tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post5996193520916376401..comments2023-08-07T16:41:49.660+02:00Comments on Die Klimazwiebel: An analysis of climate politics and science in The Netherlandseduardohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-4422924727265613942010-08-16T11:18:18.209+02:002010-08-16T11:18:18.209+02:00Denialist / skeptic - one of the problems is to fi...Denialist / skeptic - one of the problems is to find a "name" for those who have many questions, say on the hockeystick, or on the way temperature records are construcuted, if the solar effect is really stronger than mostly expressed, and the like, and those who claim that the whole is a big ideologically based hoax. Thus, the group of "skeptics" is really very diverse, and as explained elsewhere here on the blog there seems a certain tendency "to accept the alarmists' foes as my friends" (whatever they say). I guess we need a topology of skeptics/denialists, whatever you want. <br />A motive for using the certainly bad term "denialist", apart of using the holocaust-dimension to smear the opponents, may be the legitimate wish to discriminate between the "normal" skeptics and the radicals, some of which claim that CO2 levels in 1942 were already hgher than today.<br />-- Hans von StorchHans von Storchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778028673130006646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-2207460108526436962010-08-16T11:00:05.238+02:002010-08-16T11:00:05.238+02:00By being sceptical sceptics *did* take their respo...By being sceptical sceptics *did* take their responsability... <br /><br />Most AGW followers and politicans did nothing else than parroting the dogma's of climatology.itisi69https://www.blogger.com/profile/00601918913188476920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-54497612000416898612010-08-16T09:46:32.348+02:002010-08-16T09:46:32.348+02:00Or provide arguments instead of declarations
Let&...<i>Or provide arguments instead of declarations</i><br /><br />Let's have a try.<br /><br />The use of the term "denialist", which is pretty much unknown outside climate wars, may have two reasons.<br /><br />A) Trying to silence the critics by comparing them to holocaust deniers.<br /><br />B) Meaning the critics are denying something obvious. (Otherwise it wouldn't have any sense, since in every discussion, both sides deny and propose something)<br /><br />A is not acceptable. Neither B, because you are supposed to demonstrate your thesis is obvious, and not to be just calling names to your critics. And in case you have demonstrated the thesis, the name calling is not needed.<br /><br />Does it work?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-10177022943321880742010-08-15T15:31:00.131+02:002010-08-15T15:31:00.131+02:00Hans von Storch #5,
About responisbility. The pro...Hans von Storch #5,<br /><br />About responisbility. The problem with IPCC, as I see it, is that it mixes different tasks. To give a "state of the art" is one thing. But as soon as this is put in the political context of giving advice to policy makers, then that context infringes on the first task. Suddenly a "consensus" is needed, more or less definite answers are demanded etc. Even though we all know that such things must be artificial. Scientist should take responsibility for the science-part of it, even if that means admitting uncertainties and the existence of different opinions. The politicians must take responsibility for the decisions they make, and they have to accept the nature of science such as it is. It is no use for them to pretend that "the scientists told them so and so". Maybe politics would benefit from learning more about the scientific methods and how science proceed? And the scientists should not be so naive as to believe that they are not exploited if their theories fit a political agenda. <br /><br />I agree very much with Nils Roll-Hansen that we can learn a lot about this mechanisms by looking at historical examples, both from the political perspective and from the scientific situation at the time.<br />Ingemar NordinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-37182654446119824272010-08-14T21:22:56.071+02:002010-08-14T21:22:56.071+02:00I do not call "the others" being gangste...I do not call "the others" being gangsters generally (even if some of them might be called so).<br /> <br />I am simply defending scepticism and its important role against insults and impertinence like the ones uttered by Anonymus/2.<br /><br />But OK, I'll keep silent from now on.<br /><br />renesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-14846445280900935522010-08-14T18:26:20.893+02:002010-08-14T18:26:20.893+02:00renes/9 - you are welcome to express your opinion ...renes/9 - you are welcome to express your opinion as anybody else, but you have to pay attention to the rules given in the sidebar of this blog: <i>We do not want to see insults, ... lengthy tirades, ... forms of disrepect to opponents. ... When violating these rules, postings will be deleted.</i> <br /><br />Declarations that the "others" are stupid and kind of gangsters are not helpful to build a dialogue across the aisle. Instead of general declarations, let us try to discuss issues with arguments.Hans von Storchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778028673130006646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-75885998774538451172010-08-14T17:03:30.826+02:002010-08-14T17:03:30.826+02:00Dear Hans von Storch,
It wasn't my intention ...Dear Hans von Storch,<br /><br />It wasn't my intention to offend people doing a good and serious job on the different fields of science.<br /><br />Unfortunately we have seen some others and we still can see them at work.<br /><br />The invitation to take responsibility would make sense if I could not hear the clattering of the hidden chains and handcuffs waiting to shanghai some naive sailors to work or to row on a galley.<br /><br />Besides the continuing debate on the scientific basis (radiative forcing, positive and negative feedbacks / temperature measurements) there is a lot of literature pretending AGW-influences on all kind of things. I mean, just pretending it, without any proof or evidence. We might call it "climate Kitsch", counting by thousands of publications meanwhile.<br /><br />I rarely heard apologies from the alarmist side for this kind of stuff, not even a clear distancing from its heralds and their worst exaggerations.<br /><br />Some of the claims remember me Sebastian Brant's "Narrenschiff" (Ship of fools) rather than a rational scientific and political process. <br /><br />No Sir, I won't row on such a galley before there is a new course layed besides the well known written in opportunistically biased political and economical agendas.<br /><br />Sciences deserves - and needs - a better approach, clearly including scepticism instead of condemning or replacing it by chimera called "consensus".<br /><br />I hope you will acccept this point of view on - what I believe it to be- one of the most important and indispensable elements of any scienticif work or debate. <br />Besides that I hold a big hope on your work on the field and your contributions to the next IPCC reports.<br /><br />renesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-16065765156364963152010-08-14T10:21:33.019+02:002010-08-14T10:21:33.019+02:00@ Hans #5
