|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 2, 2011 1:46:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Feb 2, 2011 11:51:00 GMT
I put this comment on the original story.
"What you must realize, Roy, is that you are talking science and Dessler is talking politics. He will never agree he is wrong. The warmaholics play the “refute game”. When a paper like yours appears, they desperately need a paper to say you are wrong. Whether you are, or not, is irrelevant.
When Svensmark published, Lockwood and Frohlich produced a rebuttal. So when anyopne tries to quote you or Svensmark, the warmaholics can say “Yes, but we have Dessler and Lockwood”. It has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with politics.
So, as long as you talk science, you will not win. And if you degrade yourself to play the warmaholic game, you will lose as well.
I would not worry. Dessler has already lost."
|
|
|
|
Post by glc on Feb 2, 2011 12:35:58 GMT
I put this comment on the original story. "What you must realize, Roy, is that you are talking science and Dessler is talking politics. He will never agree he is wrong. The warmaholics play the “refute game”. When a paper like yours appears, they desperately need a paper to say you are wrong. Whether you are, or not, is irrelevant. When Svensmark published, Lockwood and Frohlich produced a rebuttal. So when anyopne tries to quote you or Svensmark, the warmaholics can say “Yes, but we have Dessler and Lockwood”. It has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with politics. So, as long as you talk science, you will not win. And if you degrade yourself to play the warmaholic game, you will lose as well. I would not worry. Dessler has already lost." So you agree with Roy's 'conclusions' then? |
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on Feb 2, 2011 14:15:04 GMT
In Spencer we see a real scientist at work: humble, transparent and ethical.
In Dessler we see the post-normal scientist at work: political, arguing by authority and depending on models.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Feb 2, 2011 14:48:26 GMT
glc writes "So you agree with Roy's 'conclusions' then?"
I think Roy has done some pioneering research, and had great difficulty getting his paper published at all; it disagreed with the warmaholic religion. Whether it is right or wrong, I am not qualified to judge.
But it deserves a much better discussion than the religious drivel Dessler has offered. Dessler has sold his scientific integrity for "forty pieces of silver".
|
|
|
|
Post by stranger on Feb 2, 2011 22:38:12 GMT
Those who rely on climate models might consider the amount of actual freight that could be hauled in a "Z" scale boxcar. Both the size and complexity of that model in comparison to a real boxcar is much the same as a typical "climate model" compared to a days weather over Douglas County, South Dakota.
Stranger
|
|
|
|
Post by richdo on Feb 2, 2011 22:55:12 GMT
Those who rely on climate models might consider the amount of actual freight that could be hauled in a "Z" scale boxcar. Both the size and complexity of that model in comparison to a real boxcar is much the same as a typical "climate model" compared to a days weather over Douglas County, South Dakota. Stranger Excellent annalogy Stranger. Even in Z the best we can even come close to model is a bridge, station, siding... Good food for thought, thanks. |
|
