by Don Aitkin
In Australia, where I live, these weeks lead up to Christmas, and to the start of the summer holidays. The serious side of news lifts a little, and there is a more light-hearted air about many things. In that spirit, I offer the following little collection in the hope that those who read it will laugh a little, and feel prompted to add their own favourites. I’ve tried to be ecumenical in the selection. No single person has been cited more than once, to the best of my knowledge. And I’ve used no names. Here we go.
Those who enter as novices into the debate about climate change will often need some help in deal with new terminology and new arguments, although those who come from the academic world may well have encountered variants before. What follows is a kind of glossary, and additions or other suggestions will be most welcome.
First, let us deal with the journal articles. The novice will encounter a private language here that usually needs a little translation. In what follows, I first set out the characteristic terminology, and then do my best to provide a helpful translation in brackets.
‘It has long been known that …’ (I don’t seem to be able to find the right reference.)
‘It is generally believed that …’ (One of my colleagues agreed with me over coffee that…)
‘While it has not been possible to provide definite answers to the questions we set out …’ (The data don’t really support our hypotheses, but I need a publication out of this…)
‘An adequate theory to account for these findings has yet to be formulated.’ (No one else has been able to do it, and I can’t, either.)
‘It is hoped that this work will stimulate further research in this interesting field.’ (OK, the paper isn’t much good, but neither is anything else in this area.)
‘Only three of these samples were retained for further study’ (I couldn’t make sense of the others, and ignored them.)
‘Results of later analyses will be reported at a later date.’ (I will probably never get around to making sense of this stuff.)
‘Although some detail has been lost in reproduction, it is possible to tell from the original graph …’ (You have to be clairvoyant even to see it in the original.)
‘In this area, the most reliable results are those of Bloggs. ‘ (Bloggs is one of my former students.)
‘It might be argued that …’ (Now, I do have an excellent answer to this one.)
Second, learn to interpret adjectives, which need not to be taken at their face value.
‘The agreement of the observations with the predicted results are…’
‘Excellent’ (fair)
‘Good’ (poor)
‘Satisfactory’ (doubtful)
‘Fair’ (imaginary)
‘As good as could be expected given the approximations made in the analysis’ (non- existent)
‘Of great theoretical and practical importance’ (interesting to me)
‘Insightful argument’ (one that agrees with my position)
‘Strained connection’ (one that I don’t like)
Third, become used to the cut and thrust of the blogosphere. Here words don’t always have their common meanings, and while politeness is a key, robust interactions are expected.
‘You have no idea what you are talking about.’ (I disagree.)
‘Your bias shone through loud and clear…’ (I don’t like you.)
‘Please try to keep up.’ (I have superior knowledge to yours.)
‘I’m going to sound like a broken record… (You guys don’t listen to me.)
‘What are you smoking?’ (I think you may well have made an error here.)
‘I’m all for being proved wrong.’ (Though this rarely if ever happens.)
‘Have you read [whatever it is]? (I haven’t either, but I won’t have to show that: the question is directed at you.)
‘Only a rabid conspiracy theorist could believe… ‘ (I feel you may be in error here too.)
‘Good rant.’ (I’d like to have written that, but don’t have quite the nerve.)
‘Amazing.’ (I think I disagree.)
‘Apparently, with your superior intellect…’ (I think you are fundamentally misconceived about this.)
‘I have people telling me…’ (Someone I met in a bar said…)
‘You do not examine your own influences and biases carefully enough.’ (Unlike me — I do this each morning as I brush my teeth.)
‘Contrast a wacko with a pragmatist.’ (I am pretty sure which one I am.)
‘This is ridiculous posturing…’ (I rather think that you are wrong.)
Fourth, assemble a glossary of short-forms. Each time that you work out one correctly, award yourself a glass of good red wine. Try to create new ones whose meaning no one but you knows.
Here is the beginning of a collection.
