Carrick – did I really say all models are right? I’m seldom that intelligent!
Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by JCH
↧
↧
Comment on IPCC in transition by swood1000
Steven Mosher –
Here is a challenge. write what you believe without asking a question.
if you respond with a question you lose.
if you respond with what you believe then you’ll bear a burden of proof.
uggggg
swood1000. Don’t use questions to argue.
Just stop it. It’s annoying.
Well, there are two issues here. One is your objection to my asking questions. The other is your assertion that a person who states what he believes always bears the burden of proof about that. Consider these statements of my belief:
1. I don’t know what you mean by a CAGW strawman.
2. When Trenberth refers to “climate disasters” I understand him to be doing what is referred to as “raising a CAGW strawman.”
3. You appear to regard AGW as alarming.
4. If a person is finding a balance between being effective and being honest, as Schneider proposed in one interview, that necessarily involves a little bit of compromise to each. Nothing else can be meant by “balance”.
5. Two scientists should report the results of a study the same way, regardless of their policy preferences.
The first three are statements of personal belief which require no proof. The last two statements are ones that I would have no objection to supplying proof for. There have been two difficulties, however. The first is that if my immediate goal is to ascertain a person’s position it should make no difference whether I ask the person’s position in the form of a question, of if I state a belief and ask the person whether he disagrees with it. Do you see a difference? The second is that whichever way it is asked, there is nothing illegitimate about these questions. Number four assumes that Schneider did make such a proposal, so if that is doubted it is proper to ask for proof of this. But each of these questions was met with evasions and/or assertions that the question was illegitimate as “just asking questions” or as a “hypothetical question” or as beneath the dignity of a response for some similar reason. Can you explain any of this, as well as what is objectionable about asking for a person’s position?
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by beththeserf
Fan oh Fan, if u were a serf out
in all weathers you would know,
as Tony Brown, (anuther serf?)
has discovered in the historical
records, that whether is *variable.*
Why Fan, here down under,
drought ‘n flood, nay-chur
keeps serfs on our toes,
out back in Oz, everybody knows,
that’s how it goes. In Lake Eyre
fish are jumpin’ in the desert
‘n hopefully, up north,
the cotton’s high.
http://kirkhopeaviation.com.au/lake-eyre-filling-flood-water/
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Muon
The “97% Herd”. Nice ring about that.
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by beththeserf
Drought’n flood, fan,
every one out-back
down-under knows,
naychur keeps us
on our toes,
that’s how it goes.
http://kirkhopeaviation.com.au/lake-eyre-filling-flood-water/
↧
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by tonyb
Mosh
Your 9.20 has left me more baffled than ever as I have still no idea whatsoever as to why you think any of that was bad faith.
We exchanged ideas and positions. I asked questions as I was intrigued by your initial statement, but recognised buying the coal in the ground was only one part of the equation and asked what could replace it as each country’s circumstances are different. It evolved from there.
Bad Faith? No you have way over analysed the meaning and intent of our discussion which as far as I was concerned was merely examining a few ideas not trying to score points.
tonyb
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Agnostic
I thought this a very poetic and apt post. Presumably you disagree with this fellow:
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Muon
I can only assume our supposed fan of discourse is a child < 10 years old, being taught state-worship at a state school, including to faithfully regurgitate whatever official state propaganda the government climate stooges, lackeys and totalitarians are doing in their efforts to promote more government by stoking up climate alarm. No adult, of their own accord, could possibly be as cretinous as he presents. Even the UnrealClimate lot have at least a semblence of reason at times.
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by A fan of *MORE* discourse
RESOLVED
It is hereby resolved by Climate Etc readers of all persuasions in regard to AGW that:
• Judith Curry is a first-rate scientist, and
• Judith Curry demonstrates a first-rate commitment to open discourse, and
• Judith Curry has a first-rate sense of humor.
Your outstanding service and your “trifecta of merit” is appreciated by many, Judith Curry!
———–
The above is posted in response to a deplorable surge in Climate Etc posts that are just plain toxic (no science, no reason, no humor).
*NO ONE* needs that kind of toxic post, eh Climate Etc readers?
Thank you for supporting discourse that unites science, reason, and humor, Judith Curry!
