And what is “climate science as a whole”? IPCC’s claims, or are you including anything any “denier” scientist may bring on a paper?
Comment on Psuedoscience (?) by plazaeme
↧
↧
Comment on Psuedoscience (?) by Anders Ottosson
Regardless the vast uncertainties at play, climate science as such isn’t pseudo (nor is the CO2-hypothesis). It is humans that make it pseudo, e.g claiming its results as robust and unquestionable.
Climate science is for sure infested by some people having a hard time differing the ethos of science from ideology. And that’s the main root of (climate)pseudoscience.
↧
Comment on Psuedoscience (?) by Leonard Weinstein
Judy,
I read the Wikipedia definition of pseudoscience carefully, and it seems to me to fit the more strongly quoted AGW and CAGW claims almost perfectly. I could go through each part in more detail, to show this, but I think you also understand this. However, you and others seem to keep confusing what the skeptics are skeptical of. We do not disagree with recent global warming (and cooling, and other climate variation), and we do not disagree that CO2 and other human caused activity adds some to the warming. It is the magnitude and future trends we are in general disagreement with, based on reality.
↧
Comment on Psuedoscience (?) by Maurizio Morabito (omnologos)
Can we all agree…the bandwagon around climate change science IS pseudoscience. Start from Numberwatch if you think otherwise.
↧
Comment on Psuedoscience (?) by Willis Eschenbach
jbmckim | March 20, 2012 at 6:23 pm | Reply
… It is universally true that any predictive science has a degree of uncertainty associated with it.
Surely you can’t be talking about climate science, because the number of falsifiable predictions made by climate scientists is approximately zero. They don’t do predictions, they just deal in projections and scenarios … so much easier to backpedal from, don’t'cha know …
w.
↧
↧
Comment on 21st century solar cooling by capt. dallas 0.8 +/-0.2
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/JubanyvMaunaLoaCO2.png
The distribution of the nearly well mixed gas is kind of interesting. Comparing Jubany station Antarctica to Muana Loa is interesting.
Too short a time period for much of any use. It is odd that the trend in the Jubany Station is lower, particularly from the start to about 2000, then it increases. It is almost like the Antarctic was cooling until 2000, kinda like the satellite data indicates. If that is the case, I wonder what kind of mechanism might cause that?
The 1998 period is a little odd too. 
↧
Comment on Psuedoscience (?) by Edim
Pokerguy, maybe it’s pseudo becaue it’s corrupt.
↧
Comment on Psuedoscience (?) by Herman Alexander Pope
You say: “It does not imply in any way that climate science is pseudoscience”
I read what Wiki says about this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
Actual data does not show warming that agrees with the theory and models.
What else do you need?
This does very strongly imply that climate science is pseudoscience.
↧
Comment on Psuedoscience (?) by robin
“When a number of the leading scientists in a field are caught with their hands in the cookie jar and very few scientists in the same field complain or even comment”
Ay, that is the key to people not taking it seriously regardless of it’s merits. There was no shortage of people crying foul when it came out that Hwang Woo-suk faked his cloning research. He was fired, faced criminal charges, and is no longer a voice in that field.
Climate science is full of ethical lapses and data corruptions – no problem, but why are those same voices (and their studies) still leading the way? That points to a larger corruption, be it bullying or collusion, making the whole thing damaged goods.
↧
↧
Comment on Psuedoscience (?) by scepticalWombat
As a first guess to your question about Venus I would say that the concentration is not the important thing – the important thing is the total amount of CO2 in the two planets’ atmospheres. So you need to multiply the concentrations by the total mass in each case to get comparable figures -and since the mass of the Venusian atmosphere is much greater than that of Earth the discrepancy should be somewhat reduced.
↧
Comment on Psuedoscience (?) by Professor Bob Ryan
Is climate science more like Freudian psychology than Einstein’s relativistic mechanics? This problem of demarcation between science and pseudo-science is nothing new. Arguably, the best contribution to the demarcation debate was made by the great Imre Lakatos, a student of Karl Popper. Here is a transcript of one of Lakatos’ last lectures before his premature death in 1974 http://www2.lse.ac.uk/philosophy/About/lakatos/scienceAndPseudoscienceTranscript.aspx and for a bit more about this great thinker here is the Wikipedia article which is a fair description of the man and his ideas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Lakatos. If he was alive now I suspect Climate Science would be a favourite case study for him. I doubt he would dismiss it as pseudo-science, indeed he might regard it in a rather charitable way as a new research programme which had not got its full empirical legs – it’s still crawling, not yet walking. It might get up one day, but then it might not. However, I recommend these links to his work for anyone who is seriously interested.
↧
Comment on Week in review 3/16/12 by Tomas Milanovic
Bart
In ordinary usage, quotation marks around a word followed by ‘sic’ in brackets implies literal attribution to a source.