AFAIK (as far as I know)
IMO (in my opinion)
IMHO (in my humble opinion)
WRT (with respect to)
LOL (laugh out loud, little old ladies, lots of lolly — pick the most useful)
If there is a decent response, I will assemble all the printable contributions and ask Judy to post it on the website as a ‘paper’.
JC note: Don emailed this to me about a week ago. This post represents the views of the author. Don’s previous posts at Climate Etc. are:
Excellent glossary, Don. I would add:
“I find it amusing the way sceptics/warmists….” (=I have no real counter to your argument, but it’s patently ridiculous)
This has many variants, all of them equally eyeroll-inducing, but my all-time favorite is:
“I find it interesting…” (ironies for the stupid follow)
Lol! Enjoyed this a lot!
From the third section, “‘Please try to keep up” has got to be a favorite, really shows the arrogance of the person writing the comment.
Also, you can add this one to the fourth section; ‘IIRC’ (If I remember correctly).
Cheers,
Henry
WTF?
ROFLMFAO! I am not sure what that means, but I get it a lot when I mention MLEV impact on DWLR :)
Capt.
It took me little while to interpret it but then when I did I…ROFLMFAO :-)
(rolling on the floor laughing my f***ing ass off)
“Don’t feed the troll.”. (Further responses to this commenter who thinks he’s smarter than everybody else only encourages his boorish behavior.)
It is not being smarter but how you use your mind.
Being brain lazy is no excuse to the skills we all have.
You can be ignorant or choose to be ignorant (which is your choice of stupidity).
In discussions among distinguished scientists, I recall that my research advisor used the term “intriguing” when I suspected he meant BS.
Haha!
Oliver,
For once, you are probably right. Your research advisor would have meant BS ! Almost certainly!
Reminded me of Mr. Spock’s Fascinating!
Climatologist become skilful only in ”Sir Humphrey’s sophisticated empty talk” ::observation, albedo, empirical, noise, equilibrium and similar, means: they will complicate even more, the things they don’t understand – to justify for the spoils – to confuse the confused, as themselves)
We need a ‘skeptics’ blog glossary too!
‘Show me the raw data’ – I have no idea what ‘raw data’ is and wouldn’t know what to do with if I had it.
‘all climate science is a fraud’ – I’ve never had any interest in science and made fun of all the geeks at school, but I know all the scientists are wrong- I read it on a blog.
‘climate models are wrong’ – I had models as a kid, they always broke, how can you tell anything about climate from them?
“it’s cooling” – I don’t undersand stats
“warming since 2000 is not statistically signifcant’ – see above.
‘scientists are in it for the research grant money’ – i have no idea what I’m talking about
‘there is too much uncertainty to do anything’ – I can’t get out of bed in the morning,
“warming since 2000 is not statistically signifcant’ – see above.”
I thought James Hansen said that, not a skeptic?
“Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?
Yes, but only just.”
Do you agree that she is not pregnant? – Yes, but only just.
It was Phil Jones what said it.
Hansen, Jones, Boogey Man – they’re all the same.
Robert, ianash, Booger Man–they’re all the same.
Gary M
Standing young woman on bus to seated elderly male passenger: Pardon me, sir, but would you have a seat for a pregnant woman?
Old man, after offering his seat and noticing that young woman does not look very pregnant: Say, just how long have you been pregnant?
Young woman: Fifteen minutes, and, man, am I tired!
Michael
There is too much uncertainty to allow a policy of no action – we don’t have any clue what is going to happen, but we must urgently stop it
Or, don’t think, react!
TTFW?
Michael | January 1, 2012 at 10:38 pm | Reply
We need a ‘skeptics’ blog glossary too!
Yea!
‘Show me the raw data’ – I have no idea what ‘raw data’ is and wouldn’t know what to do with if I had it
These would be the original records kept on paper. Ask PJ… see what he says about his: Big Dump.
‘all climate science is a fraud’ – I’ve never had any interest in science and made fun of all the geeks at school, but I know all the scientists are wrong- I read it on a blog.
