Stale blog offering Perspective on ideas, issues and life from Nevada County, California - belaboring the obvious since 2003
Thursday, August 09, 2007
NCVoice is down; it's temporary
It will return as Nevada County Voices (since it certainly doesn't speak with a single voice...)
6 comments:
Welcome, and thanks for caring enough to donate your time and thoughts toward greater collective wisdom...
Terms of engagement:
* Please be civil.
* * * * Please do not post anonymously * * * (I'd remove this choice if I could, and I may remove your comment if you do) - instead, do this:
Click on the 'Name/URL' radiobutton, then enter your real name (if you're brave) or a pseudonym (if you're not). (You can leave the "URL" field blank.)
Or go ahead and click "Anonymous", but put your name in your comment.
* The Management reserves the right to delete comments (Moderation Certificate can be found here). You can always post it on a blog of your own.
If you run into technical difficulties, please a) accept my apologies, then b) email your comment to aherror2011 at gmail.com with "Comment for [name of this blog]" in the Subject line.
New policy re climate contrarianism comments as of 11/11/2009:
Comments questioning the climate science community's understanding of climate change (97% of active climatologists now believe that the earth is currently warming and that it's human-caused - link) will be deleted unless the commenter:
a) is local
b) uses his real name
c) provides link(s) to substantiate his claim(s)/inference(s)
d) is willing to collaborate on constructing an argument tree, to get us past the usual sterile point-counterpoint-countercounterpoint.
(For people who can't read the above, a summary:
1) Be civil;
2) Don't post w/o giving at least a pseudonym;
3) Don't espouse climate-denial crankery unless you're local and willing to stand behind it.)
Caveats:
1. Comments could be delayed: they are being moderated, and I'm sometimes away from the computer for a day or more.
2. : Perfectly legitimate comments are sometimes miscategorized (by the blogging platform) as spam, & not published. If this happens to yours, please notify me, else I might not notice for a day or two.
Anna, you have created an innovative commuity resource, congratulations. This what I thought the Union should be doing. However, since NC Media Watch writes on multiple subjects, I object to being lable a global warming denier. Please change this offensive lable, or remove NC Media Watch from Nevada County Voices. Thanks, Russ
ReplyDeleteThe point of the word denier is to associate you with holocaust deniers. It's the Godwin's Law version of weather science, you might as well just learn to live with it. Even though it seems obvious that human caused weather will be a problem, it's hard to get away from emotion in this kind of thing on either side.
ReplyDeleteUse of words like that are more about winning arguments than solving problems but I'm afraid it's just human nature.
Russ, I'm of two minds about this, and I don't know which of them is my right mind. :-)
ReplyDeleteBut I've changed the header in response to your comment; and now, if you hover over the asterisk, you get what I think is an accurate description of your and your compatriots' writings about global warming: that you believe you live on a planet "Where global warming is not happening, not significant, not our fault, or not avoidable".
To me that's being a denier; but I don't mind spelling your views out, rather than labeling.
("sauce for the gander" department: speaking of labeling, "Junk" really isn't a synonym for "Peer reviewed, meritocratically funded". At least not in my world.
And Russ, could you please go back to the comments in my June Ask Dr. Science post (where I'd looked into the claims that you and CO2"science" had made, and found them wanting), and address my observation there that you were engaging in revisionist argument?
(You'd originally claimed that the CO2-'science'-described research showed there'd been a global Medieval Warm Period; I looked and it turned out it hadn't; you didn't acknowledge that your claim was wrong, at least not on my blog, but tried to argue a different claim altogether.
Part of intellectual honesty is admitting one's errors.
thanks -
Anna
Also Russ, another question -
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think is the probability that global warming really is being caused by increasing CO2 levels and is a grave danger that's very much worth taking major steps to address?
50%? 10%? 1%? less than 1%?
Anna, I have posted my long comments on NC Media Watch. You requested that I not post long answers on NCFocus.
ReplyDeleteRuss's response is here; unfortunately it's a bit of a ramble and doesn't answer the questions I asked.
ReplyDelete