The Union has been running letters from local Republicans whining about the boisterous crowd at last month’s town hall meeting with Congressman LaMalfa. No respect! Where’s the civility?
Where? It’s in the same place you left it fifteen years ago during the reign of the so-called liberal Gang of Four Board of Supervisors. (Peter Van Zant, Izzy Martin, Bruce Conklin and Barbara Geen.) In other words, they forgot to bring it to those meetings. Chalk it up to selective memory.
Don’t tell me it was a figment of my imagination. I was there, bunky. The harassment went on for four years, and and only ended when the heathens were driven from office and their ambitious land use initiative, Natural Heritage 2020 was burning on the BBQ grill of history.
So suck it up, Repubbys. It’s going to be a long four years ahead…
The closer I get to my expiration date, the more ridiculous the see-saw hypocrisy appears. The changing of the guard in Washington is like a daylight savings of political rhetoric; with one party’s perpetual attempts at setting the clock forward, and the other as adamant for setting it back, while the majority see no advantage in either position.
Of course, having the Mad Hatter for a POTUS doesn’t help.
RL, in the not so distant past even you admitted the “facilitators” (from Steve Frisch’s misnamed Sierra Business Council) at those NH2020 “town hall” moots were there there to lead the crowd to the Gang of Four’s (and the Sierra Business Council’s) desired result.
Frisch has made it clear they were just being contracted by the BOS, in effect, “Izzy” as The Bosss just gave them the “Away to me, Pig” command and the SBC complied but I remain unclear on the detail that the SBC was paying 2/3rds the cost of the NH2020 campaign… those with the gold are usually the ones making the rules.
La Malfa appears to be doing what he said he’d do before he was reelected (within the usual bounds of fuzzy BS). Did “Izzy” and the rest of Our Gang of Four do the same, or was it a clear bait and switch?
The last decade of Democratic Party activism has led them to a loss of over 1000 elective seats across the country. They’re homelesss, or at least House-less. Senate-less, too*, at a low ebb. It has been hollowed out,, a provincial powerhouse on both coasts but in the middle, not so much. The activists that kept our congresscritter from having a conversation voters in Grass Valley and again yesterday in have decided the key to their future success is to do more of what they’ve been doing. May be. Maybe not… Di Fi is getting much the same treatment.
[* thanx and a hat tip to PJO’R for that one]
The Year Of The Gang began in 1998, during the low point for Republican popularity. (The Clinton impeachment debacle being the prime example.) Locally, Rene Antonson (4th District) had alienated most of his constituents, leading to the Martin victory. In the third district, Fran Gratton (now Freedle) was a piss poor excuse for a supervisor and led to her expulsion by Conklin. Van Zant and then-supe Sam Dardick were already known commodities, so the public had a pretty good idea what they were getting.
(Incidentally, it was also the year that Turd Juvenile was soundly defeated in his bid to become County Assessor by a relatively unknown candidate. The loss caused him to go completely insane, a mere parrot who would spend the rest of his life spouting right wing talking points for stale crackers.)
Gregory, your thought process is so twisted, biased and blinded by emotion that it is impenetrable. It is amazing to me that you profess to be an educated rational man. You are proof positive that a first class education cannot burnish a rotten turnip with a sheepskin.
First, you fall prey to the irrational conspiracy thinking of your peers. There was no “Delphi” technique–the entire meme of the Delphi technique was nothing but a fear based attempt to delegitimize what was an entirely legitimate and normal public process chartered by a duly elected board of supervisors and approved by resolution of that board. No one I have ever met or worked with on conducting meetings has to the best of my knowledge ever studied the “Delphi” technique.
It is of course normal for people attending or hosting public meetings to work from an agenda–that is a list of issues or terms to be discussed in a public meeting–based on direction from their elected representatives. The purpose of an agenda is to make meetings productive. We see people work form agendas and formal meeting constructs all the time. NH2020 was no different. That is the system of governance we have. It is merely a fact of life.
I could point you to the manuals written to disrupt meeting agendas that were used by the anti-NH2020 forces….I sat in the parking lot and watched them do the training…training designed for no other purpose than to disrupt…to deny citizens the ability to participate by intimidating them… and to intimidate public employees…I listened as Drew Bedwell trained people to shout, and act up, de-rail meeting agendas, question motives, attack individuals…as they did in this process. I literally heard Drew instruct people that they should invade the personal space of people in an attempt to incite them…I talked with people who were hounded in supermarkets, whose children were followed home from school by protesters, whose lifestyles were dragged through the mud with viscous lies, who felt physically threatened with violence.
The fact that mere disagreement with the direction of the elected representatives of the people leads to the type of wild eyed conspiracy theory thinking demonstrated by Drew Bedwell and Bill Wiesmann, a man who a few short months later contracted a killing and went to prison over a property rights dispute, does not make it a conspiracy, or an attempt to manipulate the public
It is ugly intimidation and anti-democratic behavior. .
By repeating this nonsense you identify yourself as the fundamentally irrational, emotionally driven, embittered, enabling mouth piece that you are.
Let’s be clear, the very people who collectively engaged in intimidation and created an implied threat of violence in public meetings in 2002, are now claiming that the wheel has turned. In this aspect Bob’s cartoon is spot on–they are hypocrites.
I disagree with many of the shouting and disruptive tactics coming out at Congressional town halls, I don’t attend them because little productive can occur there, and I have long since given up on people like Tom McClintock or Doug LaMalfa changing their minds on core issues. They are who they are and productive engagement can come from finding common ground on the issues where we may agree. But there is no threat of violence, no attacks on people’s employment other than by implication through the ballot box, no bomb threats like I saw in NH2020.
Second, you are fundamentally misrepresenting the services that SBC brought to the county. We engaged in what would euphemistically be called today a P3, or public private partnership. We brought financial resources (I am proud of that) and the County directed and chartered the process. This is no different than any other public private partnership, for example a partnership with the Chamber over marketing, or the ERC over economic development, or a non-profit to provide social services, all of which go on every day with nary a peep of objection from your allies in criticism.
I think its obvious to readers that you enjoy attacking SBC largely because I personally have called you out for your muddleheadedness….on this and a dozen other issues…on issues where you profess to know what you’re talking about but in reality do’;t know shit from shinola…I can’t change that….but I will call you on lies….and what you trot out are lies…pure and simple.
Reasonable people can disagree over policy issues…I expect that…but the level of personal attack you engage in and the level of excrement you habitually wallow in…is despicable.
You’re “projecting” again, Steven and whether you and yours called it Delphi or not, it’s clear it was being used by SBC facilitators at the NH2020 “town meetings”.
“I could point you to the manuals written to disrupt meeting agendas that were used by the anti-NH2020 forces”
Please do. Are they part of the public record, or are said manuals part of the SBC proprietary information, beyond the reach of prying eyes with public records act requests?
