckling interest group that is climate research. He’s been a success, too. At least in that he has helped climate science as a whole to strongly shift away from the very objective, but problematic remote sensing tasks (problematic because the data don’t always back up his case), and towards climate modelling, which is vague and which can always be found to be in agreement with a tiny amount of opacity and prestidigitation with some FORTRAN code. Furthermore, this is a great political and financial victory for him.
But the science of climate models is worthless, the outputs they generate are merely innumerable and innumerate hypotheses that we’ll never be capable of testing, even if an honest person was in charge, rather than people like Gavin, who seem to be running the show. Oh, geez, did I just hint that I think Gavin is a dishonest person? I guess I did. And I think he’s a terrible coward, too. (witness: the borehole, John Stossel show, etc.)
I once had your experience of trying to speak some sense, calmly to the other side. This was at BadAstronomy, the blog run by CAGW alarmist Phil Plaitt. It went nowhere. But I gave the audience at that blog a prediction of the future that gives me great comfort.
I told them that when all the dust of the great CAGW debate settles, in the end, the use of the term Climate De NYE r will define it’s accusers far more effectively than it will define it’s targets. I told them that the climate hysteria of the late 20th and early 21st centuries would become a phenomenal sociological case study in mass delusion and political brainwashing. I hope that tiny seed took root in a young, impressionable mind or two.
I'm supposed to be working, but go on then, just 1 more...
David said:
Gavin Schmidt.
Your challenge, if you will accept it, is to rise to and uphold the highest standards of scientific integrity and break free of the political attraction of descending into Lysenkoism.
Physics Noble Laureate Richard Feynman explained:
But there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in Cargo Cult Science. That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school—we never explicitly say what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly. It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty—a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid—not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked—to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can—if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong—to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.
In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another. . . .
We’ve learned from experience that the truth will out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature’s phenomena will agree or they’ll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven’t tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it’s this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in Cargo Cult Science. . . .
But this long history of learning how to not fool ourselves—of having utter scientific integrity—is, I’m sorry to say, something that we haven’t specifically included in any particular course that I know of. We just hope you’ve caught on by osmosis.
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you’ve not fooled yourself, it’s easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that. . . .
I’m talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you’re maybe wrong, that you ought to do when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen. . . .
Cargo Cult Science, Some remarks on science, pseudoscience, and learning how to not fool yourself. Caltech’s 1974 commencement address.
http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCul...
When you call me a “climate denier”, you have abandoned sound science and descended into committing an illogical ad hominem rhetorical attack.
Rise above that corruption of science for the collective good of WeThePeople – who are paying your salary.
Your challenge, if you will accept it, is to rise to and uphold the highest standards of scientific integrity and break free of the political attraction of descending into Lysenkoism.
Physics Noble Laureate Richard Feynman explained:
But there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in Cargo Cult Science. That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school—we never explicitly say what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly. It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty—a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid—not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked—to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can—if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong—to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.
In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another. . . .
We’ve learned from experience that the truth will out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature’s phenomena will agree or they’ll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven’t tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it’s this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in Cargo Cult Science. . . .
But this long history of learning how to not fool ourselves—of having utter scientific integrity—is, I’m sorry to say, something that we haven’t specifically included in any particular course that I know of. We just hope you’ve caught on by osmosis.
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you’ve not fooled yourself, it’s easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that. . . .
I’m talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you’re maybe wrong, that you ought to do when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen. . . .
Cargo Cult Science, Some remarks on science, pseudoscience, and learning how to not fool yourself. Caltech’s 1974 commencement address.
http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCul...
When you call me a “climate denier”, you have abandoned sound science and descended into committing an illogical ad hominem rhetorical attack.
Rise above that corruption of science for the collective good of WeThePeople – who are paying your salary.
We're doomed, Dooommeddd..................
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-4699202...
"Today, the board - made up of physicists and environmental scientists from around the world - decides whether to adjust the clock in consultation with the group's Board of Sponsors, which include Nobel laureates."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-4699202...
"Today, the board - made up of physicists and environmental scientists from around the world - decides whether to adjust the clock in consultation with the group's Board of Sponsors, which include Nobel laureates."
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff