By thinking about groups of people, and assuming they all have common motivations (a profoundly dehumanising approach that we call racism when applied to skin colour groups) you are doing precisely what you condemn others of doing.
Actually I was making a point of human nature. It is common in our species to defend our turf and sources of wealth (be it money, food, power, or prestige). Yes, generalizations are completely appropriate. Your point about individual scientists is appreciated and duly noted. But a high level look at the overall AGW debate and the tactics employed by many of the key scientific groups supports my opinion as to how it devolved into junk science.
And no, "racism" is not analogous.
The politicisation of AGW arguments is alas inevitable, and unfortunate. But the vociferous and profoundly unscientific and uniniterested in truth popular comment on the internet and elsewhere is the worst offender. i'm not saying the scientists are perfect - every blemish is after all repeated 100 times on the blogosphere and used to condemn the whole. But many scientists, surprisingly, want to do science, want to understand stuff, and will go on critiquing and developing ideas as they have always done. It does not matter if a few are biassed, in fact all humans are biassed though scientists try not to be, the result, given time and criticism of past ideas, is progress.
OK, good generalization, above.
Go do climate science. But you will find your P.O.V. may not survive what other climate scientists have done, which is carefully to check all the evidence and work out which ideas have merit and which do not.
It is a tough field. Mainly since there are so many variables. And while I personally think there is some AGW effects, any proposed solution has to be balanced with the cost of reducing it, both in environmental, economic, and standard-of-living. I don't little careful and serious consideration of all such factors when listening to the various politics on both "sides." But (I think you will agree) there is really no side of the issue insofar as the truth (objective, natural) is in reality.
A quick look at the link shows that they plan to be careful to collect data in a far more comprehensive and superior manner than what has been used in the past in order to get more objective projections. Looks like a good start to me. But I have no real opinion on this group.
The Berkely group have a profoundly skeptical funding base, and their leader was a public skeptic. However thus far their overall preliminary findings are in line with the much maligned "consensus science" view. It is great that they are restudying all the evidence from a skeptical but scientific viewpoint. It will be fascinating to see what comes out of it.
Generalisations about humanity are not dehumanising. It is generalisations about subgroups which are so. The reason is that every human within a subgroup is different and to attribute the same (negative) traits to all is not fair or (nearly always) true. Where membership of a group is voluntary and implies something we do this. But even then, with care.
I agree climate modelling is very tough. And the current understanding is uncertain (as IPCC science makes clear). But that is no reason not to do it. Now we have the technology to move our ecosystem well away from equilibrium understanding the consequences of such movement is as sensible as looking where you are going when driving.
Joseph Chikva wrote: One more my idiotic statement.
If Rossi is doing business through scientific discovery he should obey to scientific rules.
What is this? Management rule 101 from the Chikva Scool of Business Management? Created any succesful businesses have you?
Joseph Chikva wrote: There are many legal ways of earning money: to produce something demanding by market, trade, etc. And commercialization of inventions is one of the most complicated kinds of activity.
As there are many much easier ways.
And at certain stage commercialization means showing the working prototype.
All true. Most folks understand that for Rossi, that stage occurs some time after October of this year.
Joseph Chikva wrote: There are also illegal ways of making money. One of them is fraud. #180 by my country's criminal legislation and person doing fraud risks to sit up to 6 years in prison (jail).
Also true, but do be careful how you state that since there is another illegal thing called libel. Now, since I suspect he care not one jot what you think or say, you are probably safe, but...
rcain wrote: upon studying their data in great depth (especially fig 1 on http://berkeleyearth.org/dataset ) i have come to an astonishing conclusion hitherto hidden from science:: avg_annual_temp_rise = nbr_weather_stations/10000 (approximately), plus or minus a bit...
amazing! the answer to AGW has been staring us in the face all along
Marvelous!!
A truly wonderful example of correlation vs causation. Seems something that many "scientists" who signed the first report just never quite got!
But it may also have been on purpose; that purpose being to reduce the likelihood that someone would take him seriously enough to check his story out BEFORE he could make his company the unequivocal industry leader.
If he is so eager to not being taken seriously and to stay out of the limelight and keep his secrets, why did he go public in the first place?
Hadnt he done his first presentation, nobody would have known about him!
Maybe he is bipolar?
No, I am with Joseph here (not always, but in this case). Rossi's behaviour makes no sense.
