==> “Just as we know what Gruber meant.”
Squirrel!!!!!
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by Joshua
↧
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by Lars Karlsson
Don, you either trust Schneider’s explanations or your own imagination. I see you chose the latter.
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by Lars Karlsson
At this point, it seems clear that Lee has deliberately distorted Schneider’s views.
And this Curry describes as: “There are some important and insightful points here, that cut to the heart of the issue surrounding the ‘double ethical bind’ better than anything else I’ve seen”
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by Occam
>> a redistribution of the world’s wealth may seem desirable, it can never >> happen in practice.
Deeply sorry to intevene, but this is patently false. Economy is NOT a zero-sum game and consenquently this is not about “redistribution”. It’s about the increase of wealth.
And yes it is happening all around the world, Singapour, India and China being shining examples of it.
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by pokerguy
“if you don’t own the climate what gives you the right to change it…”
Max, ok, cub reporter, So revealing. Putting aside the question of whether we really are changing the climate in important ways, what gives us the right to cut down trees,, or farm the earth? Or do you believe we don’t have that right?
↧
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by Wagathon
<em>‘As scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method’ ~Professor Stephen Schneider</em>
We can no longer take such statements at face value. Because the concept of honor and integrity in science no longer has any meaning, it would be foolish to assume honesty and courage of climate scientists: from now on, they will have to prove it --e.g., “In our view,” argue George Ellis and Joe Silk (<a href="http://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-defend-the-integrity-of-physics-1.16535" rel="nofollow">Scientific method: Defend the integrity of physics</a>), “the issue boils down to clarifying one question: what potential observational or experimental evidence is there that would persuade you that the theory is wrong and lead you to abandoning it? If there is none, it is not a scientific theory.” The Earth is not a <em>greenhouse</em>.
<blockquote><em>Also I prefer to describe CO2, methane (CH4,), nitrous oxide (N2O), ozone (O3), and the chlorofluoro carbons (CFC’s) as </em>minor absorbing gases <em>rather than </em>greenhouse gases <em>because glass houses become hot mainly by keeping the heated air from mixing with cooler air outside rather than by absorption in the glass. Atmospheric absorption by these gases definitely does warm the earth. The controversy is about how important they are compared with natural causes. </em>~Donald C. Morton</blockquote>
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by phatboy
At this point, it seems clear that Lee has deliberately distorted Schneider’s views.
Which views would that be? His 1989 views, or his 1996 ones?
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by A fan of *MORE* discourse
BREAKING NEWS
Poisoning the wells of public discourse
!!! KOCH BROTHERS UNMASKED !!!
One group dominates
net neutrality commentsA letter-writing campaign that appears to have been organized by a shadowy organization with ties to the Koch Brothers inundated the Federal Communications Commission with missives opposed to net neutrality (NN).
Anti-net neutrality commenters mobilized in force and comprised the majority of overall comments submitted, at 60%.
We attribute this shift almost entirely to the form-letter initiatives of a single organization, American Commitment, who are single-handedly responsible for 56.5% of the comments in this round.
Non-form-letter submissions had a similar sentiment distribution as comments in the first round, at less than 1% opposed to net neutrality.
Question I Are BigCarbon/BigCapital astro-turfing campaigns moral?
Question II Does moral practice require that denialist web-forums voluntarily disclose BigCarbon/BigCapital revenues?
Question III Is climate-change denial associated to net-neutrality opposition on web-sites that receive BigCarbon/BigCapital revenues?
The world wonders … and BigCarbon/BigCapital adamantly opposes citizens who seek answers.
![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=bbffcc&fg=0055ff&s=2 "\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}")
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by Lars Karlsson
Phatboy, they are consistent.
↧
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by Wagathon
<blockquote>The common good of mankind was given at least equal billing four decades ago, though that no longer appears to be the case in much climate change activism and literature [comparing the Rio Declaration of the '80s to the 1972 Stockholm Declaration]. A forceful criticism of this shift in priorities was articulated by Dr. Patrick Moore, an early member of Greenpeace who said on BBC Radio 4: ‘The “green” [in Greenpeace] is the environment and that’s good as well, but they lost the concern for humans’, before going on to add, ‘they have turned in, basically, to an evil organization’. ~Peter Lee</blockquote>
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by Craig Loehle
A fundamental problem is that everyone tries to deceive (lie if you will) all the time. Women wear makeup. Men speak with authority about the ability of the quarterback when they really are not that sure. People tell jokes to get attention. People brag. In science, the end of a paper (or particularly a press release) tries to spin the research as important (“may lead to insights on cancer…”) when no one knows the impact of the research until much later. Everyone must use their own judgement to evaluate claims about beauty, ability, knowledge, power at all times. Appeals to authority are an attempt to short-circuit the normal critical faculties that everyone uses on a daily basis.
