Skip to main content

View Diary: By hiring a climate disinformer, Nate Silver undermines his entire premise of data-driven journalism (204 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  any reasonable meaning (0+ / 0-)

    other than that he does no research in climate science, has no degree in climate science, misunderstands and/or misrepresents climate science, misunderstands and/or misrepresents statistics, and is ridiculed by actual climate scientists. his defect is extensively documented here and elsewhere. but do keep ignoring the facts. i'm sure he would be proud of you.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 09:49:21 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  It must be your expertise in climate science (0+ / 0-)

      that allows you to pronounce what is and is not climate science, let alone your expertise in statistics, and your expertise in choosing which other other experts you will defer to. I'm only surprised that Colorado hasn't yet recruited you to replace Pielke.
      Once again, your own credentials for judging are...?

      •  whoosh (0+ / 0-)

        i cite the overwhelming scientific consensus. which you ignore. keep trolling.

        The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

        by Laurence Lewis on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 10:16:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  To be fair... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          hmi, VClib, WeatherDem

          ...Al Gore, who has probably had a more profound impact than any other public figure on this issue, is also not a climate scientist, and in fact if you want to speak strictly to credentials, is much less qualified to speak on climate change authoritatively than Mr. Pielke.  And he actually IS a politician (as opposed to Pielke's Phd. in Political Science). In fact the last I checked the only advanced degree Gore holds is a Bachelor's Degree (and not in a science, which he admits he didn't do well in).

          Yet I don't think there are many people here who would question Gore's credentials to speak authoritively on climate change.

          Now don't mistake me, my point is not to dismiss what Gore says, or buttress Mr. Pielke's skepticism. I'm merely pointing out that if you're going to attack someone's work, and belittle it, based at least partly on their credentials, it works both ways.  And since the changes in policies required by world leaders to address climate change are largely going to be made by non-scientists, who are going to apply their own reasoning abilities and scepticism to the issue, I'm not certain that this smug dismissal of a contrary opinion because they don't meet your own standards for the proper expertise is the right way to go.

          Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

          by Pi Li on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 10:32:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  and al gore has what (0+ / 0-)

            to do with this? but please do focus on the one line about pielke not being a climate scientist, rather than, you know, the extensive proof of his butchering data and being excoriated by climate scientists. it's almost as if this is deliberate.

            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

            by Laurence Lewis on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 10:35:26 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Rock hard head (0+ / 0-)

          Nothing gets in.

          You opined that Pielke is not a climate scientist. Apparently the people who employ and have employed him think otherwise. So, it becomes your problem to back up your words and explain the exalted position from which you get to pronounce who is and is not a climate scientist.

          You do have some demonstrable expertise, don't you?

          Or is asking a question like that trolling? Your own private version of lèse-majesté?

          •  yes (0+ / 0-)
            Rock hard head

            Nothing gets in.

            don't hurt yourself banging your head on your mirror.

            his employers have nothing to do with it- his ph.d. is poli sci, and he has done zero climate research. i am not hired as a climate expert, he is. i do not butcher data, he does. i do not make a fool of myself contradicting the leading experts in the field, he does. i do not cherry-pick a single sentence of a long post and ignore the wealth of facts listed in the post, you do. that you would defend pielke using his own methods is quite revealing.

            are you capable of addressing the scientific consensus? are you capable of addressing the many listed instances of pielke butchering data? are you capable of making one intelligent comment?

            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

            by Laurence Lewis on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 03:37:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  For excellent reasons, (0+ / 0-)

              "i am not hired as a climate expert, he is. i do not butcher data, he does. i do not make a fool of myself contradicting the leading experts in the field, he does"

              Your modesty is entirely deserved.

              •  i asked three very simple questions (0+ / 0-)
                are you capable of addressing the scientific consensus? are you capable of addressing the many listed instances of pielke butchering data? are you capable of making one intelligent comment?
                0 for 3. crawl back under your rock.

                The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                by Laurence Lewis on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 08:21:00 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I asked questions, too (0+ / 0-)

                  1) Are you capable of addressing the scientific consensus? Namely, what are your credentials?

                  2) Are you capable of evaluating this complex argument on statistical inferences? What are your credentials?

                  3) Are you capable of a direct answer?
                  [I leave aside your sneer about intelligent comment—your own capability in this regard is starkly evident].

                  Once again: I made no substantive claim. I said you took a cheap pot shot on flimsy grounds. So you did, and so you continue to do. It is, so to speak, your M.O. And on that note, I bid you adieu.

                  •  if you had intelligence and integrity (0+ / 0-)

                    you would address the scientific consensus rather than focusing on me. the scientific consensus is not about me.

                    if you had intelligence and integrity you would address pielke's statistical flaws elucidated in the post. pielke's statistical flaws are not about me.

                    if you had intelligence and integrity you would address substance rather than cherry-picking one tiny and substantively minor sentence.

                    I made no substantice claim.
                    we agree.

                    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                    by Laurence Lewis on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 07:25:50 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site