If so, I guess any political agitation against, say, cap-and-trade, is rather selfish and, you know — unhelpful.
— That is, unless you all can spin a more convincing counter narrative to help save classical liberalism from what is becoming a relentless pragmatism. Go on. Give it a shot. Wow me.
(thanks to Stephanie)
That guy from Futurama is inexorably drifting on the same breeze that swept away all those tiny grass-colored gasbags (the ones inhabited by the non-snake reptilians).
Why am I not surprised that Pat buys the “consensus” about AGW.
Moron.
CO2 has never driven global climate during the earth’s 4.5 billion year history.
All you have to ask about the AGW hoax is qui bono and there’s your answer.
Brain fart. They’re not gasbags, they’re pigskins.
Or is it cui bono?
Either way…
That Qui guy needs to shut up and sing.
Pat’s going the way of LGF, you say?
Wouldn’t surprise me. Some people can’t stand up long under peer pressure.
I hate it when scientific questions become political issues
well, then, maybe the Scientists who made AGW a political issue, including fudging numbers, “hockey sticks”, campaigning to keep dissenting views from peer reviewed journals – all in the name of sweet, sweet Proggie government lucre should have stuck to actual science.
— because I think politics causes people to lose rationality
heh
I notice that Pat never defines what he considers a reliable scientist. So when someone shows up and says “I’ve been developing software for 30 years and these computer models are so badly coded that I could eat a ream of paper and puke a better one!” he can say, “But you’re not a scientist. Go away!”
Dude’s not serious. I guess he figures that Assistant DAs will always have plenty to do with all the new laws needed for AGW enforcement.
Meg Whitman opposes Prop 23 she lurvs her some green jobs – California’s future has never looked brighter
but don’t call her a whore
#8 – via The Green Police?
Look, Pat is smart enough to know that “Appeal to Authority” is a logical fallacy, isn’t he?
Further, cui bono can be clarified thus: the TV meteorologists whose paycheck comes from a commercial source are almost universally against AGW, whereas the academics who have to compete for grant money tend to be for it.
but you want you can *think* it
So, whats supposed to happen with all the taxes collected from cap and trade, I ferget?
No, she’s a fool, and “Iceberg’ Murphy* ‘s 90K a month advice, doesn’t apparently include distancing one’s self from such a daft project. However, do we want to return to the 8 track tapes world of Moonbeam Brown
* refers to a statement he made in Time Magazine, where he suggested any opposition to Obama’s initiatives, would doom the GOP, because of demographics
HAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHQHAHAHAHA!!!
Seriously — funniest thing I’ve read in a LONG time.
Oy vey. Apparently he thinks science works the same way he thinks language does – on concensus.
I guess that means antibiotics and sterile surgical tools must be consigned to the ash heap of history because there was clearly an overwhelming concensus on their use being nonsense.
Infections are very clearly caused by bad air and/or miasmas.
Space is not really a vacuum ether, it’s only a vacuum ether on average.
Some here have alleged that he is an assistant District Attorney, which means that he is an attorney by training and trade, which also means that in his day to day life “expert opinion evidence” is the coin of the realm.
Of course, in litigation each side gets to see the other side’s expert’s data, and gets to depose and cross examine the other expert on the expert’s theory, and gets to proffer its own expert – none of which has actually happened in the Global Warming non-debate.
Well, he’s consistent anyway, and he is following a trajectory that shouldn’t surprise anyone.
He is not of the body.
How many leaders of the conservative blogosphere are following a similar trajectory?
None. Once the arc begins, they quickly lose any “leader” status.
Really, Rob?
I’d beg to differ.
I only regularly read two blogs, one being this one, so I cannot say where they are all going. I think some have followed his line of reasoning because it fits with their reasoning, but this latest event might dislodge some of his compatriots.
I cannot be sure how many internet destinations (other than this one) are written and populated by people who are very intent on really figuring out things for themselves, rather than simply accepting things on authority given it’s an authority they like already.
The pragmatists have been ascendant for a while, but I think they are going to lose some clout, because pragmatism is so yesterday. Principles are on the rise.
cranky, what’s possibly starting to sink in is that principles ARE pragmatic. If for no other reason than they allow one to spot the snake-oil salesmen.
When I speak of pragmatism, I’m thinking specifically about the idea of voting for RINOs because they can win, even though I disagree with too many of their positions, rather than voting on principle for a candidate who much more closely matches my belief structure, though she is more likely to lose.
Perhaps I don’t understand the word properly.
Who decides what constitutes a “leader“? And why do they do so?
