Right – forgot about the nesting.
The clip you linked in your 8:14 comment was pretty good.
The one you linked in your 11:06 comment, however, was pretty pathetic.
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by Joshua
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by catweazle666
“The world wonders!”
Not in your case.
The World raises one eyebrow a couple of millimetres, shakes its head in amazement and strolls off chuckling gently.
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by David Springer
Shallow thinking. So called over-consumption in the west (a subjective measure) is balanced by recycling, reforestation, clean air and water acts, energy efficient technology invention, and perhaps most importantly a low fertility rate. Non-hispanic white fertility rate is below the replacement rate in the United States. In general western nations have far lower rates:
↧
Comment on Week in review by JCH
Since 1980 the PDO, a significant source of natural variation in the GMT trend, has been adding less and less oomph to the global mean temperature trend. Around 2000 it entered its negative phase. <a href="http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1980/to:2011/trend/plot/jisao-pdo/from:2011/trend/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1999/to:2014.83/trend/detrend:-0.19/offset:%200.216/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1980/mean:36/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1980/plot/gistemp/from:1980/normalise/trend/offset:%20+1.5/plot/gistemp/last:120/normalise/trend/offset:%20+1.5" rel="nofollow">This PDO "cycle" is now 30 to 35 years old, and it's likely to peak by age 45, and at very high GMT. </a>
↧
Comment on Week in review by Max_OK, Citizen Scientist
Right, and a scientist should not waste time thinking about theories that are untestable. After thinking up a testable theory, the scientist should test it. If a theory fails the test, he should forget it, and think up another testable theory. Scientist also should not waste time thinking about theories that have already past the test.
Now and then an untestable theory may cross a scientist’s mine while he is trying to think up a testable theory. This kind of distraction makes the scientific method inefficient and should be avoided.
Science would be more efficient if scientists were paid on a piece rate, a proven system which rewards the most productive workers. If a scientist comes up with a theory that passes testing, pay him well, but if his theory fails testing, pay him nothing.
↧
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by David Springer
Beth didn’t imply the IPCC funded research. She was talking about the IPCC itself being funded. Pay better attention,
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by David Springer
Define “long term”.
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by David Springer
No one cares who or what you trust.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
AGW is testable. We are doing the experiment now by steadily increasing the forcing on the climate by 0.4 W/m2 per decade and watching the warming rate produced in the surface temperature and ocean heat content.
↧
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by David Springer
“is Mann akin to a child molester?”
No. Mann is much worse.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Max_OK, Citizen Scientist
Using records extracted from books as a proxy is skeptic bait. I’m interested, but not enough to pay $39.95 for the book.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
Maybe someone can explain how they get their observed trends. From HADCRUT4 you get 0.15 for the last 50 years, and 0.17 for the last 40 and 30 years. Their’s are nothing like correct. Where did they go wrong?
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by Hugh Jurass
Thanks for the vote of confidence, Michael.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Max_OK, Citizen Scientist
Jim D, I believe that’s called “destructive testing,” which definitely is not a good idea for anything irreplaceable.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Max_OK, Citizen Scientist
jim2, I’m not sure I know what you mean by “I’m already there.” Have you doubled down?
I see Continental Research stock is down about 50% compared to its 52-week high. It’s tempting.
↧
Comment on Week in review by David Wojick
Regarding CO2 enrichment and forest growth the Idso’s just published a lengthy review on the topic:
http://www.co2science.org/subject/f/summaries/forests.php
They also have an extensive database of the science:
↧
Comment on Week in review by Max_OK, Citizen Scientist
While I favor transparency and disclosure, I’m not convinced beyond doubt it will advance science, nor am I confident we will ever know its net effect. I hope it doesn’t result in scientists practicing defensive science. I think about how MD’s practicing defensive medicine has added to the cost of health care.
↧
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by bob droege
I wonder why there is no trendline on that graph?
You had a trendline on the other graph because it supported your hypothesis, what about a trendline on this one, would it support your hypothesis or not?
I am in the too early to tell camp.
↧
Comment on Week in review by David Wojick
The US Feds (CEQ) have just released for public comment draft guidance for including (the Administration’s wild view of) climate change in NEPA environmental impact assessments. Emissions are used as a proxy for impact, meaning these are basically emission reduction rules. Lots of project stopping potential here. Comments due within 60 days.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/Press_Releases/December_18_2014
Unlike the endless academic debate these rules are real and probably irreversible. Another US loss for skeptics. They are mounting up.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Max_OK, Citizen Scientist
Too bad Wal-Mart doesn’t know centralized decision making leads to fragility. Just think how stronger the company could be if it let each store manager just do his own thing.
HA HA !
↧