In the context of climate change, there is a temptation to claim (or believe) that a certain scientific result forces a particular real-world action. But the people making this conclusion are often lacking knowledge about crop yields, natural disasters, economics, technology etc. upon which a proper response depends. The fit of the science claim to one’s world views can also lead to uncritical acceptance of public statements that 4 degrees warming will make the Earth uninhabitable and other silly statements (hotter means colder winters, etc.). In addition, this “forcing” view of what science says usually ignores 1) the uncertainty and 2) alternatives such as adaptation or the resilience benefits of additional economic growth. Very few people possess the restraint to shut up when they don’t know what they are talking about.
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by ceresco kid
I didnt see Schneider distancing himself from his quote “offering up scary scenarios”. They are still doing it 25 years later and that is one reason the credibility of the establishment has fallen on hard times. That says it all about ethics.
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by phatboy
They’re about as consistent as chalk and cheese.
But hey, I know how futile it is to go against someone’s beliefs, so let others judge for themselves – the links are there.
↧
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by PA
Science Misconduct (wiki Swedish definition)
“Intention[al] distortion of the research process by fabrication of data, text, hypothesis, or methods from another researcher’s manuscript form or publication; or distortion of the research process in other ways.”
It is hard to argue ethics – but you can define misconduct.
My previously offered solution is to take 10% of government grant money and red team all government funded research.
Findings of misconduct would get the researcher banned from government grant funded projects from 5 years to life. Cherry picking data and failure to disclose negative results for example would come under misconduct.
Finding that the study result was invalid (bad methodology, statistical errors etc.) would be a black mark for future grant submissions.
There would be a 50% bonus to red team members for finding misconduct or invalidating the study.
The barely above single digits level of study reproducibility is unacceptable. I don’t care if scientists are biased or incompetent – we shouldn’t be funding them in either case.
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by Lars Karlsson
Care to point out the inconsistencies, phatboy?
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by Wagathon
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by JustinWonder
+1
↧
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by ATAndB
I am going to have to agree with David Appell on this one. Einstein is a pretty good example here. His science was done openly and he questioned his own conclusions. He did exemplary science. I don’t hear anyone claim that he was not a great scientist. However, I think you would be hard pressed to say that he would meet a reasonable person’s expectations in his behavior. In fact, he seemed to purposefully do things that would violate norms of his time. Not in his execution of science, but in other things. I think that this distinction needs to be made. The ethics of science that this paper is talking about is a different ethics than moral or cultural ethics. Further, IMHO the product (with all the data, calculations, etc.) is the only measure of science. You can be a jerk, social misfit, etc. and still produce good science. The problem comes in when the product is tilted, massaged or otherwise manipulated. This is the heart of the claim … that the product was unethically presented, not that the people presenting it were flawed. They are two different things.
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by Bob
“Well that’s a lot of raising to do from -40°C especially when that radiation between the surface and the troposphere is in general a process which cools the surface. ”
Heat transfer from me to my blanket is, in general, a process that cools me. Yet, strangely, I am warmer at night with a blanket than without. Your theory of physics seems to imply that my blanket does not keep me warm.
Sigh.
↧
Comment on Will a return of rising temperatures validate the climate models? by Matthew R Marler
Vaughan Pratt: Speak for yourself, Matthew
Yes. I do speak only for myself.
I put up another comment on Romps over at RealClimate. So far no one has responded to it. 161
Matthew R Marler says:
16 Dec 2014 at 8:57 PM
To continue my questioning from 146: Suppose that for each parcel of warm air that rises, a constant fraction of total energy is converted or transformed to CAPE (which is proportional to the integral, with respect to log pressure, of the difference between the parcel temperature and the surrounding air temperature, the integration being across the height that the air parcel rises). And suppose, as the authors do, that a constant fraction of CAPE is converted to lightning. In that case, the rate at which CAPE is being formed is approximately proportional to the rate at which moist warm air is rising, which in turn is approximately by the rainfall rate, since water is conserved. Consequently, the lightning rate is a constant proportion of CAPE*P, where P is the precipitation rate.
I would appreciate it if someone has another analysis.
Now if a 1C increase produces a 2% increase in rainfall rate (as in a paper by Held and Soden, 2005, Journal of Climate), and a 12% increase in CAPE*P, then increase in CAPE following a 1C temperature increase must be about 10%. The figures are aggregates, so they do not approximate any particular lightning storms particularly well.
If I am wrong, I would like to find out exactly how and why before I write something foolish, or write something new and foolish.
– See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/12/unforced-variations-dec-2014/comment-page-4/#comment-621047
What do you think of it? I think that their analysis has implications for how the evapotranspirative cooling of the Earth surface will change in response to CO2. I think that the implications come from the assumptions that they made in their analysis, on explicit, one implicit that I wrote explicitly.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