you write:
"Maybe, one should colle...@ Hans #5<br />you write:<br />"Maybe, one should collect publicly voiced political conclusions and demands by scientists (...)"<br />I think, this is not necessary. They are already collected, inclusive your very own statements - for example on your website, in the scientific publication record etc. Accessible to everyone. The same is true for statements and demands from Latif, Schellnhuber, Hansen or other scientists. <br /><br />And, by the way, there is no need for public tribunals. But, I guess, this was not your intention?Werner Krausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15094636819952421339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-88701734065195141532010-08-14T09:12:12.632+02:002010-08-14T09:12:12.632+02:00Renes/6 - your comment was not really a valid comm...Renes/6 - your comment was not really a valid comment - mostly ranting, words like "cleptocracy and scientific silliness" are not helpful but merely insulting for some. Any chance that you may behave in future? Or provide arguments instead of declarations? Otherwise your next contribution will not be welcome and simply deleted. -- Hans von StorchHans von Storchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778028673130006646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-17736166881937671932010-08-13T23:29:17.133+02:002010-08-13T23:29:17.133+02:00@Anonymous
"Denier" is an unacceptable ...@Anonymous<br /><br />"Denier" is an unacceptable term for scepticism, even if you put in quotation marks.<br /><br />After all the scientific flaws, the lies, the groupthink we have seen and the so called "consensus" about global warming, I understand - and I always understood - my responsibility and my position as a manner to keep on for "scepticism" - a basic and absolutely essential function of research and knowledge.<br /><br />Therfore I can't see any personal responsibility for the damage that has been done by alarmism, fellow travelling, the Kyoto protocol and all the opportunism following the agenda written in the name of neo-malthusianism, cleptocracy and scientific silliness.<br /><br />Do not invite me jump into the boat while it is obviously sinking.<br /><br />renesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-46770286957038197502010-08-13T06:22:32.332+02:002010-08-13T06:22:32.332+02:00I find this issue of responsibility interesting, i...I find this issue of <b>responsibility</b> interesting, in particular the two comments<br /><br />"<i>If the deniers and scepticists are integrated into the political process, they cannot hide anymore but they will have to stand up and take responsibility as well. And if society is following their advice, they should also be accountable if it was the wrong advise.</i>"<br /><br />and <br /><br />"<i>if a scientist steps out of his or her role as a scientist and say things like "tax all CO2", or "increase the CO2-emmissions", then they are on par with any ordinary citizen that has a vote.</i>"<br /><br />I would agree to both statements, which seem to be from the opposite ends of our spectrum - and hope that we may consensually be able to deal with this issue of responsibility. How would one do this? Maybe, one should collect publicly voiced political conclusions and demands by scientists (deniers, skeptics, mainstream, alarsmists), including myself, log them, ask the respective person if she/he really said so, and revisit the assertion after, say, 1 year and after 5 years.<br />Could be done on a web-blog.Hans von Storchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778028673130006646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-16397510223401538532010-08-12T20:19:15.315+02:002010-08-12T20:19:15.315+02:00Anomymouse #1,
Why should the "deniers" ...Anomymouse #1,<br />Why should the "deniers" take responsibility for ANYTHING but the science? At the bottom of all this there is a scientific question, is it not? And that is what most "deniers" are concerned with. Leave the political descisions, and the responsibility, to the politicians. There is a wide range of possibilities, whatever the science says. The politicians cannot blame the scientists. Only if a scientist steps out of his or her role as a scientist and say things like "tax all CO2", or "increase the CO2-emmissions", then they are on par with any ordinary citizen that has a vote.<br />Ingemar Nordiningnohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16626329862717475394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-11506220495090839842010-08-12T10:40:50.934+02:002010-08-12T10:40:50.934+02:00@Anonymous
Do alarmists take any responsibility f...@Anonymous<br /><br />Do alarmists take any responsibility for anything? Alarmists can tell us anything, without ever taking any responsibility. They are the only righteous people on planet earth?! But who pays THEIR bill? THIS is really a funny kind of scientific process ... :-( <br /><br />We talk about science here, don't we?<br /><br />YephAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-58004440979317968032010-08-11T23:50:47.221+02:002010-08-11T23:50:47.221+02:00What I don't like about most climate change &q...What I don't like about most climate change "deniers" is that many of them disparage climate science without taking responsibility for their own position. If mitigation and adaptation measures are delayed or canceled because of somebody's counter-arguments this person should also stand up and take the consequences if climate change does actually happen. <br /><br />Now my key point: If the deniers and scepticists are integrated into the political process, they cannot hide anymore but they will have to stand up and take responsibility as well. And if society is following their advice, they should also be accountable if it was the wrong advise.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-88893651527866420742010-08-11T11:20:37.420+02:002010-08-11T11:20:37.420+02:00Is climate change climate changing?Is climate change climate changing?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com