Interesting comment from 2nd Aug in Daniele Passerini's blog:
Levi will not read the report # 3 of Krivit, there is no reason why not. At this time the new report Galantini, I remember with pride to have been solicited by the passion of their readers of this blog, and already in the hands - as Smith would say - a very, very high level world class scientists (I am a witness) and even a few true journalist. Soon they themselves make clear why the report # 3 is one of the worst examples of science journalism of all time: only a "dossier" artfully constructed to discredit Smith and all those involved in the development of E-Cat.
Tonight, in fact I had the great and undeserved opportunity to become acquainted with some exchanges of emails that have already all the air can become a piece of history. In a few months I predict a peak in the world, not oil, but requests for psychotherapy by skeptics, deniers, scientist, following the collapse of their granite certainties. I rub my hands.
KitemanSA wrote:
You still aren't getting it. IF he PROVES it works scientifically he invites immediate and HUGE competition. If he can make others NOT take notice in any serious way while he creates an industry leading company, he just MIGHT survive the on-rush of competition later.
Or it could all just be a scam. Who knows?
If you always post passionate defense followed by a shoulder shrug and never post passionate skepticism followed by the same shoulder shrug, then you might as well drop the shoulder shrug. It's not convincing.
Am wrote:...very high level world class scientists (I am a witness)
"I am a witness" is a very strong argument.
I also saw one of them - world class scientists. Drugs and rock'n'roll.
"Levi will not read..." Why? For conducting the proper data for Krivit there are not required world class scientists. But only school level lab assistant.
But it may also have been on purpose; that purpose being to reduce the likelihood that someone would take him seriously enough to check his story out BEFORE he could make his company the unequivocal industry leader.
If he is so eager to not being taken seriously and to stay out of the limelight and keep his secrets, why did he go public in the first place?
The story that has been repeated numerous times on this forum is that Focardi, his friend and coworker, who had been gravely ill, asked him to demonstrate "their" reactor and in the name of friendship Rossi did what he didn't really want to do. That is the story.
Skipjack wrote: Hadnt he done his first presentation, nobody would have known about him!
Maybe he is bipolar?
I'm sure that is what he quips to Focardi daily! But according to the story, he is not bipolar, just loyal to his friend and co-worker.
Skipjack wrote: No, I am with Joseph here (not always, but in this case). Rossi's behaviour makes no sense.
Especially if you make up your mind first and don't read/accept any information to the contrary!
The Berkely group is trying to answer the charges of poorly manipulated data being leveled against the AGW crowd. But their methods will still not account for urbanization hot spots growing to encompass formerly rural stations, a situation which would show "global warming" even if there was no real warming.
Am wrote:Interesting comment from 2nd Aug in Daniele Passerini's blog:
Levi will not read the report # 3 of Krivit, there is no reason why not. At this time the new report Galantini, I remember with pride to have been solicited by the passion of their readers of this blog, and already in the hands - as Smith would say - a very, very high level world class scientists (I am a witness) and even a few true journalist. Soon they themselves make clear why the report # 3 is one of the worst examples of science journalism of all time: only a "dossier" artfully constructed to discredit Smith and all those involved in the development of E-Cat.
Tonight, in fact I had the great and undeserved opportunity to become acquainted with some exchanges of emails that have already all the air can become a piece of history. In a few months I predict a peak in the world, not oil, but requests for psychotherapy by skeptics, deniers, scientist, following the collapse of their granite certainties. I rub my hands.
A google translation, unfortunately.
It may be the translator algorithm, but I love the ending of that last sentence. LOL.
I have got to remember that one and use it someday if I ever become a maligned and misunderstood Mad Scientist.
Something like, "...And yes, all of you will rue the day you did not believe me. You will beg forgiveness following the collapse of your granite certainties. I shall not give it to you! I rub my hands!! MuHahahaha"
The story that has been repeated numerous times on this forum is that Focardi, his friend and coworker, who had been gravely ill, asked him to demonstrate "their" reactor and in the name of friendship Rossi did what he didn't really want to do. That is the story.
Ok, then I remembered wrong, because I remembered it the other way round. Focardi did not want it published yet, but Rossi wanted to do it.
If you are right, then Rossi's behaviour would make more sense. This does not convince me of the actual truthfulness of anything though...
Created any succesful businesses have you?
But according to the story, he is not bipolar, just loyal to his friend and co-worker.