I’ve looked so far as I’m able through everything I’ve written since hitting upon this interpretation.. and cannot find “naturallness” in any entry.
In ordinary usage in the part of world I live in, (sic!) refers to the word immediately preceding it which was in this case “market”.
As for “naturalness”, I precisely put “” around it because I wanted to suggest that the idea was definitely there (e.g a natural market) but I was not sure whether the word itself was used as such.
However as I also said, I don’t understand most of what you are writing. Now this is a perturbing thing because I am generally able to understand and synthetise quite fast many of really complex texts (f.ex in the field theory or fluid mechanics).
And I have a correct knowledge of economy too.
As a plus to The Chief’s readings is that I did read Marx.
But that was only because I was forced to – there were times and places where and when it was mandatory 
So perhaps you don’t really mean that there is a “natural market” and you merely write in such a way that most people think that you do.
Anyway.
Beside the emission certificate system in Europe which is a failure, there was also another law proposal in France.
Once the idea of a carbon tax was shot down because people didn’t want it, the environmentalists came in through the backdoor again and submitted a law called “climate contribution”.
Of course nobody was fooled that replacing tax by contribution and carbon by climate would change the idea.
In practice it should have worked like that:
Any CO2 emision (hardest impact was expected for automobilists because France having 80% of its power generated by nukes, there are few CO2 power plants) would have a price fixed by the government. So this was basically just a tax that didn’t say its name.
Then they added the idea that the money collected from those who emit much would be given to those who emit little.
This added constraint yields an equation which gives as solution the emission level where a person pays nothing and gets nothing.
So basically we had here a wealth redistribution program but one where instead of the standard key which is revenue, one would use tons of CO2 with an arbitrary price. And of course with such a key there is per definition nothing which prevents the poor giving money to the rich.
People living on the campaign then said that they didn’t intend to give money to people living in towns with just the justification that the former needed to use their cars more than the latter.
Followed the Parliament representatives of the rural district and belonging to the majority party who (obviously) said that they didn’t intend to vote such a law.
And the President was reported to have said in private “We don’t need yet another gas plant.”
To understand this quote, one must know that the expression “usine à gaz” designs in French a system which has a property to take something in some initial state and after a very complex and very expensive process leaves it in a final state which is almost equal to the initial state.
And this definitively killed the “climate contribution” too.
Is this kind of “usine à gaz” similar to the things you are trying to promote under the concept of “natural CO2 markets”?
↧
Comment on Psuedoscience (?) by Simon Hopkinson
I would argue that no science can be reasonably described pseudo-science unless the balance of its practice is pseudo-scientific or if those within the subject, who do not practice pseudo-science, do not rally to reject the pseudo-scientific findings of those who do.
I agree that climate science is not itself pseudo-science but there surely was a deafening silence from within the subject when facile pseudo-scientific practices were exposed by Climategate. For whichever reason one might ascribe, this failure by the scientific community en masse to cut out this cancerous growth has done nothing to remedy, and has arguably served directly to further diminish, climate science’s descent into the realm of pseudo-science.
Just as the wildly pseudo-scientific health-beneficial claims of the British Chiropractic Association were insufficiently refuted by its collective membership – even though one surely knows there are many chiropractitioners who knew absolutely that these claims were suspect, but remained silent to enjoy the financial benefits of busy waiting rooms – far too many within the climate science community have failed in their duty as scientists to reject pseudo-scientific practices within their ranks.
Obviously, and notably, some have rightly spoken out against the practices which have been uncovered – Judy and Richard Muller being the most obvious to point out – but, rather than the ideologically motivated politicians and CAGW policy supporters on the ground, it is the labelling of scientists like these as heretics and “deniers” by climate scientists (and the abject failure of the climate science community to respond to these labels) which ultimately condemns climate science and earns it the label pseudo-science.
If climate science really is a swan, when is someone going to take issue with it walking and talking like a duck?
↧
↧
Comment on Psuedoscience (?) by cwon14
This is a cousin of the “science” vs. “Anti-science” ad hom. While it leads nowhere it’s interesting Dr. Curry would link it while ducking more obvious politically driven questions that call climate science into question.
↧
Comment on Letter to the dragon slayers by Doug Cotton
I see Ridley was censored on my dedicated thread on tallbloke which is at least the fourth site to publish my paper..
It’s good to see Nicola Scafetta saying what I have said in my paper about Jupiter and Saturn influencing natural ~1000 year cycles – just as I started saying a year ago at http://earth-climate.com and in my paper.
And Nicola’s been published in a notable journal, I see.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/21/nicola-scafetta-major-new-paper-on-solar-planetary-theory/
Ridley must find this all just so frustrating – ever time another scientist joins PSI in the fight to expose the hoax that is AGW.