Bedwell & Friends apparently didn’t get the first lesson of countering a professionally run Dephi … don’t show up early at the site as the true professionals will also arrive early to see who is talking to whom; you can’t divide, marginalize and conquer with a focused Delphi until you know who the opposition is.
Finally, I never met Bedwell and as far as I know I never met or talked to the guy whose unrelated bad act you’re using in a classic guilt by association rhetorical trick. Pure ad hominem. Bravo.
“…whether you and yours called it Delphi or not, it’s clear it was being used by SBC facilitators at the NH2020 “town meetings”
Total complete lying horse shit. You are delusional.
The Wiesmann reference is not ad hominem…he was very active as a leader in the effort against NH2020 because he thought it threatened his property rights through his group Protect Your Property Rights….and a few short months later he took out a contract on his neighbor …who he felt was infringing on his property rights….it’s just a fact buddy. There was a reason people felt they were threatened. It was because the people leading the movement acted in a threatening way.
As far as I can tell you never met anybody…I never see you at meetings…I see almost no involvement from you in anything else in the community…I don’t see you commenting in any meaningful or broad public forum on any of the myriad of things you have strong and ill-informed opinions on…I don’t see you at climate science conferences…don’t see you at anything. Perhaps your idea of involvement is attacking people on blogs…in the real world stuff gets done in some other venues.
Steve, we obviously live in different communities, and it doesn’t take a conspiracy for people spending large sums of public money to rig meetings and other processes to manufacture a consensus.
But let’s not let your latest evasion slide:
“I could point you to the manuals written to disrupt meeting agendas that were used by the anti-NH2020 forces”
Please do point me to those manuals, Steve. Are they part of the public record, or are said manuals now SBC proprietary information, beyond the reach of prying eyes with public records act requests?
We only have your word that these manuals exist.
Guilt by association is very definitely an argumentum ad hominem fallacy, and you were obviously trying to smear a number of people with that one.
A more sober view of how to deal with “expertly facilitated consensus building” if that term might set you off less, is this one from one of the parents with pitchforks in math education:
“Delphi Technique: The art of pretending to achieve consensus”
I hold my own in the venues I choose to engage, and when. Climate’s time is coming, but it’s a long slog as Mother Nature is working at her pace, not the election and news cycles.
You have provided absolutely no evidence that any “Delphi” technique activities were going on and all we have is your inarticulate word that you somehow “felt:” it, which is pretty ironic since I don’t think I ever remember you there….did you ever attend an NH2020 meeting?
“Steve, we obviously live in different communities, and it doesn’t take a conspiracy for people spending large sums of public money to rig meetings and other processes to manufacture a consensus.”
You also have provided no other evidence of any ‘manufactured consensus” although I must say I attend a lot of climate science conferences and gatherings and I am not a shrinking violet, I have never seen you at one, you have never introduced yourself to me at one, I have never seen you rise to speak at one. I suspect you spend more time in your armchair and less time actually doing anything.
I’ll have to dig into my old NH2020 box of printed bullshit and scan the manuals and handouts for you….it has been a long, long time… almost before electronic documents where the standard.
Golly Steve, I’ve not used the word “felt” in any of these comments, so if you are quoting me from some other comment thread, cough up a link or stfu.
I doubt I’d pay to attend any “climate science conference” presenting at the junior high science
understanding where you are most comfortable, but if you’d like to sponsor my attendance at one where you are not very comfortable I’d be happy to take your money taken from someone else.
Greg, why do you insist on being such a punk on these public forums? Don’t you understand what is happening to you?
Here’s the deal bub…you don’t show up anywhere that makes a difference, you never make accountable public statements (other than a couple of ignored Other Voices columns that made me LOL), and 100% of the folks I’ve spoken with who are working on building consensus on how to proceed with education and business reform in Nevada County have never heard of you.
Tomorrow is a Nevada City Planning Commission meeting to discuss Robert Upton’s project. Be there or be square.
Golly, Mike, I don’t actually live in Nevada City, and the first and last Planning Commission meeting I’ve attended there was about a decade ago when my son needed to get to a government meeting to meet the requirements of a scouting merit badge. Laurie O. was holding court, and the funniest thing on their agenda was once again refusing a permit to paint a building in their sphincter of influence. The poor guy had tried a couple times before but Laurie O. explained she drove by that building on a regular basis, she didn’t like the color chosen this time, and just because the color chosen was on their previously approved approved color list did not mean it was a color they would approve. Natch.
I was telling the story to a group of Nevada City pub crawlers having a jolly nice party the Friday before Constitution Day a couple years ago in what was once a Prohibition era speakeasy and brewery turned wine cellar, and our host, Jesse, volunteered he actually *was* the guy trying to wring a permit from the commissioners. It only took a couple more tries for him to manage the correct sequence of incantations to please the gods.
The experience probably solidified the libertarian tendencies of the kid… the best possible choice his dad could have made.
Best of luck to Upton and the white elephant Tech Center property (aka The Grove) at the NC Planning Commission meeting. Make sure everyone gets heard, don’t be hasty, little Orcs.
This is from one of those LOL Other Voices of mine that everyone ignored:
“The only local schools documented to be above average are Cottage Hill, Alta Sierra, Magnolia, Clear Creek and Ghidotti (a 10/10 school), and there are three kids stuck in the bottom 20 percent for every student in the above average schools. Pleasant Ridge and Clear Creek district staff should have a larger leadership role in Nevada County, as should Ghidotti.
Not one county charter school ranked above the bottom 10 percent, no GVSD school ranked above the 40th percentile, and Hermansen’s curriculum experts at the county office are promoting the Common Core with the same empty rhetoric used for whole math and whole language in the ’90s.”
And now, with Hermansen leaving… who is taking her place? One of the fellows responsible for Clear Creek’s clear successes. Good move. Did I have anything to do with it? Beats me. A great school, great kids, great staff. I remember when I was in the Auburn Symphony Goes to School touring group with a stop at Clear Creek, the kids were all scrubbed and attentive. A delight for all the musicians.
Greg Goodknight says:
April 19, 2017 at 7:17 pm
I’ll be sure to think about that the next time I am at UCLA, Lawrence Livermore Lab, Stanford, UC Berkeley, UC Davis, the University of Washington, the University of Oregon, the Desert Research Institute or Scripps Institute all of which have hosted climate science conferences or symposia that I have attended just in the last 4 years.
I find it remarkable, if not completely idiotic, that someone could attend all of the above stated sites and come away, as Greg argues repeatedly, that climate change is not caused by humans, when every single site, conference, and symposium listed unequivocally comes to the opposite conclusion by overwhelming consensus.
If merely having visited those places gives you any credence, Greg, than I am light years ahead of you; having been born in a CA university hospital. The next one you attend, you might want to actually listen to the experts, or as Mark Twain said, “A person who won’t read has no advantage over someone who can’t read.” Obviously, having attended those places has afforded you no advantage, whatsoever.
