Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by Don Monfort

0
0

“gotta love those skeptics who think skepticism is restricted to things they dont believe rather than the things they do believe.”

Is skepticism supposed to be restricted to the things we do believe? Do you mean “rather than also including the things they do believe”? Are you saying skeptics are not supposed to believe anything? Aren’t we all entitled to be skeptical of some things, while at the same time believing other things?


Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by Rob Ellison

0
0

Strictly speaking Pigovian taxes are intended to compensate those for whom there is a cost of production that is external to the market. The taxes are intended to bring all costs into the cost structure of the product.

Sin taxes are a very different thing, Hayek warns against unintended consequences of such well intentioned market interventions.

And it is of course hugely rational to compare cigarettes and energy.

Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by AK

0
0
Speaking of skepticism, Steven, do you suppose agriculture <a href="http://journals.lib.washington.edu/index.php/BIPPA/article/view/11971/10596" rel="nofollow">wasn't invented to feed people?</a> In Australia, the natives didn't wear (non-ritual) clothes, and <a href="http://journals.lib.washington.edu/index.php/BIPPA/article/view/9978/10664" rel="nofollow">didn't invent agriculture.</a>

Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Mike Jonas

0
0

“the survey asked every blogger to list three other regularly read science blogs?”. What here is the meaning of “blogger”. I presume it means the one person per blog that runs the blog. eg, Judith Curry for Climate Etc, Gavin Schmidt for RealClimate, etc. Now obviously, these people will actually read many science blogs, but they will predominantly read those of their own “side” of the argument. So when asked to nominate only three, the division shown by the chart is inevitable. IOW, it is an artefact of the procedure used.

But it gets worse. By asking only a limited number of “sceptical” bloggers, and a large number of “alarmist” bloggers (and the survey has clearly extended the notion of “scientific blog” quite dramatically on the “alarmist” side only), obviously the link counts will be much higher for the “alarmist” blogs than for the “sceptical” blogs. So the link counts are also an artefact of the procedure used.

And then just for good measure, a dark colour was used for “alarmist” sites, and a pale colour for “sceptical” sites, so that optically the “alarmists” dominated even more.

WUWT lists 50 blogs with “skeptical views”. If the survey had covered all 50, the divide would probably still have been there, but the “sceptical” websites would have dominated.the chart, with the “alarmist” sites looking like the minor side. IOW, the appearance of the chart depends only on the number of bloggers used on each “side” and on the colours used – and nothing else.

Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by R. Gates

0
0

Entertaining more than informative is this survey. For some It probably would serve best as a map of the central towns of Consensus & GroupThink versus the outlying suburbs of Skepticvillle and Pseudoscientopia. For others, it probably does provide a good general map of real science being discussed on the web versus pseudoscience and entertainment. For me, a Sunday diversion and bit of cyber chatter as my attention is focused on some early release drafts of some very interesting papers coming out early in 2015. Oh my, what a year it will be!

Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by R. Gates

Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by R. Gates

Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Danny Thomas

0
0

ATTP seems to be the most common thread between the “sides” if I’m understanding the chart correctly. This, plus it seems to show that the “sides” don’t cross over very much.


Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Tonyb

0
0

Early release drafts of some very interesting papers?

You are obviously referring to my forthcoming article ‘tranquility, transition and turbulence.’

Thanks for the heads up.

Tonyb

Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by R. Gates

0
0

“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.”
______
I think they have better things to do than keep up with the pseudoscience chatter.

Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by R. Gates

0
0

I’ll add it to my lengthy list of reading Tony. Can’t wait!

Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by R. Gates

0
0

Most active research scientists struggle to keep up with all the various papers coming out pertaining to their field of specialty and closely related fields, not to mention their own research, plus any additional duties, if they teach for example. With only so many hours in a day, time spend on social media sites will be minimal at best. The word gets out on which sites are worth the time and if a scientist is unaware (unlikely) a quick check on the postings tells them all they need to know.

Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by KenW

0
0

wow, a model of an echo chamber.

Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Willis Eschenbach

0
0

Any study that lists HotWhopper on the side of science has the most bizarre definition of “science” that I can imagine …

w.

Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by David Wojick

0
0

Indeed, Tony. Web network analysis is a well developed science but this study looks pretty junky. Links and link transiting activity can actually be measured,


Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by jhprince2014

0
0

you’ve got to be up to your eyeballs with half facts, Gates. How could one possibly post as many times as you do at the length you do and possibly know all you think you know? and then you spend a lot of time on this forum while stating that no one in their right mind would spend their time on blogs like this. (!?)

Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by philjourdan

0
0

Makes you wonder why any alarmist would buy sea front property. Even their most extreme solutions to their imaginary problem does not see mitigation in the near term. Only the complete eradication of Man could stop the coming Anschluss. And so far, none have advocated that.

Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by David Wojick

0
0

I find WUWT quite useful and informative, Gates, so I guess yours is the pseudoscience. (If you are so foolish as to begin name calling be prepared for it to come around to you.)

Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by jhprince2014

0
0

Half truths, no – Partial truths..

Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Rud Istvan

0
0

Judith, it took me a while to grok this post (am watching pathetic Jets beat even more pathetic Dolphins…). Had to study the incredulous diagrams and the methodology.
And now wonder why even bothered to spend junk game time on junk…
piled on junk. Lets see, twitter counts. Well, many sentient beings do not twitter. So survey counts do not relate at all to available web counts, although this pseudoGoogle cited site map is about weblogs. So just more statistical fruit salad.

Look on the positive side. This analysis purports to isolate your CE onto the ‘yellow left’. Thank goodness not onto the ‘purple right’.
If this is what the climate debate is coming down to, then “we” are winning under leadership from the likes of you. There is no other possible explanation for such desparate silliness. Up there with Cook’s bogus 97%.

Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images