How about you put your time into writing a peer-reviewed rebuttal, Pete?
I can’t wait to see PSI slay you – especially with the new experiments coming out that I know about, but you don’t.
Good luck in your campaign criticising my science on the grounds of a part-time importing business my wife runs.
↧
Comment on On the adjustments to the HadSST3 data set by Greg Goodman
Hi John,
you still seem to be grasping my basic point here. I’ll try to make it clearer.
Let’s suppose I found there were some defects in the thermometers used during a particular period, estimated the duration and amplitude of the effect and came up with a correction. I find that indeed it matches a bump in the data so I apply the correction. It reduces the bump to about half what is was before. This raises three possibilities:
1. I underestimated the effect , it should have been twice as big, leaving this part of the data flat.
2. There just happened to be true bump in the climate at the same time and of the same duration , *as well as* the error that I corrected. Rather a coincidence but not impossible.
3. I got my bias calculation wrong because of lack of accurate meta data it should have been applied 20 year earlier / not at all.
It seems in the case of the Hadley bias ensemble we are seeing case 2, not for a bump, but over 2/3 of the record.
Now it’s an over simplification to say HadSST3 adjustment is a tidy half or 2/3 of the variation in ICOADS but the similarity in form is remarkable. This seems to be pushing the bounds of coincidental similarity beyond what seems reasonable.
The coincidence in time of each of the bias adjustments with a tendency in the data over the same period is worrying.
↧
Comment on Psuedoscience (?) by Jim Petrie
I think anyone who assumes that correlation equals causation is indulging in pseudoscience.
I have been involved in the area of kidney transplantation for many years. As regards a drug called cyclosporine , we know
1. It helps reduce the incidence of rejection
2, It often knocks the transplanted kidney around, reducing its function.
Because of point 2, if the function of a transplanted kidney goes off, an almost universal reaction is to reduce the cyclosporine dose.
The manufacturers produced observational studies showing a correlation of good transplant outcomes with high cyclosporine doses.
The reason for this observation was that only patients with good kidneys could tolerate high cyclosporine doses !
Randomised control trials sorted this point out,
Now if planet earth is our patient …and we have one patient …how do we design a randomized controlled trial?
Jim Petrie
↧
↧
Comment on Psuedoscience (?) by Oliver K. Manuel
World leaders secretly agreed to unite nations against “global climate change” in ~1971 in order to save themselves and the rest of the world from the threat of mutual nuclear annihilation,
http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/
They guided astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, climatology, planetary and solar science by manageable computer models of reality, in order to hide evidence that the Sun’s core is like the core of the uranium atoms that vaporized Hiroshima on 6 August 1945 and the centers of all galaxies, stars and heavy atoms (mass > ~150 atomic mass units): Neutron-rich and energized by neutron repulsion !
Neutron repulsion is recorded in the rest mass of every atom whose nucleus contains two or more neutrons ! This information, repeatedly reported in peer-reviewed scientific literature after being presented at the 32nd Lunar & Planetary Science Conference in early March 2001
http://www.omatumr.com/lpsc.prn.pdf
E.g., Journal of Fusion Energy 19, 93-98 (2001)
http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts/jfeinterbetnuc.pdf
Journal of Fusion Energy 20, 197-201 (2001)
http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts/jfeinterbetnuc.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/x1n87370x6685079/
Was obvious to intellectually curious students as young as the late James-Alan Holt Powers http://tinyurl.com/89arzjf
The rest of this sad story was captured by CSPAN on 7 Jan 1998:
↧
Comment on Psuedoscience (?) by Bill
I’m convinced. If I ever get terminal cancer I’ll have someone shoot me. Better survival chances.
↧
Comment on Psuedoscience (?) by DocMartyn
Well Mosher, given the daily and annual change in (Tmax+Tmin)/2 is far greater that 0.7C, for all intents and purposes the response should be instantaneous.
Moreover, as the postulated effect of CO2 is simple is is easy to model. The effect should temporally slow cooling and advance warming, in the daily and annual cycles. We should observe a line-shape change in the diurnal cycle and annual cycle.
Antarctica would provide the best place to look for both these changes at one. The temperature has been measured daily in various places since the 60′s. During the winter night the Antarctic should be now cooling much more slowly before it attains its Tmin steady state and its rate of warming during the day/summer should be much more rapid.
The line-shape of the diurnal cycle should move to the right in the presence of CO2, moreover this effect should be amplified in places were their is high water vapour. Thus, comparing the line-shape of a pair of single stations in a continental desert with a pacific island should show the shift in line-shape in both places; give the CO2 sensitivity and the potentiating effect of water.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
