But to live outside the law, you must be honest

We didn’t win the Timed Race, alas. But we rowed well enough.

In other news:

* ATTP bemoans the poor quality of “skeptic” out there. As usual, wise comments from PP who amongst other ideas proposes that Another possibility is that the idea is to learn from the discussion.
* If you’d like a fine example of poor quality “skeptics” and people *not* learning from the discussion, then About that graph… is good. Starting approximately with my comment July 7, 2014 at 1:49 am we have the WUWT version of Godwin’s law: all discussions will degenerate into was-the-MWP-warmer-than-now-or-not.
* Brian skirts close to that with a useful comparison.
* SoD discussues GCM tuning, an interesting topic not often addressed: the “skeptics” are too clueless to know about it, and the modellers themselves are maybe not keen to thrust it to the forefront. Here’s a non-paywalled copy of Mauritsen et al., 2012 (DOI: 10.1029/2012MS000154).
* CIP links to Peter Woit saying interesting things about “post empirical” physics, but some stuff like every theorist is well aware that one can can’t just demand experimental predictions and confirmation for ideas, that one spends basically all one’s time working on better understanding ideas that are far from the point where empirical confirmation comes into play will resonate in the GW debate.
* Moyhu’s polar polar ice plot.
* Everything you know about Galileo and the Church is wrong, as is everything you know about why the heliocentric view became accepted (I over-state for effect, slightly :-).
* History of the word “Scientist”. I know the true definition of the word.
* And note forgetting the Pope Urban Heat Island effect.

Refs

* Tuning to the global mean temperature record by Isaac Held, 2016.

28 thoughts on “But to live outside the law, you must be honest”

  1. [like every theorist is well aware that one can can’t just demand experimental predictions and confirmation for ideas,]

    Apart from the “can can’t” this is something I seem to be encountering more and more. People who are insisting on validation of models, or precise confirmation of certain quantities (like the ECS for example). It’s as if they think science should be more like engineering and don’t realise that science is about trying to understand the world around us, not control or use it. You can’t just deliver a scientific result on demand, you can only do as well as is possible given the tools/knowledge available at that time.

    Like

  2. Perhaps we don’t need to be that good? Perhaps you’re not very good believers. Since ATTP thinks Russell Brand gets it, I’m not sure how low you set your own bar but from my point of view the qualifications for getting into the CC club are a mass of hypocritical hedonism wrapped up in a media spun package. Stuff like understanding the issues and making changes to your own life seems to be optional, possibly even counter productive.

    [“believer” is your word, not mine. Just like skeptic-without-quotes its an attempt to manipulate language: to win an arguement by rhetorical trickery; the very opposite of learning from discussion -W]

    Like

  3. However, if “believing” in CC is hedonistic, then I’m clearly missing out on something. William, you’ve been involved in this for longer than I have; where can I find this hedonism?

    Like

  4. Whatever you want to call yourselves – climate eagles, CC proponents? The membership requirements ask no more than box ticking. Funnily the global CO2 isn’t falling on that level of support.

    You can call me a denier if it makes you feel more effective.

    Like

  5. Does this make Eli an Old Believer? If so, is Willard now the climate czar or merely the Patriarch Nikon? Shall we all outsource moderation to him?

    Like

  6. ATTP, Russell Brand was your choice of ambassador. He gets whatever message you wanted to convey. I wouldn’t promote Lenar Whitney because she thinks AGW is a hoax. They both miss the point.

    [This beings to look like trolling. You need to have something to say if you want to comment -W]

    Like

  7. [However, if “believing” in CC is hedonistic, then I’m clearly missing out on something. William, you’ve been involved in this for longer than I have; where can I find this hedonism?]

    Yeah, what parties are we not being invited to?

    Like

  8. Joining the Climate Eagles takes much more than just box checking. We are very selective. Oh but membership is so worth the effort. The parties! The snark! Brunch with the TRUE leaders of the free world!

    I can forward applications, but be warned, we are very selective, and require a substantial fee for consideration.

    Like

  9. I try to be a good skeptic, and like to disagree with just about anything or anyone. My opinion resulting from this attitude – I think about 1/2 of what climate scientists say is ‘maybe wrong’. Over 90% of what is said by those who think they are skeptics is ‘obviously wrong’

    Like

  10. Well, PhilosophyBall as now practiced at some blog that used to be about physics is at least self-indulgent, fair to say a major component of hedonism

    Like

  11. “a substantial fee ”

    And liver. Never forget the liver.”

    Shhh. You’re not supposed to tell.

    PS — the Galileo link is the usual “Galileo ain’t all that and he got what he deserved for not toeing the Church line.” Boring. Whatever you feel about Galileo the man, the fact that there was a line to toe is the whole point. No amount of Church apologetics will change that.

    [I used to believe that, but no more. I now think that G – for essentially personal motives, for his own self-advancement – pushed the Church too hard, and set back science, by causing an over reaction. Blame the Church if you like – it *was* the thing that reacted, after all – but don’t overlook G’s faults. I don’t think that he got what he deserved for not toeing the Church line is a fair paraphrase -W]

    Like

  12. “Oh but membership is so worth the effort. The parties! The snark! Brunch with the TRUE leaders of the free world!”

    it’s a less exciting feature if, like me, you’re not a fan of flies, or of catching them with your tongue.

    Like

  13. [I used to believe that, but no more. I now think that G – for essentially personal motives, for his own self-advancement – pushed the Church too hard, and set back science, by causing an over reaction. Blame the Church if you like – it *was* the thing that reacted, after all – but don’t overlook G’s faults. I don’t think that he got what he deserved for not toeing the Church line is a fair paraphrase -W]

    What’s the difference between “pushed the Church too hard” and “toeing the Church line”? The difference is whether you think the Church had a right to control what other people thought and wrote.

