Judith Curry abandons the science ship

[Hallo Alfie]

The heretic speaks
The mobs mass, ready to burn the witch.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

In the meantime, it would appear the true believers are losing their faith.

The polll results are very interesting:

(article) http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=taking-the-temperature-climate-chan-2010-10-25

(poll) http://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=ONSUsVTBSpkC_2f2cTnptR6w_2fehN0orSbxLH1gIA03DqU_3d

1. Should climate scientists discuss scientific uncertainty in mainstream forums?

No, that would play into the hands of the fossil-fuel lobby. 2.9% 166
Yes, it would help engage the citizenry. 90.7% 5,242
Maybe—but only via serious venues like PBS's the NewsHour and The New York Times 6.5% 373


3. What is causing climate change? answered question 5,781

greenhouse gases from human activity 28.5% 1,645
solar variation 32.7% 1,891
natural processes 77.0% 4,452
There is no climate change. 6.1% 354


4. The IPCC, or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is:
an effective group of government representatives, scientists and other experts. 16.5% 953
a corrupt organization, prone to groupthink, with a political agenda. 82.8% 4,789
something to do with Internet protocols. 0.7% 39


Wow!

And this is in a science magazine.


I have not put all the results, perhaps someone with a little more pc knowledge could get the entire result, graphs etc accross?

 

[Trakar]

In the meantime, it would appear the true believers are losing their faith.

The polll results are very interesting:

(article) http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=taking-the-temperature-climate-chan-2010-10-25

(poll) http://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=ONSUsVTBSpkC_2f2cTnptR6w_2fehN0orSbxLH1gIA03DqU_3d

1. Should climate scientists discuss scientific uncertainty in mainstream forums?

No, that would play into the hands of the fossil-fuel lobby. 2.9% 166
Yes, it would help engage the citizenry. 90.7% 5,242
Maybe—but only via serious venues like PBS's the NewsHour and The New York Times 6.5% 373


3. What is causing climate change? answered question 5,781

greenhouse gases from human activity 28.5% 1,645
solar variation 32.7% 1,891
natural processes 77.0% 4,452
There is no climate change. 6.1% 354


4. The IPCC, or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is:
an effective group of government representatives, scientists and other experts. 16.5% 953
a corrupt organization, prone to groupthink, with a political agenda. 82.8% 4,789
something to do with Internet protocols. 0.7% 39


Wow!

And this is in a science magazine.


I have not put all the results, perhaps someone with a little more pc knowledge could get the entire result, graphs etc accross?

That's what happens when these surveys get announced on political blogs and websites, the results become virtually without meaning or significance.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

LOL

You'd think that the readers of the science mag would be interested in science, and as a consequence the vast majority of the correspondants would actually have a clue. But as usual, the only one's who possibly have a clue come from the side the warmers are on.

Warmibles is the funniest peoples.

Groupthink much.

 

[bit_pattern]

Unscientific poll is unscientific. I'm not at all surprised that a denier would post it and think it actually means something.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

As the consensus arguments from the warmibles disappear rapidly down the toilet, there is something sadly ironic hearing them drowning in their own groupthink and/or never-eventuating alarmist predictions.

 

[bit_pattern]

Keep telling yourself that.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Unscientific poll is unscientific. I'm not at all surprised that a denier would post it and think it actually means something.

And you keep telling yourself this.

 

[bit_pattern]

Are you saying it IS scientific?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Are you saying you know ABSOLUTELY that it means nothing?
If so, please prove it and I will shut up.

 

[metzomagic]

3. What is causing climate change? answered question 5,781

greenhouse gases from human activity 28.5% 1,645
solar variation 32.7% 1,891
natural processes 77.0% 4,452
There is no climate change. 6.1% 354

Yeah, that's a real scientific poll alright. Did you bother to sum the numbers up for that question: 143.9%

Aside from that, it's quite obvious the poll was crashed by the mindless WUWT sycophants. Internet polls are uncontrolled and completely meaningless for this reason, which you well know.

 

[bit_pattern]

It proves one thing and one thing only, that people who vote in open, anonymous internet polls on whether climate change is real or not are overwhelmingly deniers. That's because nobody else gives a **** and phreaking polls is one of the only ways the denier-tards can pretend they have any kind of relevance in the world. Go and search for 'climate change' in the SciAm search engine and see what you find, if this poll really IS reflective of the opinions of the average SciAM reader then the wild divergence from what the publication is informing its readers of and what its readers actually think must be unprecedented in the annals of media history. Only the most desperate, terminally stupid, bug-eyed-fanatical conspiracy theorist would try to cling onto the results of a poll like this as some evidence of a groundswell of support for their pet-cause.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Yeah, that's a real scientific poll alright. Did you bother to sum the numbers up for that question: 143.9%

Aside from that, it's quite obvious the poll was crashed by the mindless WUWT sycophants. Internet polls are uncontrolled and completely meaningless for this reason, which you well know.

