thx
Comment on Public intellectuals in the climate space by curryja
↧
↧
Comment on Denizens II by Phil Howerton
As a retired judge and previously an assistant district attorney and a public defender, I come to this issue from a legal standpoint. I am a graduate of Davidson College, the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and the University of Virginia Law School.
The best I can recall, I came to Climate Audit, Steve McIntyre, Ross M, Roger Jr., Bishop Hill, Jeff ID and others when I read early in 2000 about Steve’s finding regarding some of Hansen’s errors. After that, of course, was Climategate. My impressions later reading Realclimate convinced me, as a long time arbiter of evidence, that there was something decidedly fishy about the alarmist scientific community; most particularly Michael Mann.
Nothing since has caused me to change my mind. The honesty and openness characterized by Steve, Judy, NIc and many others in this debate, viewed in the light of the tactics of the alarmists has made me a skeptic.
↧
Comment on Public intellectuals in the climate space by Matthew R Marler
JCH: <i>copy of the study </i>
Thank you for the link.
↧
Comment on Denizens II by Richard Drake
I don’t think you meant 2000. 2008?
↧
Comment on Public intellectuals in the climate space by chris.kurowski@rogers.com
So long as the intellectuals are communicating, I did ask a while ago about a simple block diagram demonstrating where and in what context the water vapour positive feedback phenomenon was occurring. Oddly not a soul seems able to manage this, yet in other fields which employ finite element analysis it is quite common to put together first order block diagrams showing feedforward and feedback points at least to an approximate degree of physical reality. The climate field seems to be the only field where what one gets is a mess of word smithing instead. How odd. Chris Kurowski
↧
↧
Comment on Public intellectuals in the climate space by curryja
There are many feedback diagrams out there in the literature, see chapter 13 in my thermodynamics text
text: http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/climate/pdf/Ch13_GalleyC.pdf
figures: http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/climate/pdf/chapter13_figs.pdf
↧
Comment on Public intellectuals in the climate space by JustinWonder
FOMD
So Kat Hayhoe is the next James earth-is-gonna-be-hot-like-Venus Hansen. From your wiki link, she is :
1. An atmospheric scientist
2. Professor of … Politics (??? !!!)
3. An evangelical
4. Married to a preacher
You are correct! She is the perfect candidate for the CAWG mission! The climate rapture is coming! Repent! Turn out the lights, turn off the AC! Unplug the computer and the tv! Ride a bike, no, that is made in China, better to walk to work, if you have a job. Throw away your shoes and run barefoot in the clover and do away with Haber-B. nitrogen fertilizers!
Btw, I love the cartoon of the beach house and the tsunami. I suppose beach property is dirt cheap, since everyone knows those beach houses are doomed. Here in Obamaville (80% in the Dem. tank), CA beach houses are $3 million and up, and they even have Obama stickers on their BMWs and Teslas! Wassup with that, eh?
↧
Comment on Taxonomy of climate/energy policy perspectives by cleanenergypundit
The whole plan to reduce carbon emissions stems from the UN/IMF/IPCC fairy-tale of man-made global warming (through carbon dioxide emissions = anthropogenic global warming, AGW for short) which is altering the Earth’s climate, no less, to near extinction if all that hype were true.
That man-made fairy-tale, however, is nothing but the biggest political and intellectual fraud ever.
In arriving at this opinion, I rely on two sources:
on what I have seen with my own eyes,
on what I have read . Details at http://tinyurl.com/naexuho
↧
Comment on Taxonomy of climate/energy policy perspectives by cleanenergypundit
apologies for duplication – just notice I have posted this comment before, but the cartoon on the blog itself is worth a look.
↧
↧
Comment on Public intellectuals in the climate space by Jacob
That would include also all those sociologists and psychologists who research and write about the “phenomenon” of science denial (a.k.a. climate science denial).
They have absolutely zero expertise or understanding in climate science or physics in general.
↧
Comment on Public intellectuals in the climate space by Danny Thomas
Huh! And I was under the impression this whole climate thingy was complicated. :)
↧
Comment on Public intellectuals in the climate space by Dan Pangburn
<strong>JC SNIP theories of climate change are off topic for this thread</strong>
↧
Comment on Public intellectuals in the climate space by Joshua
==> “I knew Hamilton, who I would class as a third-rate loser, ”
The basic problem according to Buddhism, is that emotions like anger and hatred are based on projections and exaggeration, not on objectivity or wisdom, and thus basically incorrect.