“The next one you attend, you might want to actually listen to the experts, or as Mark Twain said, “A person who won’t read has no advantage over someone who can’t read.””
Well, isn’t that special. Why not listen instead to Feynman who was clear that “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts”, or mathematical physicist Freeman Dyson who has been clear that while he’s a Democrat through and through, that Obama and Democrats are wrong on climate and the GOP is right.
Perhaps Michael P Anderson can chime in and assure his progressive brethren here that I even convinced him in the past that CO2 warming is real but small in comparison to natural variations… which are mostly solar in origin.
It’s telling that Frisch listed where these conferences were but just didn’t have at his fingertips what presentations most impressed him, and by whom.
Michael Mann, maybe? Gavin Schmidt? Infamous admitted liar Peter Gleick?
“The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they’re scared stiff of the fact that they don’t really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. They could be absolutely running the show. We haven’t got the physics worked out yet”.
-James “Gaia” Lovelock
If you want to know about the physics that still has them scared stiff, just ask.
I know you enjoy your role as the contrarian Greg; it is the right place for you. Like a typical contrarian you selectively choose a few quotes from learned men and misrepresent them to support your supposition, ignoring the remainder of the great body of work that they produce. Let me give you just a few examples.
Freeman Dyson agrees that climate change exists and that it is largely human caused. He wrote in “Heretical Thoughts aboutScience and Society” in 2007 that, “…[one] of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas.”
What Dyson disagrees on is the efficacy of modeling to predict future climate impact…a science still in its infancy BTW…but he agrees the observational evidence supports the anthropogenic climate change theory.
I love that you threw a Richard Feynman quote into the mix, but unfortunately for you Feynman died in 1988 before he expressed any view on climate change. He did however leave us with this tidbit that I have always remembered, the Feynman test:
“In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it, no, don’t laugh, that’s really true. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature, or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
After a lot of water under the bridge since 1988 we have observed, compared, tested, and Feynman was not there to see it, so nothing you imply about what you think he might have believed is relevant, as a matter of fact it is the perfect example of “not mattering how beautiful your guess is…” or I would say how smart you, Greg, think you are.
Finally my favorite, James Lovelock, a man I have met, and had the pleasure of once sharing a meal with, and talking with directly, and who will be immortalized for his Gaia theory (not that the earth is a living organism as often misstated, but that living and non living systems on the earth act as if they are a living organism), believes in human caused climate change and has continued to state that consistently.
He has stated so not only in the media but in published essays….what he agrees with you on is that predictive models can be flawed and might overstate the effects…but he is also on record as saying they may be understating the effects and that we are stuck with the results for 200,000 years if we are wrong…so I’m not quite sure how you think Lovelock actually supports your case. He is most recently on record as saying that we have so destroyed the planet that rather than saving the planet we better think about saving the species…leaving the planet to protect the species.
In short, your cloak your ignorance in the misinterpreted words of your superiors in a misguided effort toss-port your belief, which is little more than an irrational superstition.
Even more bluntly, you’re an idiot.
While others may ask, “Greg, why do you insist on being such a punk on these public forums?”, I see your comments in a different light. So, rather than argue, once again, your preconceived misconceptions of Dyson’s words, I choose to focus on the misuse of your obvious intellect, which is the root of your anguish.
Metaphorically speaking, your intelligence is the engine of your car, and while yours’ may be of an adequate size, equipped with all the after-factory attachments of a good education, nonetheless, your driving skills just flat-out suck. While the overwhelming majority of true experts in the field continue their commute, obeying the traffic laws of basic science, you have purposely chosen an alternate route, cutting through small neighborhoods and backroads, laying on your horn and exhibiting all the signs of road rage towards anyone who would impede your travel.
So, in answer to those who wonder why you’re always such a dick; it is simply who you are, and I have no doubt that, if we all agreed with everything you said here, you’d move on to find someone else to honk your horn at.
OK a couple of legacy lines in there I didn’t edit, the last paragraph should read:
“In short, your cloak your ignorance in the misinterpreted words of your superiors in a misguided effort to support your belief, which is little more than an irrational superstition.
Even more bluntly, you’re an idiot.”
If the previous post read as though James Lovelock said “you’re an idiot” I apologize. I don’t think Mr. Lovelock thinks about the Greg Goodknights of the world.
That was me saying “You’re an Idiot!”
Steve, you just can’t get past your arguments to authority, can you?
Feynman’s “ignorance of experts” is essentially a restatement of the “nullius in verba” motto of The Royal Society…”It is an expression of the determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment”.
In the case of Lovelock, I think his quote from 2010 is more about the duplicity of IPCC senior scientists; they tell him in private their work may be bunk because they don’t have the physics right yet, that clouds and aerosols may be running the show, while their useful idiots (like you, Steven) believing the lie that the science is settled go forth and attack folks who can both read and understand the literature with the evidence that clouds and aerosols really are running the show.
Not to mention the solar physicists with expectations of a grand solar minimum that has already started, and expectations the Maunder Minimum associated with the Little Ice Age being triggered by the same sort of solar doldrums, only now we have more knowledge of the physical mechanisms behind it. Time will tell.
How’s that permanent drought looking up in Truckee?
Yes, Greg, “…determined by experiment….”
I could bury you in the myriad of studies using experiment that find that climate is changing and that in its current change is primarily human caused. I don’t need modeling, or speculation, because the evidence is there from direct experimentation.
I really don’t think the Royal Society intended their “rejection of authority” to be IN SPITE OF the result of experimentation, they meant it to be based on experimentation. That means that if the experimentation show the “authority” is wrong then they must reject it. Logic dictates that they may experiment and find the “authority” is correct, whereupon they must support it.
In short you are the one bowing to authority…political and economic authorities that have a vested interest in the perpetuation of carbon emissions…in lieu of the scientific evidence from experimentation, whether from “authority” or not.
BTW, you really are trying to be one slippery f*ck aren’t you?
First you either state or imply that Feynman, Dyson and Lovelock support your case…then when challenged with direct evidence refuting what you contend….you backslide to the position that Lovelock is really talking about “private” conversations. (But I must note you don’t address my refutation on Dyson and Feynman)
Let’s be clear you can’t know what Feynman would think about it because he’s dead…and he died before he spoke on it …and neither Dyson nor Lovelock support your belief, they are both on record that climate change is largely human caused.
Do you really think that other readers are not smart enough to see just how duplicitous you are?
Chris is absolutely correct…if people agreed with you you would be chasing on down the street to honk your horn at someone else…because your goal is combat not enlightenment.
Frisch, experiment in this case means experiments involving reality, not the output of computer simulations of reality that have already been shown to be unreliable. Going back to ’79, satellite measurements of the atmospheric temps nicely match the measurements made by radiosonde/weather balloons, yet show a fraction of the warming predicted by the general circulation models.
