"She says Dagsvik has good expertise in statistics, but not in climate modelling."
Climate modelling is statistics! She's sadly a typical representative of the modern woman in academia: no thought, no logic, no knowledge. The proverbial golden ring in the pig's snout was surely said about such as her.
You ponder what the difference between Dagsvik and Moen, and their critics is. I believe it's this:
1) D&M can actually use math. Not calculators or programs, but math - abacus, slide rule, pen and paper and understand what they are doing. Their critics can perform the operation of feeding numbers into a program only. That's not math. Therefore, the critics of D&M cannot critcise their findings, since they lack the skills required.
2) The element of howling with the pack cannot be understated, nor overstated: it reads like a reflex-action against a challenge to orthodoxy, the epitome of "not science". Thus, no matter the facts, dogma rules.
3) The critics have been rewarded for being dogmatists for decades, perhaps even raised in that atmosphere at home and in academia, so they are unable to recognise this in their reaction.
---
I'll give a somewhat tangential example from helping mother shop for groceries. Thinking out loud, I pondered how a lime from Peru could be "climate friendly" to buy here in middle Sweden. It had been transported by diesel-powered ship and diesel-powered truck to the store, across the planet. If one believes in climate-theory, the only way to be climate-friendly is to buy only such produce that can be grown locally, the closer to the customer the better. Which pre-cludes lime, and anyone believing they can buy lime and be climate-friendly is a clinical moron and/or a hypocritical liar and a coward.*
Concluding this Hamlet-like musing, the lime playing the part of Yorick, I noticed people around me giving me "low Ph-value stares" so to speak.
So they must understand the conflict inherent, yet they use various automated processes to escape cognitive dissonance and a loudmouthed man pointing out the problem triggers the dissonance?
I wager the response from the critics of D&M is perhaps based in something equally simple-yet-complex.
*I really do speak like that, when Hectoring or lecturing. Work-related injury, I'm sure.
Oh, I was about to write something like you just did, but then I thought: those who read will know anyways.
Personally, I find grifters such as the nuclear physicist who shills as a 'science disseminator' despicable. I mean, if that person would, you know, kinda like nuclear physics, he'd work as an atomic scientist. He doesn't, and that tells you everything you'd ever need to know about that kind of person.
Moreover, I find it hard not to bang my head against the wall or the like when I read 'journos' denouncing someone for 'lack of expertise' while they themselves are way out of depth with whatever they are writing about; the above piece is, I think, more than 'telling' in this regard.
Finally, we see here a variation of the 'you're the wrong kind of expert' talk that we've seen daily during the WHO-declared, so-called 'pandemic': even if you're competent (e.g., Robert Malone on modRNA tech) but say the 'wrong' things, you're incompetent, it is alleged. By contrast, if you're an idiot but peddle the 'right' nonsense, you're with 'the experts™'. What this all boils down to, I think, is a kind of 'war on expertise and competence', which, as you correctly point to, is waged primarily by those whose positions of (relative) power would be compromised. I think most of the bad-mouthing and shit-talking in the piece above is--actually--a kind of compensation by projection.
(As to your side-note, same same, it comes with teaching, I suppose ^_^)
There's a british physicist (theoretical physics and quantum mechanics with 30 years experience) going by the moniker "Rudolph Rigger" on the Substack "Riggery Pokery"; perhaps he would be interested in what his alleged co-phycisist is saying?
His 'Stack is good fun, since he is on a quest to make heads-or-tails of post-modernism, post-structuralism and intertextuality and queer and so on, coming from the field of physics.
"She says Dagsvik has good expertise in statistics, but not in climate modelling."
Climate modelling is statistics! She's sadly a typical representative of the modern woman in academia: no thought, no logic, no knowledge. The proverbial golden ring in the pig's snout was surely said about such as her.
You ponder what the difference between Dagsvik and Moen, and their critics is. I believe it's this:
1) D&M can actually use math. Not calculators or programs, but math - abacus, slide rule, pen and paper and understand what they are doing. Their critics can perform the operation of feeding numbers into a program only. That's not math. Therefore, the critics of D&M cannot critcise their findings, since they lack the skills required.
2) The element of howling with the pack cannot be understated, nor overstated: it reads like a reflex-action against a challenge to orthodoxy, the epitome of "not science". Thus, no matter the facts, dogma rules.
3) The critics have been rewarded for being dogmatists for decades, perhaps even raised in that atmosphere at home and in academia, so they are unable to recognise this in their reaction.
---
I'll give a somewhat tangential example from helping mother shop for groceries. Thinking out loud, I pondered how a lime from Peru could be "climate friendly" to buy here in middle Sweden. It had been transported by diesel-powered ship and diesel-powered truck to the store, across the planet. If one believes in climate-theory, the only way to be climate-friendly is to buy only such produce that can be grown locally, the closer to the customer the better. Which pre-cludes lime, and anyone believing they can buy lime and be climate-friendly is a clinical moron and/or a hypocritical liar and a coward.*
Concluding this Hamlet-like musing, the lime playing the part of Yorick, I noticed people around me giving me "low Ph-value stares" so to speak.
So they must understand the conflict inherent, yet they use various automated processes to escape cognitive dissonance and a loudmouthed man pointing out the problem triggers the dissonance?
I wager the response from the critics of D&M is perhaps based in something equally simple-yet-complex.
*I really do speak like that, when Hectoring or lecturing. Work-related injury, I'm sure.
Oh, I was about to write something like you just did, but then I thought: those who read will know anyways.
Personally, I find grifters such as the nuclear physicist who shills as a 'science disseminator' despicable. I mean, if that person would, you know, kinda like nuclear physics, he'd work as an atomic scientist. He doesn't, and that tells you everything you'd ever need to know about that kind of person.
Moreover, I find it hard not to bang my head against the wall or the like when I read 'journos' denouncing someone for 'lack of expertise' while they themselves are way out of depth with whatever they are writing about; the above piece is, I think, more than 'telling' in this regard.
Finally, we see here a variation of the 'you're the wrong kind of expert' talk that we've seen daily during the WHO-declared, so-called 'pandemic': even if you're competent (e.g., Robert Malone on modRNA tech) but say the 'wrong' things, you're incompetent, it is alleged. By contrast, if you're an idiot but peddle the 'right' nonsense, you're with 'the experts™'. What this all boils down to, I think, is a kind of 'war on expertise and competence', which, as you correctly point to, is waged primarily by those whose positions of (relative) power would be compromised. I think most of the bad-mouthing and shit-talking in the piece above is--actually--a kind of compensation by projection.
(As to your side-note, same same, it comes with teaching, I suppose ^_^)
There's a british physicist (theoretical physics and quantum mechanics with 30 years experience) going by the moniker "Rudolph Rigger" on the Substack "Riggery Pokery"; perhaps he would be interested in what his alleged co-phycisist is saying?
His 'Stack is good fun, since he is on a quest to make heads-or-tails of post-modernism, post-structuralism and intertextuality and queer and so on, coming from the field of physics.
Oh, that sounds interesting, thanks for bringing this up.