Montana kids in court

[antlerradar]

I don't know if the extra visibility brought by the kids was good or bad, but they have the most standing of anyone involved... and it did bring national attention to it, albeit misinformed attention suggesting the impact of this lawsuit is bigger than it is towards addressing climate change (which may be more advantageous to those that want to remove that part of Montana's Constitution).

I lean heavily on the it is not a good idea.
Using kids is clearly an emotionally play. You argue with emotion when you don't have confidence in your facts. Sure you can do both at the same time, but why would you risk clouding the facts with emotion.
Often the its for the kids argument come into play when you are losing the argument. One only has to go back a few months on HT and baiting issue in ND for an example. Corn Pile guy was front and center with it is for the kids. I can not remember his real user name, but Corn Pile Guy fits.
Using kids implies that this is a problem for the next generation and the current leaders can kick the can down the road. It would be prudent to start addressing the next generations problems now, but that is just not how government works. The debt hawks have been using its for the kids argument as long as I can remember. Hasn't worked all that well for them. The debt is always the next generations problem.

 

[marshman]

Direct question.

Have you reduced your carbon footprint?

I try to when I can. There is no doubt we all are contributing to the direction that the climate is headed to I am no different than everyone else who is living successfully in our modern society. I have a big truck i drive all over the place to hunt and fish.
My point is the need to acknowledge what is happening- a real good first step for a lot of folks it seems.
In my situation I am able to ride a bicycle 3 miles to work and try to as often as possible.

 

[Irrelevant]

I really don't know where to start. So many claims being made without any links.

However, here is one on bias in regard to climate science. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-020-00582-z
And here's the conclusion, though the entire thing is worth a read.

The use of selected ‘pronouncing’ lexis like bias, dogma and peer review by contrarian actors to negotiate their intersubjective positioning within the blogosphere reveals a mismatch between some of their avowed intentions and their actual authorial voices as bloggers. As discussed in section “Investigating bloggers’ stances: Data and conceptual framework”, CSBC-CON bloggers present themselves as endowed with the cultural competence required to master interactional and contributory expertise in the field of climate science; accordingly, they claim to be driven by the need to assess evidence for and against climate change dispassionately, as a way to uphold the integrity of the climate science, and purport to provide a non-partisan and non-political critique of relevant developments. However, the analysis of this subcorpus shows that, in positioning themselves with respect to the acceptors’ stance, contrarian bloggers resort to characterizing mainstream scientific consensus precisely in terms of the latter’s alignment with institutional policies, corporate interests or left-wing agendas at odds with national interests. As shown by the analysis, the inherent biases of the ‘consensus science’, that contrarian bloggers frame as value-driven flaws, are elevated to the category of church dogma in CSBC-CON discourses. By purportedly exposing the centrality of non-epistemic values in consensus climate science, CSBC-CON bloggers’ stance becomes imbued with political overtones, which facilitates the derivation and communication of their sceptic perspective. On the surface, contrarian bloggers’ pledge to uphold process legitimacy would appear to be somewhat more congruous with their stance on the peer review system. As shown in section “Analysing CSBC bloggers’ construction of intersubjectivity: Bias, dogma, peer review”, the CSBC-CON authorial voice questions the reliability of peer reviews insofar as these are conducted exclusively by core experts (without the involvement of their contributory or interactional counterparts) influenced by pervasive institutional and corporate vested interests. Ultimately, however, contrarian bloggers do not single out any specific procedural flaw of the evaluation process, opting instead to decry the unacceptable politicization of consensus science—where values, they argue, shape the research process from its very early stages.

By contrast, the biases identified by CSBC-ACC bloggers refer primarily to the consequences of ill-informed conceptual or methodological decisions, and of skewed calibration and measurements while gathering evidence. In other words, the analysis shows that acceptor bloggers are normally bound by values used in a direct role (Douglas, 2009), i.e. they are more likely to mobilize epistemic values circumscribed by the methodological norms of the certified scientific community. This understanding of scientific biases as relatively unintentional consequences of non-partisan exercises of agency is consistent with the complete absence of references to climate science dogma in the Union of Concerned Scientists blog. Significantly, it also brings into sharp relief the fact that occurrences of this lexical item in Desmog UK are confined to statements by public figures in the sceptic camp, that are quoted verbatim to expose their prejudiced nature. The coherence of the CSBC-ACC’s authorial voice is reinforced through their characterization of peer reviews as gate-keeping instruments underpinned by established epistemic frameworks—where values are deployed in a direct role—and forms of expertise. The analysis shows how, on occasions, core experts adopt a more adversarial stance in their blog posts that mobilizes non-epistemic values to discredit contrarian voices.