I’ve been quoting that Lovelock “scared stiff they got it wrong” text for nearly 7 years, always intending it as explained; I believe him perfectly capable of honest reporting of conversations from behind closed doors even if it casts doubt on the people on *his* side on the Gaia question, and it signals no particular acceptance of his theories or pronouncements in general. If you think otherwise, please properly quote my text and I’ll take any lumps due. In other words, I’m happy to take responsibility for what I say and write but not your misunderstandings.
Same thing with that Feynman quote. Science really is the belief in the ignorance of experts, and, in extension, if a theory makes a prediction that is contrary to reality, it’s wrong.
Yes, it’s gotten warmer since the end of the little ice age mid 19th century… and there was also an 6000 year solar maximum starting in the 1930’s (per the Solanki letter to nature). No, it isn’t settled science that all of the warming since the middle of the 20th century is due to CO2 and the predicted but undemonstrated response of the climate that IPCC modelers expect is a doubling or tripling of that temperature rise.
Steve, it will be OK but no, you can’t bury me with papers proving your points… if they come close to covering CO2 sensitivity, I’ve probably already read them. Give it a try but please, dig out those promised Bedwell protest manuals first.
Oh my Gregory, is your case that computer models are not scientific or that their results cannot be corroborated by experimentation and direct observation?
I would remind you that when the Royal Society coined its motto, “nullius in verba” they were doing so in the face of authorities that did not accept new methods in lieu of conventional knowledge; they did so in support of the scientific method that emerged from the Enlightenment, which accepted and experimented with new ways to find the truth.
Computers and computer models are nothing but a new method, subject to experiment, which BTW supports many of the conclusions of the computer models.
But the proof of climate change does not rest on computer models alone; it rests on a rich body of evidence independent of computer modeling.
We have direct observational evidence of past increases in temperature from the depths of the oceans to the troposphere. [Variability of ocean heat uptake: Reconciling observations and models. Journal of Geophysical Research]
We have direct observational data on the changes in daily extreme temperatures. [Global observed changes in daily climate extremes of temperature and precipitation. Journal of Geophysical Research]
We have direct evidence of observed changes in ocean heat content. [Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content. Geophysical Research Letters]
We have direct evidence of the changes happening to growing seasons and the number of ‘frost-free” days across the globe. [Phenology shifts at start vs. end of growing season in temperate vegetation over the Northern Hemisphere for the period 1982-2008. Global Change Biology]
I could literally bury you in direct observational data on changes in precipitation, storm events, ocean ice, glacial ice, sea level rise, botanical changes, and ocean acidification.
I don’t really think the good readers here benefit from us going back and forth on sourced data, but as I have offered several times to take your superstition on in a public forum any day, and would gladly try to get the best science to the table to do it.
Even more interesting you are trotting out the final line of defense for anthropogenic climate change deniers; that it might be solar activity, volcanoes, or little green men. The problem is there is absolutely no solid science proving any of those theories, and MUCH LESS data supporting those theories than the AGW theory. [I fully expect to see a few quotes in response from Curry, Lindzen, Singer and Spencer]
In essence you are gravitating to a less proven theory because you can’t accept a more proven theory—which is kind of the exact opposite of “nullius in verba.”
Finally, like many people who misquote greater minds, it is pretty clear you are attempting to use Lovelock and Feynman to imply support for your case…they did not such thing. I can’t imagine any scientist who would not say that they are sometimes ‘scared stiff’ that they may have gotten it ‘wrong’ that is the nature of science, you are judged by your peers.
“…No, it isn’t settled science that all of the warming since the middle of the 20th century is due to CO2….”–Greg Goodknight.
I just had to call that comment out because it is the perfect example of the logical fallacy of Greg’s argument.
I never said, “…all warming since the middle of the 20th century is due to C02….”
Straw man alert….Mr. Science is constructing a straw man…the Royal Society would not approve.
“Oh my Gregory, is your case that computer models are not scientific or that their results cannot be corroborated by experimentation and direct observation?”
No Steve, that’s a straw man of your construction, most important is where models diverge from experiment and observation and it is a fact that the IPCC-blessed models have greatly overestimated atmospheric temps that have been measured by satellite since 1979 and corroborated by weather balloon data.
Models are only as good as the modeler’s understanding and the models ability to predict. The current Modeler In Chief at NASA-GISS is Gavin Schmidt, James Hansen’s successor. Back in 2007, at the IntelligenceSquared debate in Manhattan, Schmidt squarely denounced the fake science of that time when ‘climate denier’ Philip Stott spoke of scientists…:”who are in fact arguing that 70% of, of climate change is primarily driven by cosmic rays working through water vapor and clouds. I’m not saying they’re right or wrong, they’re pointing however at the edge, to new research. You cannot dismiss that, because it’s a consensus for CO2.
Gavin Schmidt, one more time?
Okay, this is exactly what I was talking about. You see? Now, it looks like we’re having a scientific argument, but, this is
completely bogus. You don’t know that it’s bogus, but I know that it’s bogus, he knows that it’s bogus. [LAUGHTER] You’re
being led astray.”
Media Transcripts, Inc, Rosenkranz-Intelligence Squared US-“Global warming is not a crisis” Page 49.
That “bogus” research denounced by Schmidt led to Nir Shaviv’s full professorship and chair of his Physics department, not to mention a year as an IBM Einstein Fellow at Princeton’s Institute of Advanced Studies, impressing, amongst many, Freeman Dyson, with his work.
No coincidentally, Schmidt’s side lost the debate. Badly. And he’s been avoiding actual debate with knowledgeable opponents ever since.
You really are a dinosaur Goodknight. I didn’t say models are inherently correct, I said that observational evidence and experimentation often support the conclusions of the models.
What you wrote earlier (a fresh straw man) is was what I was refuting, Steven:
“Oh my Gregory, is your case that computer models are not scientific or that their results cannot be corroborated by experimentation and direct observation?”
Computer models are fine and dandy. Often even great science… but if the theory and the models diverge from measured reality, the theory is wrong, and one of those spectacular failures is demonstrated by that figure I linked from Remote Sensing Systems, one of two keepers of major satellite temperature datasets.
You also refuse to consider why what Dyson was saying in 2007, before he’d paid attention to Shaviv, differs from what he says now, for good reasons:
Interviewer (in 2015): Are climate models getting better? You wrote how they have the most awful fudges, and they only really impress people who don’t know about them.
Dyson: I would say the opposite. What has happened in the past 10 years is that the discrepancies between what’s observed and what’s predicted have become much stronger. It’s clear now the models are wrong, but it wasn’t so clear 10 years ago.