All Climate Science-by definition, is at best simple fraud & at its worst it could be seen as treason.
‘climate models are wrong’ – I had models as a kid, they always broke, how can you tell anything about climate from them?
Now you say, I have not learned anything since I was a kid?
“it’s cooling” – I don’t undersand stats
Work on your spelling, first.
“warming since 2000 is not statistically signifcant’ – see above.
See more, the above.
‘scientists are in it for the research grant money’ – i have no idea what I’m talking about
We all see that, Michael.
‘there is too much uncertainty to do anything’ – I can’t get out of bed in the morning,
My New Year wish comes true. Don’t worry, be happy.
Sleepy-head.
Michael, there is no such a thing as ”raw data” ALL DATA HAS BEING COOKED!!! 1] Unless is evenly distribution for collecting data / 10 times more thermometers in Oceania than in Europe / USA combined (because Oceania is 10 times larger area) 2] data from every cubic km of troposphere is equally important 3] temperature changes every 10-15 minutes, unless is data from every 15minutes…. Without those ESSENTIAL factors incorporated > all the climatologist are playing WITH THAT DATA, same as children are plying with the fire trucks on the sandpit. PRETEND SCIENCE..wrrrrrm, wrrrrm – warmer planet by 0,02C degrees….?!
‘Results of later analyses will be reported at a later date.’
I’m not reporting some of the data because it doesn’t fit my theory… but i’m working on it.
I encountered a similar one in ~1970 when I refused to recommend publication of a paper, pending publication of isotope data later.
‘scientists are in it for the research grant money’ – i have no idea what I’m talking about
And that’s the truth — you don’t. When skeptics say this, they’re assuming that nobody (other than you) is stupid enough to interpret this as scientists pocketing the grant cash. Rather, it’s a bit more nuanced, referring to power and prestige points. Bring chunks of the taxpayer’s money to the lab and the people running the place look more favourably upon you. And so on.
‘there is too much uncertainty to do anything’ – I can’t get out of bed in the morning,
Wrong again. You’re not much good at this. “Too much uncertainty” is a response to the greenie call that man needs to scrap all cars tomorrow morning or some other equally vapid and poorly considered notion of CO2 reduction. The responder is saying, in the nicest possible way, that the person calling for new taxes or cap and trade [or WTF-ever, it’s all idiocy] is full of crap.
Yet just below we find: http://judithcurry.com/2012/01/01/interpreting-the-climate-change-debate/#comment-154778
“Anthropogenic warming will have catastrophic consequences” (I desperately need to get a grant.)
Here’s a characteristic statement with a translation in parentheses for you, Don,
AGW is a hoax perpetrated by a cabal of socialist eco-Nazis with an intent to destroy capitalism (I’m an extremist libertarian).
Here’s another:
I don’t doubt that the Earth is warming but I think that all supposed evidence that the Earth is warming is bogus (I’m an extremist libertarian).
IN your case JOshua — no need to add libertarian because a) it is not a fact b) it makes the sentence more applicable to you.
I don’t need any more knowledge to be certain one way or the other about AGW: it’s clearly a hoax (I’m a Tea Partier).
Joshua, I can see here; you started arguing with yourself; can I join the three of you?
Climategate caused a crisis of confidence in climate scientists (I’m a “skeptic” that doesn’t need validated evidence to formulate an opinion).
How am I doing?
Joshua, I’ve tried not to put in comments that are plainly from one side or the other, perhaps not always successfully. The idea is that we use forms of speech and argument that can be used by either an AGW supporter or a sceptic. Yours are only for one side. Could you have ago at generalising them?
Actually you’re not doing very well, if you want to play the game you have to pick up commonly used phrases, like,
“The science is settled” (we don’t want to discuss this further because our science is easily discredited)
“the vast majority of scientists say” (so shut up and don’t challenge your betters),
“there is a mountain of evidence that fossil fuels are causing global warming” (actually there’s none there’s just evidence of warming, but we’re hoping you won’t notice),
“the rise in temperature in the 20th century was unprecedented (if you discount the Minoan, Roman and Mediaeval warm periods),
“the earth’s temperature will very likely rise by 3.5C by 21001 (if our unproven theory of positive feedbacks is true)
Getting the idea? Making up your own phrases doesn’t count I’m afraid.