Although their readership in absolute terms is often small, climate change blogs attract a relatively high number of influential readers, including journalists, who facilitate the penetration of bloggers’ views and their policy disputes into mainstream reporting and public discourse (Farrell and Drezner, 2008). This study has advocated the need to compile and interrogate corpora consisting of climate blogs, an increasingly influential genre complementing previous research on scientific controversy as reported in traditional media. The findings outlined here reveal the value-laden character of contrarian views, and show how acceptor bloggers attempt to construct an authorial voice driven by ‘the science’, while drawing on dialogically expansive strategies to foreground their opponents’ prejudiced voices for strategic reasons. This relatively small corpus therefore confirms that, in addition to prompting reflection on the use of knowledge in various forms of public decision-making, both contrarian and acceptor bloggers seek to manage public perceptions of climate change using different approaches. More work is needed to establish how other types of evaluative lexis influence the bloggers’ engagement with alternative stances, and whether these are consistent with the discourses that this paper has reported on. Exploring the similarities and differences between the authorial voices constructed in blog posts and in the wider range of online genres included in the Genealogies of Knowledge Internet corpus would yield further insight into the negotiation of intersubjectivity and expertise in an increasingly multivoiced debate.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I try to when I can. There is no doubt we all are contributing to the direction that the climate is headed to I am no different than everyone else who is living successfully in our modern society. I have a big truck i drive all over the place to hunt and fish.
My point is the need to acknowledge what is happening- a real good first step for a lot of folks it seems.
In my situation I am able to ride a bicycle 3 miles to work and try to as often as possible.

We took steps to reduce our footprint and honestly, it's not that much of a sacrifice.

We eat in more often, my wife has gardens she tends. We compost our compostables and that's cut down our footprint in the local landfill by about 50%. We recycle, break down our plastics and carboards, etc.

We've also replaced light bulbs with LED's (outstanding money saver over the course of time, btw), reduced our driving, walk more, less TV, etc. I have 1 energy intensive hobby - ceramics. So I'm judicious in how and when I fire.

We don't take a lot of flights, only work and maybe 1-2 per year for vacation. We hunt & fish locally with perhaps 1 trip outside of state, process our own meat, etc.

Winter time heat is set at 65 with localized heat sources for my office & family room. We use passive heat more than forced air (propane stove, not ideal but it's what I could get). Summertime AC (when used) is kept at 74. We've had it on about 4 days so far this summer.

Next up is solar and possibly a small wind turbine along with finishing the pole barn but using a mix of electric & wood heat for the building. Geothermal and wood boilers are great alternatives to propane & electric heat as well.

I get about 16.8 miles per gallon in my F150, but a tank of gas lasts me about 3 weeks. Obviously that's more during hunting season.

Cut your tv time in half, read more, do more hobbies, etc.

Only drink locally sourced craft beer. No need to pay for Anheuser -Busch's fleet. Or In-Bev's corporate jet.

Start a feud with your neighbor. That's entertainment literally right out your front door and is really carbon neutral for you unless you are fond of arson.

and most importantly, never listen to a celebrity giving advice on anything other than George Foreman and his amazing electric grill.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

We took steps to reduce our footprint and honestly, it's not that much of a sacrifice.

We eat in more often, my wife has gardens she tends. We compost our compostables and that's cut down our footprint in the local landfill by about 50%. We recycle, break down our plastics and carboards, etc.

We've also replaced light bulbs with LED's (outstanding money saver over the course of time, btw), reduced our driving, walk more, less TV, etc. I have 1 energy intensive hobby - ceramics. So I'm judicious in how and when I fire.

We don't take a lot of flights, only work and maybe 1-2 per year for vacation. We hunt & fish locally with perhaps 1 trip outside of state, process our own meat, etc.

Winter time heat is set at 65 with localized heat sources for my office & family room. We use passive heat more than forced air (propane stove, not ideal but it's what I could get). Summertime AC (when used) is kept at 74. We've had it on about 4 days so far this summer.

Next up is solar and possibly a small wind turbine along with finishing the pole barn but using a mix of electric & wood heat for the building. Geothermal and wood boilers are great alternatives to propane & electric heat as well.

I get about 16.8 miles per gallon in my F150, but a tank of gas lasts me about 3 weeks. Obviously that's more during hunting season.

Cut your tv time in half, read more, do more hobbies, etc.

Only drink locally sourced craft beer. No need to pay for Anheuser -Busch's fleet. Or In-Bev's corporate jet.

Start a feud with your neighbor. That's entertainment literally right out your front door and is really carbon neutral for you unless you are fond of arson.

and most importantly, never listen to a celebrity giving advice on anything other than George Foreman and his amazing electric grill.

