<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Roger Pielke Jr. defends his absurd delayer post ... by quoting a global warming denier]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by jcwinnie http://www.grist.org/article/the-blind-leading-quoting-the-blind/ Wed, 19 Mar 2008 23:53:36 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-blind-leading-quoting-the-blind/1 Belief Systems

Maybe, it is wishful thinking, Joseph, i.e., a religious zealot would be more easily manipulated than a scientist.

The error, of course, is assuming that denial need to make sense, whereas it is a univesal defense mechanism that appears earlier in development than sense making.

]]> Belief Systems

Maybe, it is wishful thinking, Joseph, i.e., a religious zealot would be more easily manipulated than a scientist.

The error, of course, is assuming that denial need to make sense, whereas it is a univesal defense mechanism that appears earlier in development than sense making.

]]> Comment #2 by Delay And Deny http://www.grist.org/article/the-blind-leading-quoting-the-blind/ Thu, 20 Mar 2008 05:07:52 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-blind-leading-quoting-the-blind/2 Humbling


This Galileo quote was used in the recent film, King of California, with Michael Douglas:

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Galileo.html

The Manhattan Declaration


]]> Humbling


This Galileo quote was used in the recent film, King of California, with Michael Douglas:

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Galileo.html

The Manhattan Declaration


]]> Comment #3 by frankbi http://www.grist.org/article/the-blind-leading-quoting-the-blind/ Thu, 20 Mar 2008 05:10:49 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-blind-leading-quoting-the-blind/3 Einstein > Galileo, goo goo goo joob

"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."

So why did James Inhofe need to gather 400 "climate scientists" to dispute global warming?

As Einstein might have said, if the IPCC were wrong, then one scientist would be enough.

]]> Einstein > Galileo, goo goo goo joob

"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."

So why did James Inhofe need to gather 400 "climate scientists" to dispute global warming?

As Einstein might have said, if the IPCC were wrong, then one scientist would be enough.

]]> Comment #4 by tico89 http://www.grist.org/article/the-blind-leading-quoting-the-blind/ Thu, 20 Mar 2008 07:29:48 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-blind-leading-quoting-the-blind/4 Galileo...sigh

Considering he didn't even employ PR agents, Galileo really did a great job of distorting the facts for future generations. Or maybe the future generations did the distorting because for some reason they liked Galileo.

He didn't invent the telescope, or throw anything off the Torre Pendente in Pisa; and the fact that he worked with the 'Copernican' model is a pretty big giveaway that he didn't come up with it himself.

I'm not trying to lessen his accomplishments, just point out that it wasn't all himself. Theories do not become accepted merely through the "humble reasoning of a single individual"--while a single individual may come up with the theory, using the work of others as well as his own, they become scientifically accepted after many others have found them to work.

I rather think that's where 'consensus', the #1 word seemingly most hated by deniers, comes into the pictures.

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

]]> Galileo...sigh

Considering he didn't even employ PR agents, Galileo really did a great job of distorting the facts for future generations. Or maybe the future generations did the distorting because for some reason they liked Galileo.

He didn't invent the telescope, or throw anything off the Torre Pendente in Pisa; and the fact that he worked with the 'Copernican' model is a pretty big giveaway that he didn't come up with it himself.

I'm not trying to lessen his accomplishments, just point out that it wasn't all himself. Theories do not become accepted merely through the "humble reasoning of a single individual"--while a single individual may come up with the theory, using the work of others as well as his own, they become scientifically accepted after many others have found them to work.

I rather think that's where 'consensus', the #1 word seemingly most hated by deniers, comes into the pictures.

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

]]> Comment #5 by Delay And Deny http://www.grist.org/article/the-blind-leading-quoting-the-blind/ Thu, 20 Mar 2008 08:21:05 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-blind-leading-quoting-the-blind/5 Inhofe 1


As Einstein might have said, if the IPCC were wrong, then one scientist would be enough.

Well, according to Grist, there was only about 1 scientist on the Inhofe list, so that is enought.

Contrast that with Al Gore and James Hansen (and Grist) who do science by majority vote.

Something Galileo (and Einstein) would have abhorred...

The Manhattan Declaration


]]> Inhofe 1


As Einstein might have said, if the IPCC were wrong, then one scientist would be enough.

Well, according to Grist, there was only about 1 scientist on the Inhofe list, so that is enought.

Contrast that with Al Gore and James Hansen (and Grist) who do science by majority vote.

Something Galileo (and Einstein) would have abhorred...

The Manhattan Declaration


]]> Comment #6 by Alex Lockwood http://www.grist.org/article/the-blind-leading-quoting-the-blind/ Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:51:17 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-blind-leading-quoting-the-blind/6 back to the matter in hand...

...I've been looking at the survey carried out by the Pielke Research Group of '140 climate scientists' which they believe shows significant dissent among scientists with the findings of the IPCC WG1 report.

I've written about it here:
http://www.alexlockwood.net/2008/04/21/climate-science-re ...

I wrote about this because the Pielke Research Group claimed that the decision not to publish an article based on the research, a decision taken by EOS and Nature Precedings, was an example of bias in climate change reporting.

I disagreed, and so investigated. My view is that the Pielke Group is using rhetoric and taking positions that is not backed up by their own data. I probably don't know enough science, but I do know enough about the uses of language for this rhetoric to ring some bells of alarm about research emanating from this research group.

Lecturer in Journalism at the University of Sunderland, UK. http://www.alexlockwood.net


]]> back to the matter in hand...

...I've been looking at the survey carried out by the Pielke Research Group of '140 climate scientists' which they believe shows significant dissent among scientists with the findings of the IPCC WG1 report.

I've written about it here:
http://www.alexlockwood.net/2008/04/21/climate-science-re ...

I wrote about this because the Pielke Research Group claimed that the decision not to publish an article based on the research, a decision taken by EOS and Nature Precedings, was an example of bias in climate change reporting.

I disagreed, and so investigated. My view is that the Pielke Group is using rhetoric and taking positions that is not backed up by their own data. I probably don't know enough science, but I do know enough about the uses of language for this rhetoric to ring some bells of alarm about research emanating from this research group.

Lecturer in Journalism at the University of Sunderland, UK. http://www.alexlockwood.net


]]>