No need to get riled. If he has published any peer-reviewed articles, I’d say he’s already a working scientist. Even if he has only read a paper at a conference, as long as it presents research of his own, I’d say he’s already a working scientist. But in my day, that was much rarer in the Arts than in the Sciences, so I sometimes forget the different system you guys work under, and “graduate student” connotes something different for me than for you. Anyhow, the remark was plainly an aside, and I’ll gladly retract it if he has already produced some research.
For people who aren’t interested in the actual data. @CrisprCAS9 and I are, so the video is a waste of time for us. Is that difficult to understand?
2 Likes
Your use of “may” indicates that you did not click on the links, showing that you are uninterested in any data. Or could it be that you realize that you have no grasp of any scientific points, easy and difficult?
That is consistent with your false claim that PubMed, free since it’s inception ~40 years ago, is paywalled. That claim strongly suggests that you’ve NEVER bothered to click on a PubMed link that anyone has provided you during years of online discussions.
2 Likes
Anyhow, you plainly produce mainly snide, often objectively false, asides. Why would that make it OK?
But you won’t retract it because you don’t know whether or not he has produced any research.
1 Like
You introduced them by way of a video in which the ‘competent’ scientist relays a dozen misconceptions and falsehoods.
And you shouldn’t begrudge my adding additional information and context.
1 Like
Complete BS. The website gives reasons based on references in the peer-reviewed literature why John Christy is wrong.
Your complaint is like complaining that YOU are the one coming here to reference the youtube video. Instead of dealing with the contents of the video.
But the contents of the video mirror the usual stuff John Christy has been saying, and is in fact dealt with on the website which is dedicated to exposing these classic climate denialist myths John Christy is propagating.
His big schtick is about the supposed slowed warming observed in satellite data. What does the data actually say? Well we can find out by going to that website you are so desperate to discredit:
There is no point Christy is advancing in that video that has not been comprehensively dealt with by experts in climatology. The fact that you can find articles describing and links to the works of those expert climatologists, in articles witten by people who some times are non-experts, is a desperate attempt to distract by a deeply dishonest man. You.
You know, Eddie. When you are consistently accused of dishonesty, I think that should cause you to look inward. If people around me were constantly telling me they find me to be an untrustworthy source, I would have some soul searching to do.
Take the goddamned hint.
7 Likes
Scientists who produce data are scientists, not “data scientists.”
We don’t read our papers at conferences. We submit abstracts and they are presented as talks or posters. I would never let my students or postdocs read from a paper (or PowerPoint comments), as that screams to the audience that the speaker can’t think on her/his feet.
When you make silly comments like these, Eddie, your claims of having scientist acquaintances are simply not credible.
He’s a scientist if he does research, whether he has published/presented or not. That even applies if he’s a high-school student.
Similar to how a separate thread was set up for @colewd, it might be worth considering setting up a topic entitled “Eddie’s Science Class”, where @eddie would be expected to actually address the scientific data and evidence pertaining to the scientific claims he has made. Bill’s thread does seem to have reduced the amount of sealioning we have to deal with.
Just a thought…
4 Likes
“We have been publishing these papers since 1994… and yet we don’t see any improvement in climate models in trying to match reality with the model output…”
He also says that climate model parameters are not based on physics.
I stopped believing him at that point.
1 Like
“The average American experiences a much warmer temperature now than they did 100 years ago. That’s because the average American has moved south! The average American has moved to much warmer climates - California, Arizona, Texas, you know - Alabama, Florida, and so on, because cold is not a whole lot of fun. Skiing, and snowmobiling, and ice-fishing, and so on, that’s fun. But the average person likes it to be warm.”
Sheesh. Also, bollocks. It was surprisingly easy to find out that the average American has moved west, not south. The average American has moved to Missouri.
I will retract it – the moment I know. And he is free to tell me. And I’ve already conceded that a graduate student can be a working scientist, so I’ve fairly dealt with Harshman’s objection. Your intervention adds nothing of substance.
No need for the scare quotes around “competent”; Christy has been declared competent by any number of relevant organizations, including NASA, the AMS, the IPCC, the State of Alabama, the university which gave him tenure, the many journals which have published and continue to publish his articles, etc. And more than competent, since he has won awards for work beyond the average. Now, which relevant organizations have declared you competent in climate science? Perhaps the American Association for Graduate Students in Evolutionary Biology? Or the American Association of Pseudonymous Commenters? (If the list is too long for a post, feel free to provide an attachment.)
I don’t begrudge your additions. That doesn’t mean I have to kneel before your autodidact judgments. Or the autodidactic judgments of the geeky, unqualified, leftist culture warriors on the hobbyist website that you apparently regard as the last word in climate science.
What I would listen to, gladly, instead of a secondhand discussion of climate by amateurs, dilettantes, and autodidacts (which is all I’m ever going to see on Peaceful Science), is a debate or discussion on the issues between Christy and another professionally trained climate scientist. For example, years ago on YouTube I saw a debate/discussion between Michael Mann and Judith Curry. If you or anyone here knows of a YouTube or other podcast, video, etc. or even a typed transcript of such an event, where Christy debates or discusses his arguments with a peer (not a hobbyist), I would gladly listen to all the objections of that peer, because then Christy would be in the room, so to speak, to correct misinterpretations of his position and factual falsehoods. This offer remains open indefinitely, so even if such a debate is not found for a year or two, I would still be glad to watch it or read it.
Christy himself is also an expert in climatology, so your framing, which could be interpreted to suggest that he is not, is misleading.