Hear me out Ben... chickens

 

[Ben Lamb]

Hear me out Ben... chickens

Urban chickens = 3 flights to Rome.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Urban chickens

 

[Ben Lamb]

View attachment 283755

If there were someone who could produce a single of chickens squaking the Olympic Anthem, I'd pay $19.99 for that.

Don't @ me with your chicken art. I will always out-gallinaceous you, mother trucker!

 

[Nameless Range]

I really don't know where to start. So many claims being made without any links.

However, here is one on bias in regard to climate science. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-020-00582-z
And here's the conclusion, though the entire thing is worth a read.

The use of selected ‘pronouncing’ lexis like bias, dogma and peer review by contrarian actors to negotiate their intersubjective positioning within the blogosphere reveals a mismatch between some of their avowed intentions and their actual authorial voices as bloggers. As discussed in section “Investigating bloggers’ stances: Data and conceptual framework”, CSBC-CON bloggers present themselves as endowed with the cultural competence required to master interactional and contributory expertise in the field of climate science; accordingly, they claim to be driven by the need to assess evidence for and against climate change dispassionately, as a way to uphold the integrity of the climate science, and purport to provide a non-partisan and non-political critique of relevant developments. However, the analysis of this subcorpus shows that, in positioning themselves with respect to the acceptors’ stance, contrarian bloggers resort to characterizing mainstream scientific consensus precisely in terms of the latter’s alignment with institutional policies, corporate interests or left-wing agendas at odds with national interests. As shown by the analysis, the inherent biases of the ‘consensus science’, that contrarian bloggers frame as value-driven flaws, are elevated to the category of church dogma in CSBC-CON discourses. By purportedly exposing the centrality of non-epistemic values in consensus climate science, CSBC-CON bloggers’ stance becomes imbued with political overtones, which facilitates the derivation and communication of their sceptic perspective. On the surface, contrarian bloggers’ pledge to uphold process legitimacy would appear to be somewhat more congruous with their stance on the peer review system. As shown in section “Analysing CSBC bloggers’ construction of intersubjectivity: Bias, dogma, peer review”, the CSBC-CON authorial voice questions the reliability of peer reviews insofar as these are conducted exclusively by core experts (without the involvement of their contributory or interactional counterparts) influenced by pervasive institutional and corporate vested interests. Ultimately, however, contrarian bloggers do not single out any specific procedural flaw of the evaluation process, opting instead to decry the unacceptable politicization of consensus science—where values, they argue, shape the research process from its very early stages.

By contrast, the biases identified by CSBC-ACC bloggers refer primarily to the consequences of ill-informed conceptual or methodological decisions, and of skewed calibration and measurements while gathering evidence. In other words, the analysis shows that acceptor bloggers are normally bound by values used in a direct role (Douglas, 2009), i.e. they are more likely to mobilize epistemic values circumscribed by the methodological norms of the certified scientific community. This understanding of scientific biases as relatively unintentional consequences of non-partisan exercises of agency is consistent with the complete absence of references to climate science dogma in the Union of Concerned Scientists blog. Significantly, it also brings into sharp relief the fact that occurrences of this lexical item in Desmog UK are confined to statements by public figures in the sceptic camp, that are quoted verbatim to expose their prejudiced nature. The coherence of the CSBC-ACC’s authorial voice is reinforced through their characterization of peer reviews as gate-keeping instruments underpinned by established epistemic frameworks—where values are deployed in a direct role—and forms of expertise. The analysis shows how, on occasions, core experts adopt a more adversarial stance in their blog posts that mobilizes non-epistemic values to discredit contrarian voices.

Although their readership in absolute terms is often small, climate change blogs attract a relatively high number of influential readers, including journalists, who facilitate the penetration of bloggers’ views and their policy disputes into mainstream reporting and public discourse (Farrell and Drezner, 2008). This study has advocated the need to compile and interrogate corpora consisting of climate blogs, an increasingly influential genre complementing previous research on scientific controversy as reported in traditional media. The findings outlined here reveal the value-laden character of contrarian views, and show how acceptor bloggers attempt to construct an authorial voice driven by ‘the science’, while drawing on dialogically expansive strategies to foreground their opponents’ prejudiced voices for strategic reasons. This relatively small corpus therefore confirms that, in addition to prompting reflection on the use of knowledge in various forms of public decision-making, both contrarian and acceptor bloggers seek to manage public perceptions of climate change using different approaches. More work is needed to establish how other types of evaluative lexis influence the bloggers’ engagement with alternative stances, and whether these are consistent with the discourses that this paper has reported on. Exploring the similarities and differences between the authorial voices constructed in blog posts and in the wider range of online genres included in the Genealogies of Knowledge Internet corpus would yield further insight into the negotiation of intersubjectivity and expertise in an increasingly multivoiced debate.