Hey Joshua,
What about this;
‘we can’t be sure about any warming, as we know there is a heating bias in the temp record caused by poor location of measuring devices and UHI effects’ – ( hey, I’m a Prof of History, I don’t know much about the science, but I like being a maverick in feilds outsde my expertise, so I’m gonna rely on a blog to make these claims, and when it’s shown later that these claims are completely wrong (as knowledable peope at the time would have told me, if I’d ever bothered to ask), there is no way I’m going to ‘fess up and admit my error, or update my opinions.)
low brow, knuckle dragging as usual
Climategate caused a crisis of confidence in climate scientists??
Of course not, secrecy and endemic dishonesty is the very foundation of politically-funded and approved science.
What exactly is an “extremist” libertarian?
An accepted (by libertarians) definition of a libertarian is someone who believes that no one is ever justified in initiating the use of force against anyone else to achieve some end that cannot be achieved by voluntary trade or cooperation or by persusion. A corollary of this is that a non-libertarian is someone who believes that they have the right to initiate the use of force against others to achieve an end not desired by those others, i.e., to impose his will on them by force.
Joshua obviously falls into the group who think it is okay to initiate force to get what he wants from others. And he thinks it is libertarians who are “extremist?”
“What exactly is an “extremist” libertarian?”
Anarcho-libertarians are pretty extreme. Any ideology has its extremists; it’s not a value judgement on the system of thought as a whole.
A “moderate” libertarian would be someone like Hayek, who believes in a state monopoly on the use of force, Pigovian taxes on negative externalities, and a minimal role for the state besides maintaining public order and national defense.
A radical libertarian believes in a collection of private security forces working in voluntary association to enforce a tort system which is the only means of redress of harms. They regard the state not as a necessary evil subject to corruption and abuse, a threat to freedom, but rather as the ultimate evil, unnecessary, and tyrannical and totalitarian by definition.
Both flavors of libertarianism share an ideological incoherence and naive and simplistic nature. Both could be regarded as “extreme” in the sense that most people and specifically the vast majority of Americans reject them. But as with anything there are more moderate and more radical takes on the subject.
Robert:
All of the variations on libertarian thought you describe are merely different ideas about how we could most practically achieve a libertarian society. There are of course extensive arguments pro and con for each, a considerable literature in fact.
As far as not being accepted by most people as being a criterion of “extremism,” I suggest a different criterion, in terms of what ideas are more dangerous to society or one’s neighbors. For instance, suppose i have 2 neighbors, one living on each side of my property. One, the libertarian, believes that neither he nor anyone else has the right to initiate the use of force against others to obtain what he wants. The other, not a libertarian, thinks that it okay to initiate force to get what he wants from others. Suppose further that I own something that each of them would like to have. Which one should I fear more? Which one by that criterion should be considered the “extremist?”
Am I naive and simplistic to say that I would prefer to live in a libertarian society, one composed of those who do not think it is okay to initiate force to get what they want from me or from others. Most people, when they think about this subject, would probably agree with me when it comes to things that they themselves own.
Unfortunately, when it comes to obtaining things from others that they want, they do not remain consistent. Things are more complicated, they would perhaps claim, and as long as they belong to a big enough group or gang they would justify imposing their wants on unwilling victims as being in the national interest, or some such.
AGW is a hoax perpetrated by a cabal of socialist eco-Nazis with an intent to destroy capitalism (THE TRUTH).
It is certainly doing a mighty fine job of it!
Not: “to destroy capitalism”, but to destroy prosperity and cause poverty. (To stop the unsustainable over-consumption)
Joshua, it was my understanding from a few of your comments here that you had come to the understanding that Saul David Alinsky, was the root cause? So, what’s up now doc?