Steven Frisch, you argue science like a Cal State ‘Frisco polisci major devoid of any real background in the physical sciences who is the CEO of a rent seeking environmental 501c3 that pretends to be a council of businesses in the Sierra Nevada. So, no surprises.
Your reasoning is totally myopic, Greg, and both you and Dyson can’t seem to see the forest for the trees.
When a question arises in the scientific community, there are only but a few possible models postulated at first. As time goes on, and more scientists focus on the issue, there are many more models suggested. So, for you or Dyson to judge the earlier small number of theories against the innumerable ones of today, is just plain silly. And for you, in particular to, (a) put yourself up to be any sort of expert or, (b) to cherry-pick only those statements and opinions that support one side of the question, shows you to be one of the LEAST scientific, and LEAST qualified people to listen to. Not to mention, which you surely don’t, the fact that every one of your quoted scientists actually believe the opposite of you; that climate change is real, and it is caused by humans.
So you can argue till the cows come home about whether one model is more accurate than another; it doesn’t change the reality that climate change is real and supported by the overwhelming majority of experts, who have far more knowledge and hands on experience than you.
Your attack on Steven as some lesser expert on the subject shows you to be an audacious fraud. As I said before; you may have a good sized engine, but your driving skills have taken you miles down the wrong road. At least Steven has an open mind and is still in the ball park.
The fact that you claim to have paid for a seat to hear the true experts doesn’t impress anyone. Save your money and read the transcripts at home; that way you don’t have to sit through hours of the truth before you hear what you came for.
You’re an intelligent man, but that obviously hasn’t stopped you from being an idiot.
“Your attack on Steven as some lesser expert on the subject shows you to be an audacious fraud.”
I’m sorry that I didn’t put it in a pop-up book format for you, Chris, let me try again: Science really is the belief in the ignorance of experts. Steven is a few levels below the ignorance of an expert in these matters, unable to put together retorts based in fact, reason and of course, chemistry and physics.
Frisch as a lesser expert? I expect he’s an expert in his field. He’s a Cal State ‘Frisco poli-sci grad turned CEO of a rent seeking environmental 501c3 and I would never try to compete with him in that sphere.
I also have no expectation that any climate heretic will lead true AGW believers away from their high priests until those high priests go in hiding.
In the meantime, the El Nino peak of a year ago is long over and we’re about a degree F below that peak. No one in their right mind would claim they know what temps might look like in Nov 2018 or 2020 and beyond, but all real indicators are pointing down, doomsayers notwithstanding.
The UAH dataset is graphed here:
I’m enjoying the weather in the meantime, with the permanent drought in the Sierra Nevada being officially over.
I see your Dr. Roy Spencer lower atmosphere report, and raise you one NASA surface level gradient.
And your comment, “all real indicators are pointing down” is about the most laughable to date. Here’s one from the friendly folks at the NY Times:
The only pop-up I need when I read your psycho-babble is my middle finger.
Well, Chris, I suppose if your middle finger is all you can get to rise, that will have to be what you work with. After all, Wonder Warthog had his snout.
That said, it isn’t an issue of my expert can beat up your expert, the UAH dataset plots are updated once a month, often on the 1st, with the average of the previous month. Fresh data, and it’s already down to be about a third of the peak seen a year ago. Next major El Nino won’t be seen until Solar Cycle 26 and that’s expected to be as quiet as during the Maunder or Spoerer Minimums, you know, the ice fair on the frozen Thames River in London, Pieter Breugel’s Hunters in the Snow.
Of course, the modern warmista is positive the solar cycles have nothing to do with climate. Time will tell.
Greg, I am happy to announce that your various iterations of this petulant, nonsense refrain of yours, “Steve Frisch’s horribly misnamed Sierra Business Council” being just one childish example, are now coming to an end. George Rebane should also know that if you two want to continue indulging in this libel, do so at the risk of losing whatever slim amount of local respect and integrity you still hold.
While you and your unfortunate blog buddies have been careening across the local landscape, the rest of us have been doing the hard work of building consensus, reaching across the aisle, making local gov’t answerable to its constituents, and putting our noses to the grindstone to build a locally viable business environment that will be successful in the 21st century.
For example, I found your comment amusing regarding “The Grove” project at the Nevada City Tech Center, calling that location a “white elephant” and as far as I could tell claiming that I would be leading the charge to deny the project. In fact, I spoke in favor of the project from the perspective of three Nevada County business entities that I will leave you to discover if you have the inclination.
What the Sierra Business Council does is hardly controversial, and many rural regional gov’t representatives who identify as conservative appreciate much of what the SBC is attempting to achieve. But of course you wouldn’t know that since you don’t attend any of the many meetings where these things are regularly discussed.
I will end this by once again offering to have coffee with you some fine sunny morning in the near future, so we can finally meet face-to-face and maybe bury the hatchet if that is possible. You have constantly rebuffed my many attempts to reach out, but I thought I’d give it another shot just for old times sake. Not only that, I can offer you a seat at some of the upcoming committee meetings I will be leading and your diverse voice will be a welcome addition. Take it or leave it.
Lastly, here is the document that led me to pen this retort. This the Sierra Business Council laying it all out for you to see and hear. Attack these numbers and these initiatives, if you can. Good luck.
“Precious, precious, precious!” Gollum cried. “My Precious! O my Precious!” And with that, even as his eyes were lifted up to gloat on his prize, he stepped too far, toppled, wavered for a moment on the brink, and then with a shriek he fell. Out of the depths came his last wail precious, and he was gone.
Mike, a hint: if you want to bury the hatchet, don’t take the opportunity to first try to strike me and your other nemeses in the back, first. You’ve been issuing various threats for years. Give it a rest.
“and as far as I could tell claiming that I would be leading the charge to deny the project”
Because I wrote nothing about your role? You and Steve Frisch both have the knack of imagining things I have not written and, had I cared, I would have asked. While it is apparent the Planning Commission didn’t stand in its way, the fact that progressive yet often reasonable developer Greg Zaller, in a The Union comment, complains that Yubanet didn’t allow his opinion on their website, bodes ill for smooth sailing in the city council which actually meets the dictionary definition of what a council is, unlike the misleadingly named Sierra Business Council.
Mark Twain was once asked if he’d like to participate in an upcoming debate on an issue, and he answered, “Yes, if I can present the negative side.” Asked why he would choose the negative, before the subject was even revealed, he said, “Because any fool can argue the negative.”
And there you have Greg in a nutshell; a troll who believes that being negative is a sign of intelligence when, in fact, it shows him to be quite the opposite. It IS a sign of intelligence to question everything, but it’s a sign of idiocy to not come to any logical conclusion and move forward towards a viable conclusion. And conclusion, to a troll, is the kiss of death.
Chris Peterson, did that make you feel better?
Did you ever apologize to the Greg Good(k?)night unfortunate enough to know you in high school in Grass Valley… you know, the one you thought you were slandering in this forum beginning, what? a couple years ago when you decided I was putting on airs? No, I don’t argue just for the sake of arguing, it just seems that way to you.