I did not set myself up as a trustworthy source for climatology, or for any other subject outside of those in which I am trained. I simply informed people here of a video interview with a decorated climatologist, so that, if they were unaware of his views, they would now be aware of them, and could follow up his ideas by going to other things he has written.
Excuse me, did you say soul-searching? I’d be surprised if any atheist here believes there is such a thing as a soul. In fact, our psychiatrist friend here, writing from the land of the unfree (where professional bodies threaten to strip the licenses of their members, not for any professional misconduct, but for political opinions), tells me that in modern psychiatry, the notion of soul has been scrapped.
Your willingness to use language offensive to Christian and other religious believers, on a site which was founded to improve relations between religious believers and scientists, is noted.
The second half of the quoted sentence, the half you decided to ignore, is what justifies the quotes. Most of what he said in that interview was long discredited misconceptions with the occasional outright falsehood. So yes, if he’s going to say such blatant untruths in an interview, I’m going to question his competence.
How about the judgements of the linked primary literature that you still refuse to acknowledge? That’s what I thought.
Science isn’t settled by debate and discussion on a stage. It’s handled through the literature. You know, that thing you refuse to grapple with?
Out of curiosity, how many primary research articles in climate science have you read in the past 12 months?
1 Like
Could you remind us, “Eddie”, of what you have published in your illustrious academic career? Not every single thing, of course, if that would be too time-consuming. Just a few representative samples. Or, hey, why not just post your CV for us. How hard could that be?
1 Like
Is it any wonder that you have a reputation as a pompous hypocrite, “Eddie”?
3 Likes
Bit of a glass house there Eddie.
2 Likes
All the way through – none. But note that I have not posed as an authority on climate science, as you do. I simply report, as a matter of general cultural interest, on what some highly competent – where competence is judged by professional standards, not my personal taste – climate scientists are saying. You, on the other hand, claim to know the right answers in climate science. So I’d be interested to know the source of your confidence in your ability in this area. You have published papers in the area? You did a previous degree program in climate science? Or you simply read a lot out of interest and deem yourself superior in understanding of the causes of climate change to a scientist with 35 years of experience in the field, and who is an IPCC author, NASA award-winner, etc.?
If you read a lot, that is creditable, yet I’m puzzled. I’ve been told here that evolutionary biology is a huge field, and no one can know all of it, and that even keeping up with the literature in one small area, e.g., population genetics, is difficult. I would have thought that a graduate student in evolutionary biology would be trying to master as much of his particular sub-area as he possibly could, in order to produce a very good dissertation, and also to master as much of the other areas of evolutionary biology as he possibly could, in order to prepare himself for applying for teaching jobs in the field of evolution upon graduation. When I was a grad student in religion, I didn’t spend hundreds of hours per year reading peer-reviewed articles on medieval history or near Eastern archaeology, even though both areas were interesting to me; learning what I needed to know in my own area took all of my time. How do you find time to keep up with evolutionary biology if you are spending so much time reading technical articles regarding climate change?
I never claimed that my academic career was “illustrious”. I did, however, produce two almost uniformly positively reviewed scholarly books (in the area of science and religion), published by secular (not religious) academic presses, within two years of graduation, and several academic articles over the years in my fields of competence, as well as some popular articles. I still see new citations to the books even now, decades later. And I’m told even by those who don’t agree with my conclusions that my writing is exceptionally clear, which, they remark with sadness, is rarely the case with most academic writing these days. In any case, I don’t really care whether you or anyone here believes I’m a trained scholar or not, so I don’t intend to supply you with a c.v. But if you’ve paid any attention to some of the lengthy discussions on the Bible here, you will notice that my posts get lots of “Likes” from the trained Bible scholars here, and they have often confirmed that my statements are in line with the best scholarly understanding. You’ll have to settle for that, if you have doubts about my academic training.
Speaking of ‘all the way through’, did you ever get all the way through
Because it looks like you’re still ignoring that part. Here, I’ll quote it for you:
What do you think about the fact that Christy repeated multiple demonstrable falsehoods in that interview? Why are you not engaging with that fact?
I’ve read extensive amounts of primary literature in the field, so I’m reasonably familiar with the current state.
No, I deem the hundreds of people I’m reading to be superior in understanding, since their position is supported by evidence and Christy’s position is supported by nothing.
Several things:
- I spend a few hours per week reading papers from other fields, including climate papers. Having hobbies makes you more productive professionally, so I don’t consider this time wasted. Especially because…
- Climate has massive impacts on evolutionary biology. How the environment has changed and is changing is relevant. So some portion of the reading is professionally informative anyway.
Hope that answers your question. Consider now taking a moment to answer mine from above.
1 Like
“General cultural interest.” So, again, no interest in whether what this allegedly “highly competent” scientist said in the specific video you promulgated is consistent or supprted by the extant scientific evidence? Isn’t that kind of pertinent?
Did I claim you have?
Hee hee. I wonder if you included that in the CV we will never see.
Anyway, I shall continue to assume you have no scholarly training or experience whatsoever, in any field, and will treat you accordingly since you have provided no specifics to back up your braggadocious claims.
3 Likes
This is the standard Eddie Robinson modus operandi.
Find someone who says something Eddie likes and can be put forward as an authority. Talk them up, by whatever standards are convenient, while talking down those authorities who disagree. Object to anything which damages the credibility of the supposed authority - even if it is every bit as legitimate as Eddie’s own talking points. And never, ever discuss the actual arguments.
It’s all just so predictable and tiresome and pointless.
8 Likes