Thanks Don! Big grins! I would add:
“As Figure X makes plain…” (we have no idea how to statistically compare these time series but they look different to us).
“While the first trend is not significantly different from zero, the second is” (we know we should be asking whether the two trends are significantly different from each other, but this trick works on most referees).
“None of these trends are significantly different from zero” (the power of all these tests suck, but everyone else gets away with this).
“It is telling that of the [large number of] tests we did, only these show a significant effect” (no one in this literature has ever heard of the multiple comparisons problem and we’re not going to change that)
Don,
Your glossary of terms may be humorous. But I hope you aren’t passing them off as your own creation. I must have first heard them, or similar, over 30 years ago.
You’ll find this kind of thing all over the net.
http://blogs.nature.com/u5d050a25/2010/02/11/science-in-translation
Tempterrain, Yes indeed.
I think it rather more important that readers reference a couple of more relevant lists. First of all, considering the amount of nonsense theories by the usual suspects, John Carlos Baez’s Crackpot Index is useful. Second, the list of Fallacious Arguments by Don Lindsay is helpful to spot manipulation in reasoning. Google these for the links.
Web,
When checking out the Fallacious Argument Index, why does it appear you use it as a guide to your ideas?
The interesting thing is how many AGW arguments score highly on fallacious arguments, crackpottery and bad science indices.
http://midimagic.sgc-hosting.com/recogbad.htm
Pure projection on your part, Hunter. All you ever do is frame arguments to nullify the opposing viewpoint. We all know this is happening.
Web,
That critique, from a guy who claims those who reject what you say in fact agree with you, and ends most posts with some screed about how you Malthusians have finally fer sure gotten it right *this time*, is a bit humorous.
crackpottery, indeed.
Well, his field is history, so recycling old stuff would be appropriate.
Temp, Indeed no. Some of the early ones come from the work of a sociologist friend and I, bored at a seminar in the 1980s, writing down vacuous lines we were hearing. He then polished them into a couple of pages. I’ve built on that database, adding examples that I have found. The blog lines and the Initials all come from 2011.
Don
Yep,
The crackpot index is an absolute necessity here.
It is not being smarter but how you use your mind.
Being brain lazy is no excuse to the skills we all have.
You can be ignorant or choose to be ignorant (which is your choice of stupidity). :-)
I have a couple:
“I already answered that objection in a post last year”: I don’t have a response that can be succintly stated, but I know you won’t have the patience to wade through my mountain of posts to see that I didn’t answer your objection.
“I won’t repeat previous posts”: I don’t know what you are talking about.
“You are destroying your credibility when you disagree with the literature and the experts”: I can’t explain why you are wrong, but if I cite enough experts, I can get you to be quiet.
“The models may have large errors, but the answers agree from run to run and seem to agree with observed patterns of climate”: I am a closet astrologer and believe that errors will disappear if integrated in time for a long enough period of time and in any case, the attractor is strong enough to overcome any errors.
It is called “sacrificing science for a single calculation”.
Too dam lazy to do the work of thousands of calculations for the many different regions and different parameters.
Joe, With the size of that crayon box you have, I am sure you can do thousands of calculations. Your diligence will be rewarded as all the skeptics can then use your results as ammunition against the scientific establishment.
Web,
I could but it would probably take 20 years to do a single hour out of the 129,600 grids of a planetary model. Considering many do not have any data at all.
Forgot another:
“Models are accurate despite the fact that they don’t simulate internal variability that is larger than the signal we are looking for”: GCM’s diverge in detail after a few days, but if integrated for long enough, they must be right because they are the only predictive tool we have.
When I first joined a university faculty it took me a while to learn that when a colleague said “I’m not quite sure what you mean by….,” he really meant “You are full of crap.” Blogs tend not to have this problem of excessive politeness.
In the climate debate we often find the term “reasonably close” which means vaguely similar.