I'm not disputing the content necessarily, but IMO, this is how not to write if you want your readers to stay awake - and that's the opinion of one of the wordiest bastards in this corner of the internet.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

I'm not disputing the content necessarily, but IMO, this is how not to write if you want your readers to stay awake - and that's the opinion of one of the wordiest bastards in this corner of the internet.

I could not make it through the first sentence.

 

[Elky Welky]

I'm not disputing the content necessarily, but IMO, this is how not to write if you want your readers to stay awake - and that's the opinion of one of the wordiest bastards in this corner of the internet.

 

[Irrelevant]

I'm not disputing the content necessarily, but IMO, this is how not to write if you want your readers to stay awake - and that's the opinion of one of the wordiest bastards in this corner of the internet.

I mean it is a scientific paper not popular mechanics. That is exactly how you write them, popcorn fart dry with unnecessarily obscure verbiage. Learning to both read and write them is a lifelong journey. Actually understanding is even longer.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I mean it is a scientific paper not popular mechanics. That is exactly how you write them, popcorn fart dry with unnecessarily obscure verbiage. Learning to both read and write them is a lifelong journey. Actually understanding is even longer.

If Salma Hayek read it, I'd listen.

 

[Nameless Range]

I mean it is a scientific paper not popular mechanics. That is exactly how you write them, popcorn fart dry with unnecessarily obscure verbiage. Learning to both read and write them is a lifelong journey. Actually understanding is even longer.

I have read a good pile of scientific papers for work and other interests and have my name on a couple peer reviewed articles, and those paragraphs there are not the norm in verbosity. That writer is tryin to be one fancy fellow.

 

[JLS]

I'm not disputing the content necessarily, but IMO, this is how not to write if you want your readers to stay awake - and that's the opinion of one of the wordiest bastards in this corner of the internet.

I think he very diplomatically told you to cut the bulls hit and get to the point, it I could be wrong

 

[Elky Welky]

I have read many scientific papers and have my name on a couple peer reviewed articles, and those paragraphs there are not the norm in verbosity.

Please don't stop posting this kind of stuff though @neffa3 . Impenetrable and absurdly written as it is (as a recovering academic myself), there is some useful and helpful info there. I'm very impressed with the range of discourse and thought on this thread... and it is nice to see the scales balance the other direction.

First I had to scratch my head over conspiracy theories that just kept getting more bonkers, and then I had to scratch my head over a conflated scientific journal article. Trying to stay on topic has by and large become an exercise in futility. This is the internet at its best.

 

[Nameless Range]

I think he very diplomatically told you to cut the bulls hit and get to the point, it I could be wrong

It reminds me of this article:

https://www.science.org/content/article/fake-scientific-papers-are-alarmingly-common

Or even what James Lindsay did, which I could see aruged as unethical:

What an Audacious Hoax Reveals About Academia

Three scholars wrote 20 fake papers using fashionable jargon to argue for ridiculous conclusions.

www.theatlantic.com

At some point, language obfuscates the point, and it becomes near-impossible to assess quality and precision - one single sentence, such as the first one above, potentially containing multiple debateable premises.

I know none of this has to do with Human Caused Climate Change - a theory that I think seems to represent a truth, and a theory for which the evidence also appears to grow daily - just a thought about conveying information.

 

[Ben Lamb]

It reminds me of this article:

https://www.science.org/content/article/fake-scientific-papers-are-alarmingly-common

Or even what James Lindsay did, which I could see aruged as unethical:

What an Audacious Hoax Reveals About Academia

Three scholars wrote 20 fake papers using fashionable jargon to argue for ridiculous conclusions.

www.theatlantic.com

At some point, language obfuscates the point, and it becomes near-impossible to assess quality and precision - one single sentence, such as the first one above, potentially containing multiple debateable premises.

I know none of this has to do with Human Caused Climate Change - a theory that I think seems to represent a truth, and a theory for which the evidence also appears to grow daily - just a thought about conveying information.

translation:

Just because you talk like a $20 whore, don't mean you perform like one.

 

[Elky Welky]

translation:

Just because you talk like a $20 whore, don't mean you perform like one.

Is $20 considered outrageously expensive in your neck of the woods, Ben?

Because for an elk tag that's considered too cheap on another thread...

 

[Irrelevant]

I have read a good pile of scientific papers for work and other interests and have my name on a couple peer reviewed articles, and those paragraphs there are not the norm in verbosity. That writer is tryin to be one fancy fellow.

Well then you've managed a better record than I. When I read one that doesn't put me to sleep, or heck, even one that I understand the first time through, I take note, because it's an anomaly in a pile of papers full words most just found in a thesaurus.