Friday, August 1, 2014

Another climate science skeptic dodges another challenge

More interesting times with climate science denialists over at 

  1. citizenschallenge Says:
    krischel writes, August 1, 2014 at 07:48:
    If you can still defend the fraud Michael Mann with a straight face, then obviously you’re immune to any critique of your chosen saviors :)
    ~ ~ ~
    Write up your list of specific charges defining Dr. Mann’s alleged fraud. Let’s take a closer look at them.
    {not surprisingly K never offered any follow up with specifics re Dr. Mann, just as he never supplied the list of stolen emails he claims prove fraud.  
    Typical contrarian behavior}
    And yes I am willing to defend Dr. Mann because I’ve yet to see you folks come up with any actual wrong doing – other than not being perfect. {sometime I should tell you my joke about what they did to the last perfect carpenter.}
    ~ ~ ~
    {But, then you still haven’t listed your claimed Climate-gate emails instead switching your demand to, me having to actually read every one of the thousands of stolen emails… as though you have.}
    ~ ~ ~
    I tell you one thing I’ve learned from my years of trying to dialogue with fake skeptics such as yourself, they are big and bold up front but have no follow through. Another indicator of their bankrupt intellectual integrity. :- |

August 2, 2014 at 04:40
krischel Says: August 1, 2014 at 20:45
“@citizenschallenge: “Like I offered: let’s cue up your favor Lindzen lecture and my favor Ben Santer lecture and we can do a side by side demonstrandum.”
Because we’re simply supposed to judge scientists by observing their lectures and giving our opinions?”
~ ~ ~
Sure seems like you are dodging :- |
I claim that throughout his talk Ben Santer displays exactly those qualities you harp on.
I can show by a careful examination of Dr. Lindzen’s talk that the man is theater and does not present the scientific process or it’s evidence honestly. I’m willing to try to prove my case, in as objective manner as we can.
You keep claiming you defend the true principles of science, let’s see how one of your hero’s measures up to one of my scientific heroes.
Why run from that sort of learning exercise.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
krischel Says: August 1, 2014 at 20:45
“You’re missing the answer – demand adherence to the scientific method and its required falsifiability. *That’s* how you judge authorities in science, and *that’s* why you’re failing to discern between good authorities and bad authorities.”

~ ~ ~
You’re missing the point.
A) I have never presumed to be a “judge” of who the trustworthy authority is.
B) I have no choice but to decide for myself whom I will trust.
Because I trust them does not make them a certified trustworthy authority {it takes other experts to do that}!
C) Here we get into that consensus thing again…
I can only assess “trustworthy authority” on the basis of the opinion of the community of experts who understand the complexities of the science – the only ones who are truly in any sort of position to “judge”.
Fellow experts are the only ones who know who’s truly adhering to the principles of the scientific method and its required falsifiability.

Fellow experts are the only ones who know who’s framing research questions properly in order to achieve the most useful answer.

Fellow experts are the only ones who know best if procedures have been following and if the mathematics and statistics have been applied properly.

Anyone who has spent anytime actually listening to scientists explaining their craft, will be astounded at the depth of complexities they understand. Another eye opener is how critical scientists are of their own work, it’s weaknesses and potential biases, all these things are openly discussed and argued about and digested-on in good faith. Because all parties are looking for, if not the ‘right’ answer, the best approximation given our current abilities.

K you are great at tossing fancy ideals and principles around, but you do it in a nasty destructive manner and given your lack of appreciation for the depth and complexity of the issues Earth scientists deal with along with your obvious hostility towards them – of course you’ll find it easy to see only what you want: no one living up to YOUR expectations and you’re convinced it’s all a hoax.

But, what qualifies you, Mr. K, to be any sort of judge of how well scientists are doing? Your qualifications pleaz! ;)
Where have you displayed any sort of ability to explain anything,
or any desire to learn from other’s knowledge?

Nope, instead all I’ve seen is you just keeping-on heaping-on ever weirder distractions.                        : – \

No comments: