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

Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by jim2

0
0

Right now Raul is small potatoes. Maybe he’s trying to attract more “attention.”

Total Campaign Contributions Received by Raúl M. Grijalva: $487,084

Public Sector Unions $52,000
Casinos/Gambling $47,591
Transportation Unions $34,000
Industrial Unions $30,200
General Labor Unions $27,250
Lawyers/Law Firms $23,200
Lobbyists $20,942
Crop Production & Basic Processing $19,650
Building Trade Unions $18,500
Hospitals/Nursing Homes $14,000

Service Employees International Union $15,000
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers $10,000
American Crystal Sugar $10,000
Border Health $10,000
United Food and Commercial Workers International Union $10,000
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America $10,000
International Brotherhood of Teamsters $10,000
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees $10,000
National Education Association $10,000
American Federation of Teachers $10,000

http://maplight.org/us-congress/legislator/268-ral-m-grijalva


Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by jim2

0
0

From that same site:

Top 10 Contributing Zip Codes

Washington, DC 20036 $59,624
Washington, DC 20001 $58,400
Washington, DC 20006 $45,000
Tucson, AZ 85718 $30,416
Washington, DC 20005 $26,750
Washington, DC 20004 $22,750
Tucson, AZ 85716 $22,158
Washington, DC 20007 $18,500
Chicago, IL 60611 $15,000
Lakewood, OH 44107 $15,000

Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by thomaswfuller2

0
0

Joseph, you should think about this a little more. I am a liberal Democrat who has been an enthusiastic supporter of Barack Obama for more than 8 years. And Joseph McCarthy was the first person I thought of when I read about this.

Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by Lawrie Ayres

0
0

Just ask all the consensus scientists to state their funding sources. A big long list of US taxpayer funded agencies might show the discrepancy in funding. It could be very embarrassing.

Comment on NARUC Panel Discussion on Climate Change by Dr. Strangelove

0
0

Correction: the satellite data are from RSS not GISS

Even using land surface air temperature (CRUTEM3) the warming in 1910-1940 (0.2 C/decade) is higher than warming in 1951-2010 (0.17 C/decade) or perhaps equal given regression error

Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by Mike Flynn

0
0

Possibly relevant quote from Mahatma Ghandi –

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

Live well and prosper,

Mike Flynn

Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by nottawa rafter

0
0

I never thought I would live through that period again. How sad that a person can be intimidated for having a particular view of a physical phenomenon.

We are seeing the worst and the best of our country. Keep up the courage to hold onto your scientific principles.

Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by Michael Edwards

0
0

So sad to see the replies from the community “to establish climate change”. Hell, changing the name from climate warming to climate change (which is of course always happening) hit me hard, since growing up in 1950-60’s with climate cooling with some of the same activists, and clued me into the lying. This is still there. And now upping the ante. As said, so sad. And yet you let the useless Josuah and “Fan” to continue their mindless commentary. You are Prof Curry a very good person.


Comment on Understanding Time of Observation Bias by Curious George

0
0

John – we are talking mean DAILY temperature. Learn to read.

Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by Craig Loehle

0
0

This is not about conflict of interest, but about tarring your opponents with having consorted with devils (ie, the Koch brothers).
Conflict of interest is everywhere. Every scientist has a point of view that colors his work. Some prefer experiments, some theory.
Every source of funding but a very few come with strings attached of some sort. Most federal funding, even for “basic research”, now wants a statement of significance for society (just saying it helps us understand the atom isn’t good enough) and one is supposed even to structure the project to achieve progressive goals like minority recruitment to science. The call for proposals is often phrased in terms of protecting oceans or enhancing biodiversity, rather than studying same. It is almost impossible to get a grant without making some promise about your results before you have even done the work.
But all of this is why we have the scientific method and why science is ad hoc–everyone can contribute and we all then must evaluate what is produced in terms of quality and what it means. This striving for consensus is sick and totalitarian–it isn’t science.

Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by aaron

0
0

[audio src="http://files.libertyfund.org/econtalk/y2007/Yandleregulation.mp3" /]

Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by aaron

0
0

[audio src="http://files.libertyfund.org/econtalk/y2007/Yandleregulation.mp3" /]

Bruce Yandle of Clemson University explains why politics makes such strange bedfellows and the often peculiar alliance of self-interested special interests with more altruistic motives. He uses his insights to explain some of the seemingly perverse but politically understandable effects of the Clean Air Act, the tobacco settlement and other regulation.

http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2007/01/bruce_yandle_on.html

Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by GaryM

Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by steven

0
0

I don’t see how this situation can do anything other than escalate. I don’t see how it can be good for any climate scientist regardless of their views. All it is likely to do is scare off potential contributors and make making a living much more difficult for everyone in the field.

Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by Bob Greene

0
0

Nick, this sounds good until you actually read the Barton letter. The only similarity was asking for a list of ALL funding. The main part of the request was about data, data quality, methods and transparency. As you may be aware, there was some concern about Mann’s research, results and his refusal to make data and methods available. I did not see that Barton used the equivalent of “Koch Brothers” in his request, nor did he use “hide the decline.” Had Mann been transparent and open about research and methods, this letter likely would never have been written.

A very long time ago, when I prepared papers for publication, all data and methods were available so anyone “skilled in the art” could reproduce my work. But that was chemistry, which seems to be a bit different than climate science.


Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by David L. Hagen

0
0
Rep. Raul Grijalva is committing slander, libel and publicly attacking the foundations of the scientific method. He will have to stand before <a href="http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html" rel="nofollow">the Judge of all the world</a> who declared: <a href="http://biblehub.com/matthew/12-36.htm" rel="nofollow">I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak </a>

Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by maxdaddy

0
0

What does this have to do with anything? Most House members have very safe seats. Every two years for several years, just weeks after House elections, an organization underlines this point by successfully predicting who will win the NEXT election in all districts. Mostly (>90%), the incumbents are predicted to win, and do, in fact, next time out, win. So maybe they’re raising money but they don’t need it. Or it’s stuffed into leadership PACs through which they can give big donations to each other. It’s quite the little scam since donations through these PACs are far higher than those allowed to ordinary mortals.

Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by EdG

0
0

Are you now, or have you ever been, an Independent Thinker?

Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by Richard Fitzwell

Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by Skiphil

0
0

not exactly, it will only discourage politically incorrect testimony — the consensus fanatics will get just the testimony they want

Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images