Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by swood1000

0
0

Joshua –

Why should he care if people misunderstand what he thinks is obvious?

This notion underlies your entire post. I think he does. Did you think that my suggestions were ill-intentioned, or were meant other than as suggestions for reducing misunderstanding, made in good faith? On ATTP when I posted that the public perception of some scientists can be impacted by what other scientists do, you replied

You seem think that there is a significant amount of distrust in the public for government-funded research.

No, that’s not what I said. That’s your imagination.


Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by Mike Flynn

0
0

mosomoso,

You wrote –

“The business of Stuff Which Hasn’t Happened Yet has no boundaries whatever.”

Oh, how I wish I could have written that first!

What a grand business to be in! What Government could resist the siren call of pouring taxpayers’ funds into an enterprise of such boundless potential!

Yes! Yes! Incarcerate everyone with a funny name. If they haven’t blown anyone up to date, that’s just another example of Stuff that Hasn’t Happened Yet.

Globe not warming? Persecute anybody who says so! Just because it Hasn’t Happened Yet means we must support those who say it might! Who can prove them wrong!

After all, we are in the business of promoting Stuff Which Hasn’t Happened Yet in the pursuit of Truth, Justice, and The American Way, aren’t we? Why else would the U.S. have legislators?

Live well and prosper,

Mike Flynn.

Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by Joseph

0
0
<blockquote>. In fact, FF indirectly funds much of the science that supports the AGW theory via their funding of universities. </blockquote> You have failed to answer my question. Go back, read it again and then get back to me

Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by Danny Thomas

0
0

Joseph,
Fair question and point that I didn’t answer directly:”Why do we need vested fossil fuel interests (specifically) to fund climate science?”
Because they are impacted just like every other person, entity and, government and it’s their right to do with their money as they chose.
What entities do you wish to disallow to fund climate science? Examples I can think of that have vested interests include: GE (wind turbines), Re-insurance and insurance, Flood insurance, Solar, Hydro, Berkshire, Agriculture. So who would chose and why? Why would you exclude soley FF?

Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by Danny Thomas

Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by beththeserf

0
0

Tres bon,
Mike. Flynn.

Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by Planning Engineer

0
0

Rob Starkey – you are entirely missing the point. The clients do now want accurate/true/credible forecasts necessarily. They want forecasts that support them receiving projects. If the fo erases prove bad, it does not hurt the clients. The conflict is that financial and client pressures are agains honest forecasts. You can make more money by skewing to th extreme side.

Comment on Week in review by PMHinSC


Comment on Week in review by Wagathon

0
0
<blockquote> Global Warming has become a religion. A surprisingly large number of people seem to have concluded that all that gives meaning to their lives is the belief that they are saving the planet by paying attention to their carbon footprint. There may be a growing realization that this may not add all that much meaning to one’s life, but, outside the pages of the Wall Street Journal, this has not been widely promulgated, and people with no other source of meaning will defend their religion with jihadist zeal. ~Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. (‘Science in the Public Square: Global Climate Alarmism and Historical Precedents’) </blockquote>

Comment on Week in review by Wagathon

0
0

When sample size is irrelevant, science is pretty easy: just say what you feel and feel what you say.

Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science by Planning Engineer

0
0

Professional integrity is what is at risk. When the clients want answers not consistent with truth, professionals of integrity will find it hard to feed their families while those who will “pimp” their services and shade the truth to match their clients wishes will prosper. Markets are great for many things – but not for buying credentialed opinion.

Comment on Week in review by Rud Istvan

0
0

I followed Zeke over to SKS, and now wish I has not. Arguements weaker than posted earlier here, no rebuttals to previous thread critiques here.
Why flee over there to ‘repost’ same old, unless just more comfortable?
Not worth delving into details. motives and locations are a big wave off.

Comment on Week in review by David Appell

0
0

Judity wrote:
>> The big story this week is that Rachendra Pachauri has resigned from the IPCC, over a sexual harassment scandal [link]. <<

Your politics are showing, Judith. Ever hear of Willie Soon?

Comment on Week in review by David Appell

0
0

In my experience Zeke is very mathematical in his claims.

So which of his claims do you agree with, and why?

Comment on Week in review by Planning Engineer

0
0

False dilemma? D finely a real dilemma. Still out of country but quick comment without full review. NERCS comments are very restrained. Don’t forget NERC includes industry representatives from the renwable energy sector and they push and have considerable power to moderating the responses of NERC. We were trying to state the obvious and they worked to weasel and water it down, Trying to agree with Battle if you spend enough money the reliability impacts can be mitigated to a larg extent. But it is likely so large an amount that will not ever be spent and reliability would suffer. You certainly can’t have reliability at costs near where they are now.


Comment on Week in review by Mike Flynn

0
0

Rud Istvan,

As Wagathon quoted –

“Global Warming has become a religion.” Zeke presumably prefers preaching to the converted, rather than being heckled by the unbelievers. I am reasonably sure he thinks his work has value, rather than being a waste of time, effort, and somebody else’s money.

Endlessly trying to establish past temperatures has no effect on tomorrow – but I have objection to somebody indulging their fantasy, as long as they don’t expect my willing participation. It’s all a bit odd, isn’t it?

Live well and prosper,

Mike Flynn.

Comment on Week in review by mosomoso

0
0

Why be a common warmie when you can be a adaptationist, carbon sequestrator, or something else cool that can be redefined at need? And you only prepare for the eventualities predicted by experts in these fields, rather than for ALL eventualities, like with common engineers. Gotta be cheaper. Like when the adaptation experts saved us the cost of new dams in Australia because the rain had gone for good. (Pity about the rain interrupting the construction of desals…but we haven’t needed the desals, so no big deal.)

The main thing is to keep that climatariat front and centre – hard line or soft line, hot or lukewarm.

The climatariat IS the message.

Comment on Week in review by curryja

0
0

Oh yeah i forgot, willie soon is more important than pachauri

Comment on Week in review by John Vonderlin

0
0

“Media Reports that GMO Science is Settled are Flat Out Wrong”
Please note that the article’s most important contention is that 300 scientists signed as supporters of a paper supporting the title’s contention that was published in the Open Access journal “Environmental Science Europe.” That journal is one of a huge number of online journals printed by SpringerOpen.
Then remember that: “The publishers Springer and IEEE are removing more than 120 papers from their subscription services after a French researcher discovered that the works were computer-generated nonsense.” I guess Abe Lincoln was right when he said, “Don’t believe everything you read on the Internet.”
Then nurture your skepticism because the anti-GMO group USRTK suffers from a dangerous affliction: “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” C.S. Lewis

Comment on Week in review by Guy

0
0

Why are we still engaging in debates about carbon dioxide as a cause of climate change? Isn’t there a large body of evidence that an increase in the earth’s temperature results in an increase in atmospheric co2 and not vice versa? So says Piers Corbyn, Managing Director and founder of WeatherAction.com. Mr. Corbyn asserts, “…there is no observational evidence in the thousands and millions of years of data that changes in CO2 have any effect on weather or climate. There are no scientists in the world who can produce such observational data. There is only effect the other way, namely that ocean temperatures control average CO2 levels.”

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images