Well, we do know that commensurate with the world’s warming since 1942, Greenland accumulated 260 feet of snow and ice over the ‘Glacier Girl':
Comment on Whats up with the Atlantic? by Lucifer
↧
↧
Comment on Whats up with the Atlantic? by beththeserf
A serf’s list of ‘must reads,’ and ‘must listen to’s’
decreases daily. Thank goodness fer CE Open
Society where few comments git deleted.Mann o
‘ Mann!
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by ...and Then There's Physics
<blockquote>
Disparaging bad work is one thing; trying to have it suppressed is another entirely.
</blockquote>
Well, of course I see the difference
<blockquote>
I am somewhat concerned that you don’t seem to be able to see the difference.
</blockquote>
I think this is an example of what Aphan was referring to as a "rhetorical tactic".
<blockquote>
I am indeed arguing that climate science should collectively reject Mann’s work, since it is not up to professional scientific standards.
</blockquote>
What if not everyone agrees?
<blockquote>
A good sign of a healthy scientific community is open debate and disagreement;
</blockquote>
Of course.
<blockquote>
I don’t see any of that from the climate science community, with a few notable exceptions (including our hostess).
</blockquote>
What if I were to give some examples that I thought were notable exceptions, but that differed from your examples?
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by Bad Andrew
“Hopefully it’s just a simple translation issue”
Its not.
Andrew
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by kim
There’s a blackboard stretching into the distant mists. Here’s your chalk.
==============
↧
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by Hans Erren
And that is a tu-quoque
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by kim
The point is, Ken, that trying to list, or delineate, the variable and dynamic beliefs of the pertinent actors in this scientifico/social drama is as complicated as cloud feedbacks.
But go ahead. I’ve a few candidates among consensus believers who’ve delivered critical skeptical moments, particularly those diminishing the possibility of catastrophe.
==================
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by Aphan
You gotta LOVE someone whose nickname screams “religious sermonizer” tries “to defend science by claiming to have insights into the nature of scientific truth that their rhetorical opponents allegedly lack.
It’s so meta-eristic.”
And deliciously ironic.
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by fizzymagic
Members of GWPF, or a regular basis, act like vicious badgers toward scientists.
Please provide some evidence to back up your assertion. Also explain what you mean by “regular basis” and “vicious.”
As has been mentioned before, you are quick to criticize anyone else who makes similar unsupported claims, yet don’t seem to hold yourself to the same standard. Don’t you think that reduces your credibility?
↧
↧
Comment on Whats up with the Atlantic? by Andrew Russell
As Kevin Klein’s character says in The Big Chill: “There’s been no decent music since 1969″ :-)
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA
Is it my impression that the rhetoric from the left and AGW crowd is getting more shrill during the past three months. Is it because they realized they are exposed because too much data and associated interpretations demonstrate that model-based results are off-base? Is it because they fear failure at the up-coming Paris talks and another climategate type of leak? Is it because polls by Gallup and the UN show the public puts climate change as dead last in all its concerns?
This tell me that perhaps, they are on the run and fighting their last battle. I hope that is true.
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by fizzymagic
<i>What if not everyone agrees?</i>
Math is math. Science is based on math, not opinion. A scientific paper with demonstrably bad math should be rejected. I would hope that position is not a matter of opinion in the climate-science community.
I mean, it's not like PCA is rocket science. When you do it as badly as Mann has, it is just embarrassing. For any sizable portion of a community to defend incorrect math is <i>prima facie</i> evidence of something wrong in that community.
<i>What if I were to give some examples that I thought were notable exceptions, but that differed from your examples?</i>
I'd love to read them.
↧
Comment on Whats up with the Atlantic? by kim
I wish I could hear Janis Joplin live……and Maria Radnor.
========================
↧
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by brandon c
It is frozen because for all the talk about objective scientific research, it is all oriented towards the goal of proving co2 the culprit. Redoing the same premise from 100 different angles, won’t advance knowledge if the premise is initally flawed. We need to move back to trying to understand the climate instead of trying to prove AGW is dominant. Its time to start honestly investigating the premise that co2 may be a smaller player or that its warming may not be catastrophic. There is plenty of papers starting to slowly inch towards this, but it being fought tooth and nail by well financed “cause” defense papers that try to prop up a failing position.
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by nutso fasst
“…do look up the word denizen.”
And venal.
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by Willard
> In this I take my lead from the essay “The Essential Tension” by Thomas Kuhn; it is an essay that I think is more insightful than his booklet “The Structure of Scientific Revolution”, but I read it after reading the booklet, so I can’t be sure.
It’s my impression too. In general, I prefer articles to monographies, so I may be biased. Conferences and lectures are the best, since we can hear the philosophers think more genuinely, I find.
Considering that Kuhn is mainly interested in fields like theorical physics, I’m not sure how far we can take his framework to analyze climate science, which is a melting pot of disciplines more than anything. In any case, and since we’re on the Essex’ op-ed thread, it might be of some relevance.to recall where Kuhn shows that the dividing line between “applied” and “pure” mathematics is a fuzzy and changes over time:
***
Perhaps more relevant to our mutual point is this post at James':
Here is Eric Steig refuting her absurd claim about the IPCC that “they will tolerate no dissent, and seek to trample and discredit anyone who challenges the IPCC.” Her eventual response (which had to be dragged out of her through repeated challenges that she kept on ducking) was merely to dismiss it as an “anecdote”, even though one single case serves to refutes her claim. Well, I don’t think I got quite such a rapturous response as Eric did, with my attempts to improve the AR4 drafts, but I certainly didn’t get trampled and discredited either – merely made to feel mildly unwelcome, which I find tends to happen when I criticise people outside the IPCC too. But they did change the report in various ways. While I’m not an unalloyed fan of the IPCC process, my experience is not what she describes it as. So make that two anecdotes. Maybe I’m an “insider” too, in her book :-) If she ever deigns to address the substantive point on probability, maybe she can let me know, but I’m not holding my breath. Her main tactic seems to be throwing up layers upon layers of an increasing shaky edifice as quickly as possible hoping that no-one will notice that the foundations are collapsing as quickly as people can read.
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2010/11/wheres-beef-curry.html
Things take time, it seems. ClimateBall things takes even more time.
Audits, on the other hand, never end.
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by kim
Heh, from Gavin @ Ringberg, Graeme Stephens apparently ran out of blackboard space and time trying to chalk out cloud feedbacks.
==================
↧
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by Willard
> I can hear O’Donnell
Can you still see his smileys too, Koldie?
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by kim
Willard, it’s about clouds….and stuff.
======
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by kim
and ‘ain’t’ and its uses.
=======
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
