I would expect that the (liberal) climate advocacy blogs to “naturally” fall out on the LEFT side while conservative blogs those calling for truth in science, proper use of the scientific method, evidential attribution, Popperian falsification etc. on the RIGHT. As done it was probably either done with tongue in cheek or purely by accident. Usually these things are done by people to prove their point not to show the world as it is. Take it with a grain of salt as they say.
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Danley Wolfe
↧
↧
Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by philjourdan
Another common myth. The problem is reality. Iraq signed the deal with China, not the US. Whether Iraq was a mistake or not, the myth persists with no evidence, just ignorance.
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by ChrisM
When you read the text that goes with the chart:
“Here it should probably be mentioned that a link is not necessarily a recommendation. I know of some US climate scientists that keep an eye on WUWT to know of the latest nonsense story before the journalists start calling. You can be sure that they do not read WUWT to learn about the climate system. The isolation was to be expected given the quality standards at WUWT, which do not fit to science.” No doubt they never inhaled either.
It is obvious this is the latest round of the 97% meme.
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Kevin Lohse
A notable omission from the diagram is the data blog ‘ Wood for Trees’ – at least, I couldn’t find it. Though correlation is not causation, it would seem to give some weight to the hypothesis that data is not important to the policy-led post-normal Climate Activist.
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by LearDog
97% as applied to blog network analysis.
↧
↧
Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by John Smith (it's my real name)
taxes and prohibitions
the rich legally avoid and profit from the black market
the poor illegally avoid and service the black market
the middle pays and obeys the law
that well is running dry
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by curryja
the interesting thing is that climate is a very small segment of the overall study, and the mapping was done objectively (Paige Jarreau doesn’t seem to have a dog in the climate wars)
↧
Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by stevepostrel
Willard: The paper is indeed following the standard for doing national accounting of GDP. That’s a perfectly fine exercise, and economists all understand that that’s all it’s doing. What Appell is doing is misapplying the study as if it describing the impact of fossil fuels on an economic welfare measure, which GDP is not (though it is of course correlated with welfare in broad terms over time). You can’t say that fossil fuels decrease per capita economic welfare if you ignore 90% of the economic surplus created. The paper is fine, but it doesn’t say what Appell wants it to say.
Public finance economists, whose specialty is the impact and incidence of taxation on different parties and groups, have developed more refined techniques using what are called equivalent or compensating variations to capture the welfare impacts of things like taxes on product X. These methods require much more detailed data than the kind of thing used in the Muller et al paper, but they would be the appropriate ones to use to try to draw the conclusion Appell wants to draw. So Muller et al are within the standards for studying GDP but not for the welfare consequences of tax policy (e.g. carbon taxes). It’s not really their fault if people like Appell misapply it. Now if you find one of these authors misapplying it themselves in that way, I’d be willing to deliver a Curry-like critique of their ethics in public discourse, but at least Nordhaus has been pretty careful in my experience (although I disagree with him about policy).
↧
Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by philjourdan
Beats sub-zero. I am not a hockey fan.
↧
↧
Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by Joshua
“Semi-skeptics”
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Tonyb
Hot news!
Rare visitor seen briefly at Real Clmate demonstrating the cutting edge Analysis that shows that 97% of all climate bloggers avoid pseudo scientific web sites such as Real climate and Rabbett Run and visit Wuwt and CLimate etc.
Tonyb
↧
Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by Joshua
Dagnabbit:
“Semi-skeptics.”
↧
Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by Steven Mosher
Willard.
I Love this argument by Gelman
“One scary thing, when we see a paper that has had so many errors, not publicly corrected until five years after publication, is that it can make us wonder how many errors are sitting there in various other articles.”
That is STRAIGHT OUT OF the WUWT climateball playbook.
well played, Gelman. Give that fuel to skeptics who find mistakes in any climate record.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Barry Woods
this is at a contrast with Dr Warren Pearce’s & Dr Brigitte Nerlich’s peer reviewed work? ;-) (the big purple dot – high connectivity, is me)
http://exchange.nottingham.ac.uk/research/communicating-climatechange-on-twitter/
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0094785
and Amelia Sharma’ns peer reviewed work?
