Official Ernst (ewmayer) / Richard (cheesehead) feud thread

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

Not all topics fit neatly into the purview of any single thread. Life is messy that way sometimes.

a) This thread is about "the scientific evidence" (see thread title), not about the politics or economics, of climate change. Your post was off-topic.

b) Of course not all topics fit neatly into the purview of any single thread! That's why there are different threads (and different sub-forums). Your post and its subsequent responses belong in a different thread in a different sub-forum because they're off-topic for this thread and this sub-forum.

c) When, in May 2012, I posted something in your MET 2012 thread that you deemed not to be in the purview of that thread, you banished my posts to a separate thread. So, you have no standing for arguing inclusion of an off-topic post in this thread.

All you're trying to do is spread your anti-current-president political view to a non-political thread in a non-political subforum. It's off-topic here. It belongs in Soap Box.

- -

Originally Posted by kladner

Since the discussion is of Climate Change,

... not just any aspect of climate change, but only the scientific evidence, as clearly specified in the thread title ...

and since Human Emissions are a/the dominant factor driving it, it seems that efforts, successes, and failures of policies to control emissions are effectively part of the input to the overall equation.

Yes, but the efforts, successes, and failures of policies to control emissions are not part of "the scientific evidence" to which this thread is dedicated. The discussion of efforts, successes, and failures of policies to control emissions belongs in a subforum in which politics and policies are on-topic, not the "Science & Technology" sub-forum.

Hence, this is a good

completely inappropriate

place to present this commentary.

- -

Originally Posted by ewmayer

Another aspect of the latest "bold climate change proposal" from the Dear Leader:

Yet another admission that your post is only about your anti-current-president political view, not scientific evidence. It's off-topic here. It belongs in Soap Box, not here.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

a) This thread is about the scientific evidence, not about the politics or economics, of climate change. Your post was off-topic.

Richard....

I'm very happy to be proven wrong, but my understanding is that all three are related. And I have been working from that understanding.

Should I revise my understanding?

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by chalsall

Richard....

I'm very happy to be proven wrong, but my understanding is that all three are related.

... but, as shown by not only this thread's title, but also this subforum's title, only one of the three is on-topic here.

And I have been working from that understanding.

... but not, apparently, from a careful reading of this thread's title and this sub-forum's title, nor from an understanding of the concept of off-topicness.

Should I revise my understanding?

Of on/off-topicness, yes.

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

a) This thread is about "the scientific evidence" (see thread title), not about the politics or economics, of climate change. Your post was off-topic.

Ah, but given that the the AGW thesis is inextricably entwined with the "what should be done in terms of public policy" aspect, pointing out that a proposed public policy is clearly not based on best scientific evidence is entirely on-topic.

Originally Posted by cheesehead

the concept of off-topicness.

At the risk of veering, well, off-topic, I believe the proper term is "off-topicicity."

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

Ah, but given that the the AGW thesis is inextricably entwined with the "what should be done in terms of public policy" aspect

No, it isn't.

Anthropogenic global warming is a scientific theory. Debate about what to do in light of its predicted consequences is politics, not science, just as debate about how many and which NASA projects to fund is a matter of politics. There is a connection between NASA project proposals and science, and politicians may pretend that their decisions are only science-based, but the truth is that there are multiple ways in which NASA can proceed with its mission to advance science, too many to be simultaneously practical, and the decisions among them cannot be made on the basis of science without politics.

Shall AGW remediation proceed via a massive push to increase windpower generation of electricity, via public-funded upgrade of building and house insulation, via mandated improvements in electric motor efficiencies, via painting rooftops white, etc. ? The decisions of which paths to choose and which to prioritize may be informed (or claim to be informed) by scientific merits of each proposal, but will be made on the basis of politics. People who object to the sight of offshore wind towers along a seacoast do so on bases other than scientific ones.

President Obama is not a scientist. Debating the economics or politics of his policy choices belongs in Soap Box, not "Science & Technology". You're just trying to sneak your anti-incumbent-president arguments where they don't belong, Ernst.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by kladner

I also stand by my previous statement; that

Of course they are!

But the topic of this thread is "Global Warming: The Scientific Evidence", not "Global Warming: The Overall Equation".

Are sociology, psychology, political science, and anthropology superstitious claptrap?

Straw-man.

The sciences of humans who will make the decisions regarding climate change are at least as important as the physical sciences, in terms of results.

Then put that discussion in a separate thread. The decision-related sciences of humans are not scientific evidence for global warming.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Then put that discussion in a separate thread. The decision-related sciences of humans are not scientific evidence for global warming.

We choose not to. Humans are important.

Deal with it....

[kladner]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Of course they are!

But the topic of this thread is "Global Warming: The Scientific Evidence", not "Global Warming: The Overall Equation".

Straw-man.

......

No. A rhetorical question. You are limiting the scope implied by the word "science."

But the topic of this thread is "Global Warming: The Scientific Evidence", not "Global Warming: The Overall Equation".

Just because I used the phrase "Overall Equation" does not mean that I deviated, regardless of how crabbed and narrowly you might wish to define things.
"Straw man" yourself.

Climatic changes are highly complex systems (equations) with many variables. Some of these are chemical and meteorological, and some are driven by human foibles. These "foibles", in fact, are the prime movers of the chemical and meteorological processes of climate change.

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

President Obama is not a scientist.

LOL, it's apparently desperation time, because I can similarly excuse more or less every one of the crimes and historical stupidities of O's predecessor using the same "reasoning". Let's see:

President George W. Bush is not a scientist.

President George W. Bush is not a military strategist.

President George W. Bush is not an intelligence analyst.

President George W. Bush is not an evolutionary biologist.

President George W. Bush is not an economist.

Wow, this is easy...

But, let's try to get back on topic - Richard, I notice you haven't addressed anything about the substantive claims about anti-science-based policy in the 2 articles I linked. I realize you've been very busy whining in order to try to "get your way" as has ever been your wont around here, but we did go out of our way to create an entire custom subforum to indulge you in that regard. I suggest you use it for its intended purpose.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by chalsall

Humans are important.

Thread etiquette is important. Deal with _that_.

Put the political and economic discussion where it belongs.

- -

Originally Posted by kladner

No. A rhetorical question. You are limiting the scope implied by the word "science."

No, I'm not. This thread's scope is limited to global warming science.

I don't mind a discussion of sociology, psychology, political science, and/or anthropology as sciences in a thread whose topic is not the scientific evidence for global warming.

Just put the off-topic stuff elsewhere, where it belongs.

Climatic changes are highly complex systems (equations) with many variables. Some of these are chemical and meteorological, and some are driven by human foibles. These "foibles", in fact, are the prime movers of the chemical and meteorological processes of climate change.

So, since everything is linked to everything else, you think that excuses posting anything you want to post wherever you want to post it, because you don't think thread etiquette matters?

- -

Originally Posted by Brian-E

A glance at the very first post in this thread reveals its original intellectual level.

The thread's location was the Soap Box until very recently.

... and its move to the "Science & Technology" subforum signaled that its purpose had changed to become a thread for the scientific evidence for global warming!!

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

Richard, I notice you haven't addressed anything about the substantive claims about anti-science-based policy in the 2 articles I linked.

There are no such claims in those articles. There are claims that the policies don't properly take science into account, but those would be appropriate for a thread about policies, since those claims aren't disputing the scientific basis of global warming. "Anti-science" claims would be still a different thread topic.