![\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}")
↧
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by A fan of *MORE* discourse
Muon avers “No adult, of their own accord, could possibly be as cretinous as he [FOMD] presents.”
Lol … FOMD aspires someday to a comparable level of adult cognition to the comments on Neven’s Arctic Sea Ice thread “Mad max?“
Praiseworthy Commenter “Old Leatherneck” ain’t afraid to do what denialists daren’t do: POST THE ODDS:
Some Horse Race!!• The horse is the declining sea ice.
• Humankind is the jockey.
• CO2 is the drug being injected to cause the horse to run/decline faster.
Current odds are as follows for September of 2015:
400:1 Continuous ice from NW Passage to Siberia
200:1 Ice remaining in Hudson Bay
12:1 2015 Extent lowest year on record
8:1 2015 Extent within lowest 2 years on record
5:1 2015 Extent within lowest 3 years on record
3:1 2015 Extent within lowest 4 years on record
2:1 2015 Extent within lowest 5 years on recordNOTE: Race will be cancelled if Krakatoa, Pinatubo and the Yellowstone Caldera all erupt within the next few weeks!
Background The Arctic is seeing record-early / record-low ice areas in 2015.
More evidence that “the pause” is toast.
Good on `yah for science, rationality, *AND* humor, Old Leatherneck!
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by kim
No Devil? Who the heck do you think thought this whole catastrophe business up? Surely humans alone couldn’t have come up with it.
==============
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by kim
Note the vast potential for temptation within this Extraordinary Popular Delusion of catastrophe. These are temptations expected theoretically, and richly demonstrated in practice. Name a phenomenon more replete with desire for fame, treasure, and power and the corruptions around the fulfillment. One needn’t personify the Devil, for that angelic presence to pervade.
================
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by kim
Nope, teacher to a ten year old for whom wonder has been murdered.
==============
↧
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Willard
> as far as I was concerned was merely examining a few ideas
Just asking questions.
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by kim
All in favor close eyes.
================
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by RiHo08
Agnostic
Thanks for the video, I didn’t have a clue that I would live to observe my own species extinction. The extraordinary rapid rise in surface temperatures and the logarithmic growth in population; i.e. the bacteria in a petri dish example, allows me the opportunity to acknowledge and appreciate what I have now.
I am truly sorry that my capricious and wasteful ways means that my grandchildren will suffer the consequences of my conflagrant ways. What it means of course is that from our cabin on the shores of Gichi-gami we will see the forests burn, the water will go dry, the air will be foul, and people will fight for the last insect, snake and vole as food. How depressing.
I, and subsequently my children grew up frolicking on those shores and return in kind with their children, my grandchildren, to frolic on and in the clear waters. Summer has been so inviting. At least we have shared memories of the time when….
From neighbors’ reports, the ice is still pretty thick on the waters, the forests are filled with snow, and the winter sunsets are at times as spectacular as those in the summer. I haven’t had a chance to get to the cabin as the road isn’t plowed and of course, neither is my driveway, over the river and through the woods and all that.
At least these last few years we can make our short time at the cabin as rich and fulfilling as we possibly can.
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Michael
“eliminate the need for any immediate actions if the current levels are not clearly resulting in net harm” – Rob
My earlier point about our weakness in assessing risk is demonstrated in this comment.
↧
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by swood1000
no one suspected your motives.
This is a falsehood. You cannot, with credibility, make statements like this and then complain that others are not “engaging without pretense.”
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by PA
Jim D | March 10, 2015 at 12:17 am |
PA, Bob Inglis was the last Republican to say global warming was human-caused. He lost his job, and everyone has pleaded ignorance on this since then.
This is simply incorrect.
Eight Republican congressmen are on the AGW bandwagon based on public statements.
Many Republican congressman have not staked out a clear position. This isn’t surprising, many people think there are serious problems to worry about and haven’t given global warming a lot of thought.
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by JustinWonder
John Smith
You are spot on. Historically, rulers have depended on the Devine to justify their power and privilege. Sometimes the ruler would be an ambassador to the God(s), intervening on behalf of the people to avoid some catastrophe. Nothing has changed, except some of us have growed kup. In times past, we would be dispatched as hermitics.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