No, Greg, I have not apologized to the Greg Goodnight of yore, as much as that would be an apology as deserved as any I can think of. But you bring up a good point; children are not born bitter, or controlled by any sense of faction, so one can only wonder what cataclysmic events happened in your past that made such petulant adversity the mainstay of your present character. Can you even remember a time when your mind was full of wonder and not aimed at proving that the majority had it all wrong, and you were one of the chosen few who had it all right?
Or were you, instead, that lonely child who preferred to play alone in the far corner of the room, and to this day would rather masturbate in silence than share an intimate experience with another human being? One can only hope that, should you have experienced what must have been a painful or angry moment of procreation and intimacy, any child born of that surely animalistic act could break free of the resulting indoctrination into your personal perspective of darkness and distrust of all things joyful and harmonious, and blossom into a well-adjusted member of society.
Here’s hoping that any fruit that may have painstakingly fallen from your tree falls far enough away from your gloomy shadow to find the humanity and wisdom you so glaringly lack.
“No, Greg, I have not apologized to the Greg Goodnight of yore”
You owe him one, Chris. In fact, it does appear to me you owe apologies to many.
I’m not arguing against some mythical majority, Chris, I’ve been calling you on your BS. And, on occasion, Frisch’s, and mandersonations. No, opposing the coersive left’s excesses when noticed (including their bigotry) is not a pathology.
You’ve even made light in the past of your inability to understand people who don’t agree with you; that might be a place for you to start. Actually learn about the people you want to hate before inventing pasts for them to justify your words.
Thanks for publishing our annual report here Michael…I will stand by our results…we have done more to help businesses and create jobs than any other organization in the County.
In 2016 of SBDC served 337 clients, provided 1815 hours of business consulting at no cost to those clients, was directly responsible for infusing more than $12 million in new investment into our communities, worked directly to help start 26 new businesses and created or retained more than 100 jobs.
Michael, how do I post a pdf here? I would like to post our 2016 Small Business Development center results. I know some believe we are “…wretchedly misnamed…” and I would like to post the data that shows those people are “..wretchedly biased and ill informed.”
Turd Juvenile? Good one.
The guy’s hopeless. He’s the only person I know who can write in one sentence he never heard of Nathan Damigo and then claim in the next sentence that Damigo is misidentified in a picture. Scientists who claim boron nitrate is the hardest substance on earth never encountered this man’s brain.
He really likes to call people “libtards.” It’s the funniest name he can think of.
I’d not heard of Damigo before his now infamous “sucker punch” at the Berkeley demonstrations. Even Reinette Senum has repeated his victim’s characterization of her attacker.
Imagine my surprise when google presented this link…
Not that one can trust wikipedia for anything, but its explanation of a “sucker punch” is one that is “made without warning, allowing no time for preparation or defense on the part of the recipient. The term is generally used in situations where the way in which the punch has been delivered is considered unfair or unethical. In practice, this often includes punches delivered from behind.”
I’m not sure how anyone could call a face to face exchange of blows like that anything but a mutual combat between two people who arrived at that place and time intending harm to the other, but am willing to entertain theories that might explain what my lying eyes should be seeing:. The Sweetheart of the Oak Roots Anarchist Collective is trying to crush the windpipe of the ex-Marine with a blow from her sap-gloved right fist at the same time … few milliseconds earlier and she might have been the one standing after the joust despite her relative lack of training, testosterone, muscle mass or reach. As Boris the Animal might say, “Good plan, didn’t work”.
For all the useful idiots carrying her water and demanding he be arrested for that punch, imagine his defense council presenting that photo to the jury and the cameras.
Ah, an implied good old “the ends justify the means” from someone who should know better.
I’m sure both combatants imagined their ends justified their means but from the outside looking in, they both had clear intent to disturb the peace by overt acts of violence.
Never enough said Steve…..
Delicate Porn Flower likes to pretend at being a revolutionary, Delicate Porn Flower runs the risk of getting her nose stoved in!
It’s just part of doing business.
I’ll back the 85# girl over the 160# assbag every time. Good for her; she’s got way more courage than he does.
And as far as their mission statement: “To bring the ideals of anarchism, anti-capitalism, and anti-fascism to the forefront of the public eye with local community outreach projects and educational lectures and discussions that foster the creation of radical art, ideas, and action, as well as protecting our environment and marginalized groups.” -Right on! Between that, and white supremacy assholes: no competition. We’re no longer *going* to hell in a hand basket; we’re there. Let’s get this party started, because a middle of the road attitude doesn’t lead to peace and tranquility; it leads to more of the same, which like the white nationalist movement, is completely unacceptable.
And show me a jury that would think a small woman shouldn’t carry some form of protection. The fact that the white supremacist article focuses on her wearing the glove makes them look like pussies crying fowl. Po’ lil’ white thugs; whether it’s Jews in Germany, or punching women in America, the white supremacists will never win the image war, much less their stated goal of dominating “lesser humans”.
Were you standing in front of the mirror rehearsing while you typed that?
Absolutely, but it was a special mirror that I ordered from Optical Weight Watchers that makes me look like I did 40 years ago; still ugly, but well-formed.
Oh, and I was wearing a Rick Santorum sweater vest, for effect.
Well I’m sure you looked fabulous during your rant Chris.
Here you go, Chris
be careful what you wish for, lest you get it.
Thanks, Greg. I don’t have to cook dinner tonight, because I bet my wife you’d be the one to post a woman getting knocked around. You are the most predictable person on the blog, now that Juvinall is gone.
Here’s to you, boner petite.
Irony is dead….
Fish, checking, the “schoolgirl” being punched repeatedly by Cleese’s brain damaged boxer in a match he was guaranteed to win (with this one being a bit more lopsided than most professional bouts with designated loser) was in fact a 30 year old Connie Booth, who was also Mrs. Cleese at the time. Later cowrote and costarred in Fawlty Towers with her not yet ex husband.
TJ has launched a rebuttal to my little screed, but I don’t intend to let him in. He’s got his own blog if he wants to spread his manure.
I don’t think of myself as being a skeptic, just keeping an open mind. And still waiting to find the answer to the age old question; which came first, the healthy white meat chicken or the cholesterol egg bomb?… http://reason.com/archives/2017/04/23/an-epidemic-of-bad-epidemiolog#comment
Wrote a paper in HS Civics class where I proved that 39.6% of all statistics are off by 13.8%. Teach gave me a B+ instead of an A, because he said, “Due to the nature of your statistic, it’s inconclusive.” (I told him that was the point.)
And I’m still working on when, exactly, did cats start burying their poop?
“Steven is a few levels below the ignorance of an expert in these matters, unable to put together retorts based in fact, reason and of course, chemistry and physics.”
