Climate change should be the topic for high school debate so that students can see the issues involved.
Comment on NARUC Panel Discussion on Climate Change by Rob Bradley
↧
↧
Comment on NARUC Panel Discussion on Climate Change by Mike Jonas
Kudos to NARUC for organising it, and to all participants. Having been involved in organising similar (but much more modest) events in 2013 and 2007, I understand how appallingly difficult it is.
↧
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by jim2
From the article:
…
The White House told Congress last week it refused to dig into its computers for emails that could shed light on what kinds of private taxpayer information the IRS shares with President Obama’s top aides, assuring Congress that the IRS will address the issue — eventually. The tax agency has already said it doesn’t have the capability to dig out the emails in question, but the White House’s chief counsel, W. Neil Eggleston, insisted in a letter last week to House Committee on Ways and Means Chairman Paul Ryan that the IRS would try again once it finishes with the tea party-targeting scandal.
“It is my understanding that in May 2014, Commissioner Koskinen responded to this request by indicating that the IRS would be able to address new topics such as these following its completion of document productions already in progress,” Mr. Eggleston wrote in a Feb. 17 letter. “To the extent that the committee continues to have an oversight interest in this matter, I encourage you to continue working with the IRS to address those questions.”
…
↧
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by DocMartyn
I think this a rather encouraging development. As the actual temperature, or at least the temperature after it has been through various mincing machines, fails to rise as the GCM predict, the bulk of the climate science field looks increasingly stupid. The various temperature indecies are being attacked, and rudely defended by their creators, yet they still not make the global temperature rise. So what is left? Attack the heretic’s and plat the (wo)man and not the ball.
Judy, you have so worried the ‘it’s worse than we thought’ crowd that they are accusing you of professional misconduct and lying in your work, by among others the President of the USA.
This means that you are winning.
↧
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by aaron
This is a job for the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund. Willie should expect a call offering their support.
↧
↧
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by Mark Silbert
Me too!
↧
Comment on NARUC Panel Discussion on Climate Change by Jim D
Matthew Marler, if he is considering a model as a random walk, he clearly knows nothing about them. His error growth rate is based on that false premise. Models do not diverge like a random walk. The climate has constraints, and things like energy budgets, that limit the behavior within a window. A random walk says nothing about such constraints. Pat Frank has previously tried to say the global average surface temperature is no more accurate than about 1 degree which is his error for a single thermometer. He seems to have his own brand of statistics where more measurements do not reduce a mean error in proportion to the square root. Check his papers. He is a statistics wannabe, but is not even close. He guessed the rejections were all from modelers, but my guess would be that many were statisticians.
↧
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by JustinWonder
Lolrt!
↧
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by Carrick
My initial reaction to this is people need to stop and think what “immediate financial interest” amounts to here.
If you are a utility company selling electricity, the only thing that will change with a draconian Paris accord is the price you charge the customer will go up. The customer will still need electricity, in fact your profit margin likely would be better.
In pharmaceutical research, where a pharm company pays a scientist to study the efficacy of their drug for example, where an obvious immediate financial interest can both be established and should be disclosed. I just don’t see an obvious parallel here.
The energy companies are guilty of funding people who are critical of aspects of climate science (if that is something you can be guilty of), but in the same vein they also fund, in much more massive quantities, people who are mainstream climate researchers.
I think the real problem for the climate science thought police here isn’t that energy companies are solely funding critics of climate science, rather it’s that they are funding them at all. Heretics must be punished.
Because climate science.™
↧
↧
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by Al
I have to say that in your situation I’d be doing everything possible to include all of that information related to travel and work that lands before the arbitrary cut off date.
I don’t have any problem with scientists funding in Climate Science being scrutinized. In fact I think it’s about time. Certainly when what is being published has the potential to be used to determine our economic and social course for decades to come it’s not unreasonable to know who funded it.
I do however, have a problem with people on both sides of the debate who seem to believe that only funding from the other side deserves scrutiny.
As for anyone who thinks one side is more or less corruptible then the other… All I have to say is the program I graduated from allowed students to major in International Business or International Development. In the world we live in the top NGOs are staffed full of and run by the same people who run the worlds largest companies. Business and all that entails, for better or worse, guide both types of organizations. The differences between the two are skin deep. If you blanket distrust one you can’t very well blanket trust the other.
↧
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by aaron
People rarely catch on to the fact that fossil fuel corps are among those who stand to benefit the most from regulation, particularly cap-and-trade.
They also rarely remember ENRON.
↧
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by Peter Davies
Looks like tonyb’s comments below have been orphaned :)
↧
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by Barnes
Any tactic to distract from getting to the truth and exposing the big lie of cagw. There is no honesty in this witch hunt, and you can bet that the clapping seals, aka the msm, will exaggerate or flat out make up “news” that smears anyone daring to chalenge the consensus. I applaud your courage Dr. Curry, as you take fire from both sides of the “debate”.
↧
↧
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by jim2
I’m betting that both Grijalva and Obumbles know the secret Communist’s handshake.
↧
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by Congressman Raul Grijalva’s Witch Hunt | 3000 Quads
[…] I now learn via Judith Curry’s blog that Pielke is not the only scientist being pursued. In addition to Pielke and Curry herself, David […]
↧
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by aaron
They have the people begging government to enforce the wishes of cartels.
↧
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by Barnes
Any tactic to distract from getting to the truth and exposing the big lie of cagw. There is no honesty in this witch hunt, and you can bet that the clapping seals, aka the msm, will exaggerate or flat out make up “news” that smears anyone daring to challenge the consensus. I applaud your courage Dr. Curry, as you take fire from both sides of the “debate”.
↧
↧
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by thomaswfuller2
Does anyone have Raul Grijalva’s email address? It’s not on his website.
↧
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by rah
Why is it considered out of hand it seems that all government funding is pure in intent while all private funding is dirty money automatically requiring a quid pro quo?
For example. If not for the funding of several private foundations this nation’s Astronomy resources this nations first great optical telescopes would not have come into existence when they did and other nations would have led the way.
↧
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by thomaswfuller2
I called Cuccinelli’s investigation of Michael Mann a witch hunt. I didn’t really think I would have to use the term again.
I am a progressive liberal Democrat. I am deeply ashamed of my party affiliation right now.
http://3000quads.com/2015/02/25/congressman-raul-grijalvas-witch-hunt/
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