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/56519/1/Sharman_Mapping-climate-sceptical-blogosphere_2014.pdf
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Tonyb
Judith
That’s a terrible survey if it was limited to a few people that happened to be reading the sporadic tweets of some random and little known web site. Hardly a methodology that inspires confidence in the objectivity or value of this survey.
Tonyb
↧
Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by RiHo08
Rob Ellison
Thank you for the Bond et al 2013 paper on Black Carbon. The paper is a bit long for what I wanted to get out of it and the language, particularly in describing black carbon particle size as I am use to Mean Mass Diameter instead of Median Aerosol Concentration (MAC). Otherwise I thought the paper was helpful as far as model papers go.
What I was looking for and found in figures 12 and 16 was the model black carbon atmospheric distributions. And as CO2 is co-emitted with black carbon I eye-balled the model of black carbon with the measured CO2 just released.
“http://oco2.jpl.nasa.gov”
As one can see from overlapping of the figures, CO2 is more coming from the Southern Hemisphere than Northern. India doesn’t seem to be a major participant in CO2 production hence the Northern Hemisphere domination of the models misses where black carbon may be coming from. Africa in the higher latitudes; South America in the lower Southern latitudes plus Indonesia etc. seem to me at least to re-inforce the Einstein quote I am paraphrasing about a 1000 experiments showing my theory is right yet it takes only one piece of data to prove me wrong.
I also see that Jim Hansen is liberally used in the modeling of this paper.
I tried to copy and paste the Wikipedia piece of Particular Matter and their mean mass diameter as illustration of regulating PM 10 vs regulating PM >2.5 which does have important health effects.
The Bond et al (2013) paper does have some information on diesel engines, probably insufficient to ferret out what happened recently in Paris.
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Barry Woods
Methodological issue, those in a cyber ghetto, only talk to each other, thus this is what was found?
“What would it look like if you asked 600+ science bloggers to list up to three science blogs, other than their own, that they read on a regular basis, and then visually mapped the resulting data”
(why not make it 10? ie top 3 would miss out lots of blogs, I read regularly)
Actually this seems to support Warren’s work, he found like seems to talk to like… which explains Sou, Realclimate, etc,etc)
With the exception, that UK blogosphere which was much more diverse (but this was on twitter).
Methodological oversight (human nature)
Blogs like Andthersesphysics, Realclimate, won’t even list sceptic blogs on their blogrolls (less a member of the public, clicks on one and reads it?!) , such is there insular thinking so whilst they ‘read’ the sceptic blogs (a lot, to moan about them) they would never admit it!? ;-)
Sou for example (as did ATTP originally), EXISTS to mock/take down Watts Up With That – how can she possibly say she does not read WUWT !!!
↧
↧
Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by Rob Ellison
‘In a world of limited resources, we can’t do everything, so which goals should we prioritize? The Copenhagen Consensus Center provides information on which targets will do the most social good (measured in dollars, but also incorporating e.g. welfare, health and environmental protection), relative to their costs.’ Copenhagen Consensus – post 2015 MDG
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Tonyb
Here is the original survey.
http://www.scilogs.com/from_the_lab_bench/a-network-of-blogs-read-by-science-bloggers/
It is nicely done but it comprised of only 600 bloggers who are by no means representative of the Blogging science community and seems to be a self selecting sample of people that happened to respond to a selection process that hardly seems represntative, rigorous and extensive.
Tonyb
↧
Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by Danny Thomas
Phil,
Still working this over.
By this definition: “money that is paid usually by a government to keep the price of a product or service low or to help a business or organization to continue to function”.
R & D is “deductible” http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Current-year-Deduction-of-Research-Development-Expenditures.
In effect, R & D which leads so prices of products/services being kept low (or the balance of the definition of subsidy), is a subsidy is it not?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