    Who cares is G was out for personal advancement? What other choice did a man of science have at that time? Who cares if he was not exactly, nit-pickily correct? What scientist is?

    The fact remains the Church punished him for his writing. The fact remains the Church itself apologized for this centuries later lifted its edict of Inquisition against Galileo.

    What would you say if Tony Major had a scientist (or anyone really) thrown in jail for publishing something that “pushed too hard”? I suppose imams issuing jihads against various people (Salman Rushdie) are justified because they were being pushed too hard…

    Like

  14. TinyCO2: “You can call me a denier if it makes you feel more effective.”

    Nah, you’ve identified yourself pretty effectively. No need to state the obvious.

    Like

  15. Galileo wasn’t “not exactly, nit-pickily correct”. His whole argument for heliocentricity was spectacularly wrong. Not that that was the Church’s problem with it.

    Like

  16. “Galileo wasn’t “not exactly, nit-pickily correct”. His whole argument for heliocentricity was spectacularly wrong. Not that that was the Church’s problem with it.”
    Certainly not compared to the Church’s position! This looks pretty good.

    And in any case, no excuse to persecute him. Coincidentally I heard an interview with George V. Coyne, SJ, director emeritus of the Vatican Observatory. “City Arts and Lectures” — unfortunately they do not have transcripts. About 30 minutes in he was asked about Galileo. He agreed that Galileo pushed the Pope and Church hard, but he did not excuse the actions of the Church in any way.

    Anyone here support jihad against Salman Rushdie?

    Like

  17. It looks like rubbish to me. Galileo was insisting on circular orbits in defiance of Kepler’s clear proof that the orbits are elliptical. And the cornerstone of his argument for heliocentricity was an utterly wrong explanation of the tides, which too was contradicted by observations available to him.

    That’s no excuse for persecuting him. But he wasn’t a martyr to science – it was his ego that got him into trouble, not adherence to scientific truth: the evidence is that he didn’t much care about that.

    [Agreed. The tidal theory is particularly troubling, because its utter drivel – at the Slayer level of drivel -W]

    Like

  18. Yes, yes, the tidal theory was bad. However, I submit that when switching from a geocentric to a heliocentric cosmology, elipse vs. circle is in noise. Especially when you’ve been under orders for the last 16 years not to support heliocentrism. I’d like to see what you publish when the temporal power over you is threatening torture or fire if you cross them.

    As for ego — so what? I’ve known some right pricks who also happened to be scientists. So they should be shunned? “She wore a short skirt, what did she expect?” Still no reply about jihad, eh? Let’s not “push too hard” eh?

    The Church was wrong about this,

    [Of course the Church was wrong. Since no-one has said otherwise, I wonder why you bring it up. I think it means you have misunderstood what I said -W]

    no matter what revisionism you want to apply. Ironically Galileo was also pushing the curve on theology as well — the Church has backed off it’s 1600 stance of the bible is the literal truth to a more Galilean stance that the bible is an allegory. Listen to George Coyne for example.

    Like

  19. You have turned your weirdo guy blog into a micro-Wikipedia with a history too:

    http://stoat-spam.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/about-that-graph.html

    What is this crap to a normal productive person?

    “This blog consists of comments from my real blog, https://wmconnolley.wordpress.com/, which I don’t want to publish there. Plus some other stuff convenient to place here. And its becoming a convenient place for me to dump my comments on other blogs so I can find them again.”

    I see it now more clearly, a bit, you are just COMPETITIVE. But you are stuck in OCD neurosis.

    TRANSLATION of “We didn’t win the Timed Race, alas. But we rowed well enough.”

    “We didn’t win it for Greenpeace. But we were Marxist enough.”

    Like

  20. [Of course the Church was wrong. Since no-one has said otherwise, I wonder why you bring it up. I think it means you have misunderstood what I said -W]
    You linked to an article (and you and PaulB doubled down on it) that boiled down to “Galileo pushed too hard”. That’s not “the Church was wrong.” That’s “she wore a short skirt, what did she expect.”

    So what did I misunderstand? I’m thick and appreciate clear language. What about what I know about the Church and Galileo is wrong?

    Like

  21. Galileo was no hero: he didn’t realise he was taking a risk in publishing his book. When he found himself on trial he claimed that he’d never believed in the heliocentric theory. The threat of torture was introduced not to induce him to recant heliocentricity but to try to make him admit to having advocated it. And Galileo was not intimidated by the threat, presumably because he knew his Inquisitors weren’t in earnest – he persisted in his lie and they didn’t torture him. (The trial is very well documented.)

    None of this justifies what the church did, but it does contradict the popular picture of Galileo. The person who deserves all this credit is Kepler – it was his Astronomia Nova, published 23 years before Galileo’s Dialogue which won the argument for heliocentricity, because Kepler’s elliptical orbits accurately described the paths of the planets. I’m in awe of the combination of painstaking manual calculation and brilliant insight he required to work out from observations, that the orbits of the planets are ellipses.

    Like

  22. As ever, the Wiki has more than I ever thought of about the [[Galileo affair]], so he did get told to shut up in 1616.

    However, the bit usually remembered is when his friend and admerer was appointed as the new Pope in 1623; and asked G to write a book giving for and against arguments without advocating heliocentrism, including the Pope’s own views on the matter.
    Which G half did, tactfully putting the Pope’s own views in the character of “Simpleton”. How to achieve house arrest in one book.

    Since when, the Galileo Gambit has been popular, elegantly invoked by TH Huxley in the 1860 review in which he announced Darwinism.
    Less neatly used recently by Rick Perry, aka Bozo the Clown.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s