That’s your right, but for myself, I don’t follow “leaders” who march towards tyranny. As for others, I don’t see Charles Johnson pulling much weight on the right — or the miniscule anti-jihadi left — and I can’t see Patterico keeping much more than a rump audience once his conversion gets well under way.
I think maybe you’re missing some of the more subtle stuff.
There’s more to the pw hatred than the fact that I’m a whiny asshole.
I thought it was because you’re right and the “whiny asshole” is a typical projective attack.
But I’m just another anonymous stupid internet person so there is that.
Probably. I’m not a particularly astute person, when it comes to social cues.
You challenge their assumptions, ask them to think. Lots of people don’t want to do anything of the sort — some of those people branded themselves as “conservative” and some of those people are only “conservative” to the extent it is cost-free.
*shrug*
Long ago I decided to never trust the allegiance to liberty of anyone who lives in a big, coastal city. The social pressures to go along with the “common wisdom” are too strong for most people to put up with, and you get squishes and glad-handers and go-along-get-along types. That Patterico is going soft and will likely “grow” like a Republican Congressman from the mid-80s is not that big of a shock.
Who decides? Evidently the loudest dish-crashingly-bangiest bellowing Bull in the China Shop.
Which invites the question: is a computer scientist someone automatically worth listening to, in the matter of climate? Like, say, Tim Lambert?
As I read his post, he simply wanted convincing for the Anti-AGW hypothesis.
He may have a sincere opinion that science is truly settled on this matter, like the theory of gravity or the broader strokes of evolution, but is seeking out informed links to argue otherwise.
There are probably two lines where he has opened himself up to the most criticism: That science is settled on the matter, and the typical “If a scientist says it, it must be true” trust.
The safety of authority–or the authority with which you identify most– in complex matters is always the safest harbor.
In that last, I meant to write “the safety of authority–or the authority with which you identify the most–in complex matters always SEEMS like the safest harbor.”
Sorry.
Slart, he may not know beans about climate, but he can look at the source code and the data set and tell you something about whether the computer model does what is claimed. If there’s a lime of code telling the computer to cut in half any entries showing temperature drops, that tells you something right there.
That would be “line of code”.
Then he’s started out stupid rather than merely ignorant. The challenges to the AGW/AGCC/AGCD “consensus” have been around since the beginning; after all this time it takes a true hammerhead to hold to the “settled science” position in the face of all that’s been exposed.
There is no such thing as “settled science.” The very idea of it is ridiculous. Science involves a continual struggle to know more and to advance closer to the truth of things, as best as we can see them. I question the thinking power of anyone using that trope.
He’d be better off if he just thought it through for himself.
That would be “line of code.”
I liked “lime of code” better. It sounds cool and refreshing.
He never learned how.
True dat. The effort would do him good, though.
(Decisions, decisions. Should I keep ragging on the guy from Futurama, or just let it go? Ah, foxtrot it.)
Letting the magic smoke out of his cnium would do him good?
ra
[…] Pragmatism!* Posted by Jeff G. @ 9:42 am Comments (26) | Trackback SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: "Timely", url: "https://proteinwisdom.com/?p=21825" }); […]
Well, this better explains his backing of Mike Castle.
Christine O’Donnell would help kill Mother Earth.
I’d trust Tim Lambert if he said it was a nice, warm day in Central Florida, but I’d quickly verify by walking outside to see for myself.
Sick and fucking tired of the subject of AGW.
Warming and cooling oof the planet has occurred frequently–a cursory look at the evidence will bear that out. So denying these natural occurrences is pretty stupid.
The part about humans affecting warming OR cooling in anything but an extremely localized setting shows monumental arrogance.
IMHO, adapting to the particular seems more logical than blaming you and me.
Or should I just go over in the corner and be quit?
This is relevant.
Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society – an important moment in science history
That’s unhelpful. I need more proof.
That’s unhelpful. I need more proof.
And more links. Gotta have more links. If we don’t provide a link, how are you supposed to take our arguments seriously?
That post was the very definition of “exercise in futility”. Patterico’s stance going in was that “There is consensus that AGW is a given” and it was up to his readers to convince him why it wasn’t so. And unsurprisingly, none of the arguments (even ones with links!) seemed to sway him against “the consensus”.
I was reminded of this exchange from ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’:
Maj. Eaton: We have top men working on it now.
Indiana: Who?
Maj. Eaton: Top… men.
I actually laughed out loud at the tenor of the post.
And that’s despite its predictability.
Here
I’m sorry, but the opinion of the one “scientist” in that video will not sway me. I demand more proof.