Fortunately I have never claimed to be a scientist; I claim to be a rationalist, and to use reason to discern between competing ideas what I perceive to be most likely to be true.
I believe that is what is truly meant by the. “…the ignorance of experts.”
The case I am making is that assuming the ignorance of expert and reverting to scientific method to check their work, the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence is that 1) greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere have increased in the modern era, 2) that there is a link between the increase in GHG’s in our atmosphere and increasing temperatures in our atmosphere and oceans, 3) that the explanations for that increase are being examined by scientists and the preponderance of the evidence to date is that the cause is not volcanism, solar cycles, or little green men, but increased concentrations of GHG’s in ur atmosphere, 4) that a theory that the increase in is the best available evidence we have to date, and that being the best available evidence we have a responsibility to act on it.
I come to this conclusion not just from reading scientific studies and journals which I do on a regular basis, but from attending conferences and symposia where the science is presented and debated, where data is challenged and defended, where the best scientists in the world question the results. In lieu of being a scientist I depend upon a combination of my native intelligence and the experience gained through study to guide me. I do so with a healthy skepticism about the conclusions drawn from research, and I seek out the information that can confirm, replicate or deny the conclusions.
There are literally thousands of studies confirming the case that the climate is changing and that the change is related to GHG emissions, that the increase in GHG’s in our atmosphere are human caused, and that it is having a direct impact on our species and the planet. These are studies dependent upon direct observation rather than climate models, and have been repeated through experimentation time and time again.
That is what I said I could bury you in, but I note, you reverted to your tried and true argument, that models are inaccurate, instead of the science. You ignore the reminder of the evidence to support your preconceived belief system. I understand that, but must tell you it decidedly un-scientific.
“You ignore the reminder[sic] of the evidence to support your preconceived belief system. I understand that, but must tell you it [sic] decidedly un-scientific.
My belief “system” has as one of its core virtues (as opposed to my core vices) the scientific method and Karl Popper. Steven Frisch, it really is the essence of science to test theories to see if they actually have predictive value and if the prediction fails, the theory will be understood to be incorrect. If there is a simple correction to make, great. Otherwise, get drunk with friends tonight and start over tomorrow.
Have a drink, Steve. Don’t cost nuthin’:
Steve, “rational” in the physical sciences is not comparing the weight of the articles supporting one view over the other, that’s just garden variety argumentum ad populum and ad vericundium. If your view were the case, those infamous 100 Nazi scientists arrayed in opposition to Einstein’s modern physics would have won the day, and there would still be serious research into measuring the speed of the aether that supports the transmission of light.
If you have a mindless papering in this fantasy debate cum pro wrestling match, I’ll just print out these and send them to the venue. There are well over a thousand papers listed at the PopTech page but these might be a fun place to start:
If you don’t mind, if you ever plan on doing this, I’ll just calculate how much the printed out papers would weigh and just send over recycle-ready newsprint as, if you’re not able to read them and understand, why bother?
The unanswered question remains: what would the temperature response of the climate be with a doubling of CO2. That really is what is causing the models to show double or triple the rate of warming actually measured by satellites and radiosonde.
Thanks for spell checking rather than responding to substance…it is illustrative of your understanding of modern communications technology.
I’m not sure what all the references to drinking are all about. Are you implying that I am drunk responding to your messages? I am not in the habit of drinking at 8:20 am, but hey, I could be convinced under the right circumstances.
I am reminded also that when I commented on another site that your point of view seems to be influenced by psychotropic drugs you took that opportunity to directly contact my board of directors to complain that I was being unfair to you in some way. Your insinuation that I am drunk messaging seems to be in contraction to your definition of fairness.
I must note that your response completely ignored my case that direct observation and repeated experimentation prove the case for AGW as a driver of climate change sans computer modeling.
Steven Frisch of the wretchedly misnamed Sierra Business Council, please describe how CO2 has been directly observed as a primary driver of climate.
“I am reminded also that when I commented on another site that your point of view seems to be influenced by psychotropic drugs you took that opportunity to directly contact my board of directors to complain that I was being unfair to you in some way. ”
While you did refer to me as “Haldol soaked” at Rebane’s, the contact you describe didn’t happen. Frischian alternative facts, perhaps mixed up with a complaint that was made by someone else that was copied to me.
Greg, it absolutely did happen and you know it.
I bring it up because attacking the organization I work for seems to be a regular recurring theme of your posts. This is kind of a standard intimidation tactic on line–attack the employer of the person commenting and they will think it is bad PR and reign in the employee.
Bob, I would understand if you bounced this…but then…I am not a cartoonist….and this is not France or Turkey.
The funny thing about influencing free speech is that even in liberal democratic societies with a strong tradition of individual rights, people will always seek to find ways to influence, intimidate and subtly silence people they disagree with.
If one bows to intimidation once they will be a supplicant for life.
I try to let most comments stand, but after forty or fifty it becomes redundant.
At the risk of double-redundancy, my run-on arguments with Todd and Greg, over the years, has never been, as Judith accused, of any disrespect to your work. It has always been about opposing anyone who claims that I have no right to my opinion. My apologies if I have offended you in any way and, as always, feel free to omit my comments at any time; I will not be offended, and will continue to read your blog and enjoy your work.
“I am reminded also that when I commented on another site that your point of view seems to be influenced by psychotropic drugs you took that opportunity to directly contact my board of directors to complain that I was being unfair to you in some way. ”
Perhaps a copy of this contact of which you speak would help restore my memory, Steve because I really don’t remember it nor have searches of email been fruitful. It would be great if you’d also dig out that promised copy of the Drew Bedwell rules of engagement with those “Town Hall” meetings you were “facilitating” and Earl commemorated in the above left panel.
While my response (made nearly 24 hours ago) remains in purgatory (am guessing its because it has two hyperlinks which has been an automatic trigger in the past), Steve, I started out accepting the IPCC vision… it wasn’t until early 2007, after the fourth assessment report was run up the flagpole, the Governator played “To The Colors” and the state legislature saluted, that I became aware of solid lines of scientific inquiry that refute CO2 as a primary climate driver over geologic time and for the 20th century.
What’s puzzling you is the nature of the game: children and malleable voters are taught science from a view Francis Bacon would understand… present them with specific examples that all point to the general law that is or has been arrived at inductively. That isn’t a bad place to start, but the kiddies aren’t expected to learn how to do the science, they’re being taught general principles. No matter how many examples you can cite pointing to what you think is a consensus, it does not get closer to being “proved”.
More from Feynman’s talk to science teachers:
“What is science? Of course you all must know, if you teach it. That’s common sense. What can I say? If you don’t know, every teacher’s edition of every textbook gives a complete discussion of the subject. There is some kind of distorted distillation and watered-down and mixed-up words of Francis Bacon from some centuries ago, words which then were
supposed to be the deep philosophy of science. But one of the greatest experimental scientists of the time who was really doing something, William Harvey, said that what Bacon said science was, was the science that a lord-chancellor would do. He [Bacon] spoke of making observations, but omitted the vital factor of judgment about what to observe and what to pay attention to”.