↧
↧
Comment on Public intellectuals in the climate space by kennedy maize
A postcard on my office bulletin board, which I’ve had for about 20 years, from Steve Brill of Brill’s Content, a defunct but influential magazine, says a lot:
Skepticism is a weapon. It deflects spin, propaganda, P.R., B.S., press agents, publicity seekers, hearsay, unnamed sources, and anyone with a hidden agenda.
Skepticism is that little voice that tells you you’ll never be a millionaire with little or no money down.
Skepticism is that sneaking suspicion that all aspirin are alike.
Skepticism is a quality shared by truth seekers, freethinkers and realists.
Skepticism demands that proof and facts be unsanitized, uncensored and unembellished.
Skepticism make the world accountable.
Skepticism is a virtue.
↧
Comment on Public intellectuals in the climate space by Danny Thomas
Latest Pew survey on Scientists and Engaging the Public: http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/02/15/how-scientists-engage-public/?utm_source=Pew+Research+Center&utm_campaign=53bfeec39c-2_19_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3e953b9b70-53bfeec39c-399622865
↧
Comment on Public intellectuals in the climate space by JD Ohio
One suggestion to encourage an improvement in the level of public discourse. Maybe Steve Mosher can get Richard Muller to have a formal public discussion with Steve Mcintyre or Freeman Dyson (if Dyson is still interested in climate issues) I would avoid making it a debate and call it a frank discussion of science and public policy. I think it might be useful and interesting and might encourage additional frank discussions and rational public discourse.
JD
↧
Comment on Public intellectuals in the climate space by Danny Thomas
↧
↧
Comment on Denizens II by Rui Sousa
I will start with a few statements, then my background.
1. I believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
2. I believe the earth’s climate changes.
3. I believe man can change the climate with its actions.
4. I believe man is producing CO2 at a rate that seems to match the rate of growth of CO2 concentration on the atmosphere.
5. I have difficulty to accept claims of catastrophic consequences of less than 1 C in an trend, either warming or cooling, because these claims usually fail to include other facts in which I believe. E.g. terrestrial animals are adapted to have sometimes more than 20C amplitude in one day, how can they die because of a trend of 0.x in a decade?
6. Science facts originated from statistics are facts, but they don’t explain reality. The ‘mechanics of things’ is not explained but statistics.
7. I believe our knowledge of the mechanics of our climate are still being discovered, and it is too soon to make claims.
8. Archeological evidences of human activities found under receding glaciers, don’t support the claims of a ‘drastic’ change on the climate.
My professional background is on IT, having 20 years of experience as a developer. I have a Diploma on computer sciences and a licentiate degree in history. I have developer computer systems that deal with huge amounts of data and complex rules, so computer made climate models don’t impress me, some of the source code for climate related software I have seen was not great and very outdated, again didn’t impress me at all.
Having done data analysis that drove critical business decisions, I always find catastrophic claims of future consequences as not serious, because they are presented in a way that in a business environment would be called out as bull**** by any CEO. If computer models are so good why isn’t there a single stock market successful model? Why aren’t clinical computer models as good as actual trials? I believe that is so because our understanding of reality is limited, and overlooking our ignorance when analysing data is not serious, claims of 95% certainty for future events are seen by me as acts of egomania, a personality flaw.
That is why I am sceptic of catastrophic consequences of predicted climate change as a consequence of man’s actions.
↧
Comment on Denizens II by Rui Sousa
Forgot to mention I am a libertarian socialist and an environmentalist. I think we pollute too much in the name of progress, and we should limit our impact on the environment even if it costs more.
I am an apologist of electrical cars and I hope we walk away from fossil fuels as soon as possible.
Not what is usually associated with climate deniers, but there you have it.
↧
Comment on Public intellectuals in the climate space by A fan of *MORE* discourse
JustinWonder affirms [with mocking intent] “Kat Hayhoe is the […] perfect candidate for the [climate-change science] mission.”
JustinWonder, your mockery of Katherine Hayhoe inspires reflection …
Yes, Katherine Hayhoe’s blending of respect-for-science with respect-for-religion
carries forward — outstandingly! — the tradition of religion-respecting science of (for example) Jane Goodall and Ed Wilson …
as compatible with the science-respecting religion of (for example) Wendell Berry and Jorge Mario Bergoglio (Pope Francis).
Conclusion Thank you sincerely, JustinWonder, for helping Climate Etc readers to appreciate the accelerating 21st century union of science-respecting religion with religion-respecting science.
Good on `yah JustinWonder, for inspiring deeper reading and mature reflection!
![\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}")
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