I’ve waited a good 30 seconds and you don’t have a response. Okay, the subject is closed, and AGW is real.
See also.
Still, lots of people who receive patronage money and are by all accounts Good Men say climate change is a real problem, so that’s good enough for me. So long as when I then turn around and talk about language, they defer to me.
Kind of a professional courtesy, you see. Keeps out the riff raff.
And by all means, keep the proles from things like this (which, let’s face it, are numerically unpersuasive, when juxtaposed with the consensus view. Might makes right!).
I checked it out again. I nailed it the first time. That thread is the stupid seminar class that everyone warned you about.
The best argument I’ve seen is from a British man who showed, under the assumption that AGW is real and their data is completely correct, that it would destroy the world’s economy to realize a 1 degree drop in temperature over the next hundred years. I wish I could remember his name.
In other words, so what? There is not a heck of a lot we can do about it, other than cripple our economies.
I wonder if he’s agnostic about the utility of Keynesian attempts to boost AD.
Has he thought through all the arguments and read all the relevant literature? I’d hate to think he’s taking an uninformed position one way or the other.
the odds of nature conforming precisely to marxist ideology was always probably kind of a long shot
Heh.
Behold!
Still, I’m skeptical of the skeptics. Academics have spoken. Consensus is what it is — and what the majority of people think something means is no doubt what it does mean, from a pragmatic standpoint. Truth is manmade. And so it is all relative.
Am I right?
Hoorah!
I still say making us buy mercury laden light bulbs was a commie plot.
More that is of little interest to Important Men Who Recognize Who The Real Experts Are and Defer To Them.
I like graphs.
relies on the pull of a trigger(no not jigger) or the push of the red button
-igger words are off limits
link
I thought Pat’s assertion of a “virtual religion on BOTH (emp mine) sides” was a tell as well. It’s a short march to proggy goodness that he’s begun weighing the cargo cultists and the anti-cargo cultists as equally fervorous and kookie-kult-krazy in their claims. That’s multiculti POMO claptrap at its bare root form. All religions are equally OK. All ethnicities are equally OK. And now he says both sides of this argument have equally drunk at the altar of fervent belief. That the formula for equality requires a willingness to overlook the thumb on the scale is beside the point.
Fine, Pat can side with Al Gore…. I’ll side with Lord Monckton.
And Frey stands above them both, the well-informed man, the considerate man, the judge.
Nice when you can simply grant yourself that kind of power — and then applaud yourself for your neutrality.
Power. It’s a tell.
I hate Obama
i luv me some a “divider not a uniter”. go o!.
here’s a unitey guy he’s not dividey like some plus he’s prepared
Yes, he’s prepared. However, I’d like these ideas to gain traction regardless of his individual future success.
Note to other GOP hopefuls: talk like this and you’ll have my ear.
Why didn’t we think of thaT, oH maybe this,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_funds
Hence the word “revival”.
His own thoughts on the topic:
Actually, hence the word “reviving”.
You really thought a) he didn’t realize that and then b) Barone wouldn’t have noticed?
From an email going around I thought appropriate:
First-year students at Texas A&M Vet school were attending their first anatomy class, with a real dead cow. They all gathered around the surgery table with the body covered with a white sheet. The professor started the class by telling them, “In Veterinary Medicine it is necessary to have two important qualities as a doctor: The first is that you not be disgusted by anything involving the animal body”. For an example, the Professor pulled back the sheet, stuck his finger in the butt of the dead cow, withdrew it and stuck his finger in his mouth. “Go ahead and do the same thing,” he told his students.
The students freaked out, hesitated for several minutes, but eventually took turns sticking a finger in the butt of the dead cow and sucking on it. When everyone finished, the Professor looked at them and said, “The second most important quality is observation. I stuck in my middle finger and sucked on my index finger. Now learn to pay attention. Life’s tough, but it’s even tougher if you’re stupid..”
I had to attend some family functions over the weekend. These people are mostly Republicans or conservative Dems. Do they even teach science or logic anymore? They were excited about the new wind turbines going up about a county over. My simple questions went unanswered, ie: How will this power be transmitted to the grid? Do you understand that lead acid batteries are still one of the best ways to store power – despite all the research. (I still want my infinite flux capacitor.) And this is the cruncher – Where will we get our power if the wind isn’t blowing at the right speed?
I made a hasty retreat to the basement. I sort of planned this as my brother has a big screen TV down there and football aplenty was available.
Reader poll!
Power. It’s
a tellwhat’s for breakfast.