tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3621026.post7105305155953694101..comments2024-03-28T10:25:22.825+01:00Comments on Robert's Stochastic thoughts: Roberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14455788499385673507noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3621026.post-22680316860577855002009-11-12T19:55:50.551+01:002009-11-12T19:55:50.551+01:00онлайн порно студентов http://free-3x.com/ школьн...онлайн порно студентов http://free-3x.com/ школьница онлай <a href="http://free-3x.com/" rel="nofollow">free-3x.com/</a> порно фото галереи малолеток [url=http://free-3x.com/]free-3x.com[/url]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3621026.post-90643593445145467422009-10-18T09:35:23.536+02:002009-10-18T09:35:23.536+02:00yes indeed it is odd that you are commenting on my...yes indeed it is odd that you are commenting on my piece given my spelling of Dubner.<br /><br />I was shocked when Thoma linked to it (look at his comments). <br /><br />The point of my post (if any) was to define the word "context" and discuss the responsibilities of journalists like Dubner (and in this chapter Levitt).<br /><br />My question was whether the meaning of quotes was distorted by the removal of context. I do not find quotation marks in the sentence from the book quoted by Lambert and you.<br /><br />In particular I see no evidence in Lamberts post which supports Caldeira's claim that the book is a case in which "somebody picks a half dozen quotes without providing context." <br /><br />Neither Lambert nor Caldeira as quoted by Lambert (nor, as far as I can tell, Romm) provides an example of any such distorted quote.<br /><br />In your third example, you quote an article by Caldeira. Note Caldera claims that L & D (taking no chances here) distorted the meaning of things he said in an interview. I quote "If you talk all day."<br /><br />The context of something said in a conversation some day is the rest of the conversation that day. It is not the life work of the person who was talking.<br /><br />It is not a general rule that journalists such as Mr D are expected to read all publications written by someone they interview and are held responsible if they quote someone saying something which would lead the reader to imagine that that person would not have written what the person once wrote.<br /><br />Dr Caldeira's accusation is not supported by evidence in Lambert's post. It really couldn't be, since Lambert doesn't have a tape recording of the interview.<br /><br />That was the only point of my post.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14455788499385673507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3621026.post-12524620393015820832009-10-18T05:19:59.012+02:002009-10-18T05:19:59.012+02:00I'm not sure why I'm commenting on this po...I'm not sure why I'm commenting on this post, seeing as you couldn't check enough to get Dubner's name right . . . but in any event, did you read the Lambert article you cited to? <br /><br />They're not just citing Caldeira or Crutzer for evidence supporting end results C&C dislike - they're repeatedly claiming that Caldeira and Crutzer (or their articles) support L&D's positions that C&C dislike. That's a problem.<br /><br /><br />#1<br />"Yet [Ken Caldeira]'s research tells him that carbon dioxide is not the right villain in this fight."<br /><br />Ken Caldeira disagrees. Misrepresentation #1.<br /><br />#2<br /><br />"Caldeira's study showed that doubling the amount of carbon dioxide while holding steady all other inputs - water, nutrients and so forth -yields a 70% increase in plant growth, an obvious boon to agricultural productivity."<br /><br />They leave out the key caveat - that this is only true if co2 fertilization is significant. And thus, they make Caldeira look as if he's agreeing to something much broader than he is. Misleading #2.<br /><br />Bonus points: They poo-pooed this precise type of modeling as untrustworthy!<br /><br /><br />#3<br />"It is one thing for climate heavyweights such as Crutzen and Caldeira to endorse such a solution [geoengineering]."<br /><br />Caldeira, from the same frickin' paragraph they summarized in the last misrepresentation:<br /><br />"geoengineering is not a preferred option"<br /><br />Crutzen similarly doesn't endorse it - to him its the last backup plan if everything else fails.<br /><br />Its "by far not the best solution," and again "Finally, I repeat: the very best would be" if emissions were reduced and geoengineering need not take place. <br /><br />There's a wide range between "this is better than abject failure to do anything" and "endorsed!"<br /><br />I mean, really, would you call this an "endorsement" of John McCain in 2004?<br /><br />The best solution would be to elect a Democrat. John McCain is by far not the best solution, and the very best option would be for everyone to vote for whoever the Democrats select. However, if those efforts fail, John McCain is better than George W. Bush, and we should try to primary the President. Finally, I repeat: ideally, we elect the Democrat, whoever he is. But if that will not happen, John McCain is better than the President.<br /><br /><br />Misrepresentations #3 & 4.<br /><br />Now, the other parts of the list weren't claims that Caldeira was being misrepresented, they were claims that L&D had no f'ing clue what they were talking about.Anonymous Chefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10134507880966134654noreply@blogger.com