Regarding the volume of research you find comforting, your demigod (my honest but fallible ecologist) Lovelock did give you a clue: “[Why] on earth are the politicians spending a fortune of our money when we can least afford it on doing things to prevent events 50 years from now? They’ve employed scientists to tell them what they want to hear”.
Why indeed? Perhaps because the Lord Chancellor wants that result. In the meantime, I take comfort in the fact that research contrary to the IPCC visions found in the political summaries is no longer suppressed with the same vigor and no matter what the politics of the day are, our world is pretty much doing what I thought it would be doing a decade ago when I began to notice the William Harveys of our times.
And here, once again, is your theory of self-acclaimed intelligence; noting that, “the kiddies aren’t expected to learn how to do the science, they’re being taught general principles.”
Point one: I’d wager that anyone on this blog, had they the curiosity or desire to delve further into such things, could have faired as well as you at sitting in a classroom studying your preferred subjects of interest.
Point two: today’s average HS student has more knowledge about the sciences than any of the “great” scientists of the 17th and 18th centuries could even imagine.
Point three: your position on the subject is pure opinion, which you make abundantly clear by the fact that you changed it once you discovered that certain politicians agreed with you.
Harvey’s bottom line was that science needs to be observable; and climate change is something that every man, woman, and child on Earth can see for themselves; no degree needed. You have no “leg up” on the rest of us in that observation, especially noting the fact that none of your writings here are from personal experimentation, but merely quoting what the true experts have said in the past; something that anyone with a connection to the internet can do. Your observations are what Harvey called “phantom” science; having merely read it, you accept it as truth.
And as a final note; much to your chagrin, there is definitely a consensus. It is a consensus of the overwhelming majority of both scientists and everyday humans living on the planet. You’re starting to sound like a creationist when you claim that theories, unless “proved”, can viably be explained any way you choose. Their favorite is gravity; yours’ is climate change.
Greg must believe he has a leg up. His ego requires it.
I see it more as a classic inferiority complex, because he spends more time trying to make others look stupid than he does arguing his point. If he ever admitted that anyone else had a valid point, it would threaten his self-worth.
That, and he will never admit that his opinions on science have more to do with politics than facts.
I don’t mean to break up your discussion but I’m in the NoFacebook zone, so this is the easiest way for me to contact you.
You are big on Virtual Reality, yes?
I am working with someone to hold a small entertaining event that might generate more interest in the community.
If you are interested, please let me know so I can have you over to the Powell House and discuss it.
The easiest way to contact me would be at firstname.lastname@example.org to actually have a conversation.
But no, I am not big into virtual reality. I think you must be thinking about the Nevada County Economic Resources Council.
Chris, your argument this time is with Feynman, not me, and the difference between your perception of climate change and Chicken Little’s perception of the sky seem essentially similar.
You also have gotten the issue of proof completely backwards: virtually nothing in the physical sciences is ever proven to be true… but it takes only one “cherry picked” counter to prove it false. It isn’t “cherry picking” to check a theory’s prediction.
Consensus is political, consensus is religion but consensus is never science.
” your argument this time is with Feynman”
And yet another rabbit pulled from your rumpled hat. Do you not have the words to express yourself? Or are you drawn to this one because he, like you, refuses to brush his teeth? And I seriously doubt if he received the Nobel for quoting others, which appears to be your only method of communication.
Your copy of Chicken Little must be completely different than mine; I had no idea the he had the findings of the majority of scientists to back his assertions. Perhaps you should stick with My Pet Goat.
And although religious consensus may be pure poppycock, scientific consensus is backed by verifiable facts and experimentation. Not to mention that all consensus are mathematical equations, so unless my dad spent his life pursuing a false science, they are certainly scientific phenomena.
No Greg, my argument is with YOU; it’s a pity you can’t find the words to argue your own case. Any quote of yours’ that doesn’t come from someone else is always just nasty bullshit; hardly the sign of any significant intelligence.
The usual rhetorical trap, I use my words and you’ll attack my credibility, I quote the undeniably credible, you blame me for using someone else’s words.
Chris, if there was the consensus you imagine there wouldn’t be the fevered attempts of activists (Doran/Zimmerman, Oreskes, or Cook) to manufacture one, and even I would have answered the Doran/Zimmerman questions according to that 97% … yes, it has warmed in the last century and mankind has some effect on that. They didn’t ask if they CO2 would cause a catastrophic warming.
Oreskes is not credible; not a scientist (mining geology is almost as far from atmospheric physics as cartooning is) and when asked about Dyson, let fly with a claim he was casting doubts only because he was an old man craving attention.
And the Cook “study” is classic GIGO… his website’s volunteer “citizen scientists” showed little skill in classifying papers but then, they weren’t selected for their science knowledge other than a genuflecting towards Cook.
In conclusion, Chris, the EPA and the NSF funding spigots will not be flowing as before, so reach into your pocket and give till it hurts to your favorite postmodern science 501c3.
I know you fellows get a kick from insulting each other for months on end, but since this conversation has drifted far from the original post I am asking you to put a sock in it. Failure to comply may result in blockage. -RL
Bob, your blog-site has been highjacked and compromised by three self absorbed players who don’t give a rip about you or the wonderfully entertaining and thought provoking site you tried to create.
It’s apparently all about them at this point and the result is stultifying and boring with a capital B.
One can only pray that you find a way to make your blog fun again.
Your regional childhood stories are so charming, but they were swept past in the frenzy to hunt down the perfect insulting bon motte.
Sad and disrespectful to a cherished artist and pundit, a local treasure.
If I want bilge I can always tune in to FOX and CNN simultaneously and achieve the same effect as the effluvia from the, “Three Blind Mice in the Tub”,(Intentional mixing of metaphors).
Get a clue, gentlemen.
Perhaps it’s appropriate to note Earl’s ‘toon at the top of this stack was about angry political disagreements, not the bucolic days of Grass Valley of the past, with one of the paid participants in the real NH2020 meetings being one of those three “self absorbed players” who you blame for the blog not being fun any more.
Get a clue, indeed.
Oh Gawd Greg,
We get absolutely get what pushes your buttons.
Now, give Bob his blog back!
A Royal We? No madam, you do not know what pushes my buttons.
Mayberry RLC is doing fine.
I must note before you close this thread Bob that this entire thing started with a direct attack on me as an individual and the organization I work for by Gregory that began here at the top of the page:
Greg Goodknight says:
April 18, 2017 at 10:49 am
I suggest that if someone needs counseling on being a decent human being and playing nice it could have begun THERE.