What that says to me is that science mags and sites aren't too bright. So from now on all should all evidence from these sources be tainted.

It proves.... big snip of angry
...some evidence of a groundswell of support for their pet-cause.

I guess that's a "no" to any proof?

But thanks BP.
Lots of groupthink symptom #4: Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary.

Judith Curry reckons there's a lot around too.

 

[bit_pattern]

I guess that's a "no" to any proof?

Maybe if what you quoted is all that you read of my post. The irony of you using the sort of underhandedly dishonest tactics, like cherry picking quotes to twist them into saying something they don't, that are the hallmark of conspiracy theorists of all ilks is duly noted. It's the perfect caricature of a denier, it could almost be sublime satire - Poe's Law in motion - and the fact that it's NOT makes it even funnier somehow.

 

[AlBell]

... That's because nobody else gives a **** and phreaking polls is one of the only ways the denier-tards can pretend they have any kind of relevance in the world. .... Only the most desperate, terminally stupid, bug-eyed-fana tical conspiracy theorist would try to cling onto the results of a poll like this as some evidence of a groundswell of support for their pet-cause.

Read that a couple of times and ask yourself if you helped convince any of the people you have in that group that you are right. And then answer the question "Right about what, exactly?"

Or continue doing what you're, wondering why you don't get different results.

 

[bit_pattern]

Read that a couple of times and ask yourself if you helped convince any of the people you have in that group that you are right.

You should ask yourself why you'd think I'd even care about convincing idiots that scientific facts are right or not. If they believe that science is some elaborate hoax then there's nothing I could possibly say to change their minds, there's no cure for bat-**** insane.

Or continue doing what you're, wondering why you don't get different results.

Yeah, like the denier-tards would suddenly come around and start accepting overwhelming scientific evidence if only I'd just be nicer to reactionaries on JREF. Who knew it could be so easy!

 

[macdoc]

Exactly.....don't expect to drop in on a years long and reiterative battle between denidiots full of wind with naught else to offer, and the main stream climate science community, and expect to get head patting re-assurances about misguided notions.......no matter how covertly expressed.

 

[AlBell]

You have heard of the definition of insanity? And you forgot the laughing dog, a couple garfields and some hilighting.

At least I know where to find people to debate the side of any issue I'm on the other side of and I want widespread public acceptance of my position.

 

[sol invictus]

In this analogy, she is arguing that the fact they are being harassed means that science need to cave in and work on the basis that Intelligent Design is a legitimate alternative that needs to be addressed. This is utterly and completely backwards.

I don't think she is arguing something analogous to that. But let's suppose she is. You assert that treating ID as a legitimate alternative that needs to be addressed is "utterly and completely backwards". Is that really so?

There was (and is) a debate in the scientific community over that question. The majority opinion is in fact aligned with yours, that ID should not be debated on its merits (such as they are). The logic is that treating it seriously would appear raise it to the level of science, thereby giving its proponents exactly what they were looking for.

But there is an alternative view which I think is far from "utterly and completely backwards". The alternative view is to treat ID as a scientist would treat any alternative hypothesis - just use the standard scientific approach to model comparison on it. The result is that it fails miserably. This doesn't require "working" on ID in any real sense. And it's exactly what a scientist would do under ordinary (non-political) circumstances. Is it so obvious one should act differently under political pressure?

A healthy scientific endeavor is composed of a majority attempting to falsify or refine small details of the dominant model (and hence improve it), and a smaller group pursuing more hypothetical ideas or trying to falsify basic features of the dominant model. These groups should interact continuously and vigorously, and the larger group should recognize the intrinsic value of the smaller one. That's exactly how science plays out in areas that aren't polluted by political pressure (take astronomy, for example), but climate science seems to have contracted too far behind its shell. Understandably so, but it's not optimal.

 

[Trakar]

LOL

You'd think that the readers of the science mag would be interested in science, and as a consequence the vast majority of the correspondants would actually have a clue. But as usual, the only one's who possibly have a clue come from the side the warmers are on.

Warmibles is the funniest peoples.

Groupthink much.

The readers are, unfortunately the survey (not poll) was not limited to subscribers.