Then there is the empty one word sentence “Nonsense.” uttered with no accompanying counter argument. (I got two of those in just the last few days.) It’s companion sentence “Rubbish.” is also a frequent visitor.
In the three word empty sentence category “Read the literature.” is a major contender. This is not to be confused with “Read (citation).” which is a deflection.
Don Aitkin
Some more to add (seen on this blog):
There has been no statistically significant warming signal – it’s getting cooler
This is the warmest decade on record. – a statistic to be cited when the cooling trend of the current decade is smaller than the warming trend of the past decade.
The reader is invited to examine earlier posts covering this topic in detail – I have no answer to your question
And some IPCC trick phrases:
Antarctic sea ice continues to show no statistically significant average trends – it is growing
The effect of changes in regional weather systems has not been assessed – we have no earthly notion whether there will be any real weather changes
Magnitude of anthopogenic contribution has not been assessed – we have no earthly notion why this is happening
Attribution for these phenomena based on expert judgment rather than formal attribution studies – we have no earthly notion whether it is happening at all
Max
This reads like a parody of the inner monologue of the scientifically illiterate denier.
Thanks for adding another one:
This reads like a parody of the inner monologue of the scientifically illiterate denier. – I am unable to refute the logic of your statement so will attack your person instead
Max
Max,
Don’t forget the threated families as well as anyone associated with you.
Thanks Don, I found the collection quite agnostic. And then it occured to me how long would it take usual groupies hijack the thread. They do not disappoint do they?
Don,
What excuse do the “old farts” have into the science (debate?).
As far as I can find, scientists are absolutely correct no matter how wrong the theory is.
Don’t want to find the actual science, just sponge off society with the idiocies of our current system as long as AGW is mention, the funding flows.
Lord help you if you are not pro-AGW and the science shows something totally different.
Have you noticed the most hypocritical and dangerous people are also the one’s that preach religion?
Don,
I get the term “interesting” all the time.
But really they have no clue to what I’m explaining. Just they have never associated something they have NEVER come across before as it was not found in a book or in wikipedia.
When I wrote reports for my boss to sign and pass to the civil servants above us, I used a “Buzz Phrase Generator.” This post reminded me of how useful that was over the years. The generator has three columns, ten words per column. Select a three digit number and then select the word corresponding to each number in turn – thus I am proud to say that the Minister at the time actually told Parliament that we had formulated a “Balanced Policy Contingency” – which just happens to be the UK Emergency Call number, 999!
Not a single MP queried it, nor did the press and the wonderful, super efficient and all knowing civil servants used it themselves in several directives to agencies like mine …
You could sell a “Buzz Phrase Generator” subscription service. Please include “unprecedented.”
…and “unequivocal”
They’re out there for free on the internet. But somebody could charge money for periodic upgrades to the “in” buzzwords.
“Climate” is pretty much a universal wild card in anything academic looking for money, as are the whole list of enviro holy chant words, such as “green”, “clean”, “sustainable”, etc. Holy chant words are one level above buzzwords, because they stand in anywhere; any part of speech, and context. Just randomly sprinkle your sentences with “clean” and “green”, and then polish your halo.
Way back a long time ago, my mom worked for a politician. She told me about how this guy would become serially infatuated with certain words. Just about quit the day that every other word in every letter and speech was “behoove”.
Sucks when you don’t suffer fools and work for one.
The most popular buzz phrases seem to include “as predicted”, to be used no matter what is happening.
reminds me so much of what I heard in grad school . . .
Yeah, the first two sections are pretty old. Problem is, some people understood and learned, and others didn’t.
“The Earth’s climate systems are exceedingly complex and highly non-linear . . . ” ( You couldn’t possibly understand )
“The Earth’s climate systems are exceedingly complex and highly non-linear . . . ” ( We don’t have a clue about what’s actually happening, but here’s a WAG )
“The Earth’s climate systems are exceedingly complex and highly non-linear . . . ” ( It’s going to be much worse than even we can imagine )
Interpreted:
‘an inconvenient truth’ (a convenient lie)
“If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.”
Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Nov. 2007
(nothing will change by 2012)
Ferd, this is easily generalizable: “If there’s no action before t+5, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. Etc.” To be written by someone in any year t.
ferd,
Do you have the link to this nicely dated bit of prophecy?
Hunter, Donna Laframboise has a Jan 1 post in which she cites this quote. It was in an NYT article (surprise, surprise!) See:
Pachauri: It’s Too Late to Fight Climate Change
“The Gray Monk | January 2, 2012 at 8:56 am | Reply
When I wrote reports for my boss to sign and pass to the civil servants above us, I used a “Buzz Phrase Generator.””
Thanks, I’d forgotten about those. The rule of three’s is the key to marketing and buzz-words. From an on-line generator:
seize customized convergence
innovate vertical portals
empower compelling e-commerce
drive cross-media L-services
visualize plug-and-play experiences
exploit 24/7 interfaces
e-enable geo-processing functionalities
transition synergistic communities
envisioneer web-enabled markets
try these on the spouse:
Wide-Eyed Fudge Bee
Bashful Cupcake Dolphin
Dapper Sugar Lovebird
Wacky Cake Mouse
Wide-Eyed Cherry Squirrel
Sexy Apple-Pie Flamingo
Delicious Cookie Bee
manacker | January 2, 2012 at 7:01 am | Reply
Attribution for these phenomena based on expert judgment rather than formal attribution studies
(We haven’t done a study and are making this up because it supports what we believe)
Physicist-retired—said.
“As you are well aware of scientists and economists are paid to write papers. In so doing they SPIN THE FACTS to fit the wants or needs of the one who is paying them .
Easy enough to fix, bob.
Show that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas.
Show that humans aren’t pumping 34 trillion tons of the stuff into the atmosphere every year now.”…
——————————————————————————————
Tom:
I just did the math and I don’t think each man, woman & child on the planet, pumps 4,857.14 tons each, of CO2 per year. Do you?
Don’t forget the recent addition to the buzzword thesaurus: Epistemic slippage.
But, please, don’t try it on your spouse.
sustainable – requiring a subsidy or intervention to survive
consensus – our gang is bigger than your gang
the model predicts – I don’t understand models
the statistics predict – I don’t understand statistics
the proxy(ies) demonstrate(s) – I don’t understand proxies
Let the skeptics come up with their own climate models=Ours has failed, it’s their turn.
================
If you really want to understand conservatives, as a liberal, you should just give up. This thread shows it clearly.
Here is a paper by a Dr Jonathon Haidt, at University of Virginia that empirically studied the ability of conservatives and liberals to understand each other.
Haidt is a self confessed liberal, I am a conservative, and I agree with almost everything he says.
—————
Social Justice Research
When Morality Opposes Justice: Conservatives Have Moral Intuitions that Liberals may not Recognize
Abstract:
Researchers in moral psychology and social justice have agreed that morality is about matters of harm, rights, and justice. On this definition of morality, conservative opposition to social justice programs appears to be immoral, and has been explained as a product of various non-moral processes such as system justification or social dominance orientation. In this article we argue that, from an anthropological perspective, the moral domain is usually much broader, encompassing many more aspects of social life and valuing institutions as much or more than individuals. We present theoretical and empirical reasons for believing that there are five psychological systems that provide the foundations for the world’s many moralities. The five foundations are psychological preparations for detecting and reacting emotionally to issues related to harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity. Political liberals have moral intuitions primarily based upon the first two foundations, and therefore misunderstand the moral motivations of political conservatives, who generally rely upon all five foundations.
———–
http://www.springerlink.com/index/T11828205JT42001.pdf
National Review also sees merit in his findings.
I know the liberals here will do what Haidt himself says he used to do, “Reject first, Ask rhetorical questions later!” But if you really really really believe that the future of the planet lies in better communication with those who disagree, maybe you should look at the science.
Mockery is self defeating when you are obviously not in command of the facts. I am thinking of you Joshua.