Why you tolerating all this disrespect, kenny? Ban ‘em all! Oh, I forgot.
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by Don Monfort
↧
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by Danny Thomas
Jim2,
I’ll take my taxes being zero if the trade is I have to address congress for wanting something like “laws or whatever”. However, I can’t see how that’s gonna work.
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by Willard
> Do you really think being an ass is going to help with the honesty problem?
Does AT has another problem besides beating his wife Rachel?
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by jim2
It works by having citizens that have the right to vote to pay all the taxes. It is helped along by cutting the size and complexity of government and the laws so the government doesn’t need so much money.
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by jim2
I forgot to add that a zero corporate tax should lure businesses back to the US, thereby creating jobs that supply the money that pay the people that pay taxes.
↧
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by ristvan
Paul, I do not share your pessimism (see downthread, previously posted). Understand where you are coming from in the UK. But ever since UNFCCC in 1992? this has been a global play. Unfortunately the UK’s disfunctional renewable electricity silliness will be part of the global object lessons now arriving, which color my optimism that ‘this will soon pass’.
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by Eddie Turbulence
Wait a minute.
Models predict a ‘hot spot’ that doesn’t appear ( indicating a failure of dynamics )?
-Never mind, no need for skepticism.
Models fail to exhibit proper energy distributions ( per recent Stephens paper )?
-Never mind, no need for skepticism.
For the satellite era, all observed trends less than models ( Hansen A,B,C, IPCC AR4 near term projections, RCP scenarios )?
-Never mind, no need for skepticism.
Tom Naughton had a great bit about good science and bad science.
Good science rejects or revises the theory that all swans are white when encountering a black swan.
Bad science spends its time claiming the black swan isn’t black, or isn’t a swan.
In these and other matters, the mainstream is bad science.
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by Willard
Maybe you’re presuming corporations have more rights than academics, jim2.
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by Danny Thomas
Jim2,
Wait. Do I understand this correctly? Corporations can have a voice before congress, yet pay no taxes, and they provide funding for candidates of their chosing, yet I as an individual don’t have the same kind of resources nor same voice all while I pay taxes?
↧
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by Sciguy54
Imposing a law restricting the freedom of another is a concrete act.
If a person supposes that an activity of another might in theory affect their offspring to some unknown extent, at some unknown time in the future, then that is not sufficient to take anything more than the most trivial freedom from another. If you want to impose your will on another you must provide the proof of harm. If you don’t have proof, then go away and work on improving your own neck of the woods instead of demanding that someone else remodel theirs. Or else gather your forces and prepare to back your demands with force.
This is not a symmetrical debate.
One side is gathering the political forces needed to trample the freedoms of another. Proof of climate sensitivity would be nice, but it becomes more obvious over time that it is not really required. How else does one interpret the rush to worldwide regulation even as models diverge from reality?
One side asks to be left alone unless proof of net harm is provided, given the backdrop of vastly improving living conditions since the dawn of the industrial revolution.
Mark, I mean you no ill will and take your argument as a fairly offered one. But I strongly disagree with your premise.
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by Don Monfort
===========>”Do you think there’s a difference between “analysis” and evidence-free speculation?”
It could be interesting to Judith due the lack of evidence, joshie. You are interesting. Like a train wreck is interesting. Shall we take a vote on that, joshie? Wouldn’t that be evidence?
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by John Smith (it's my real name)
I doubt Barack Obama or Ban Ki Moon has any idea what AMOC is. Mention ‘hockey stick’ and they think sports. They don’t give a wit about the science, only the politics.
It’s not about the demands.
It’s about the yoke.
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by Eddie Turbulence
</i>Thus, people like Essex don’t want to open up science to newcomers, they want to lower the bar on what science is welcome, a bar so low that people are going to waste their time reading too much of “the moon is made of green cheese” and not get productive work done.</i>
You mean like a certain PhD we know that used suspect methods to create a hockey stick that had to be uncovered by a certain retiree in Canada?
↧
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by Danny Thomas
Willard,
Ah! The game of climate ball. Not being as well versed as most I was not familiar with the e-mail from which you quoted, but google is a wonderful thing.
From the paragraph just above your offering of a “seldom quoted e-mail” this was found: “The “Skeptics”–and I put the term in quotes and capitalize it as it is a name a few have absconded with when all good scientists are taught and practice a degree of skepticism-“…………………………..
I, for one, “believe” that IPCC might have been a better organization had they not stepped of into the realm of “policy”.
Thank you for the lesson.
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by Mark Bofill
Thanks Sciguy. In point of fact I agree with you. Because I agree with you, I’m interesting in understanding the boundaries of the argument (so to speak) clearly.
It seems to me that hard proof of scientific theories is hard to come by. Theories stand for centuries sometimes. Of course, when they are overturned it’s sometimes because they were found to be incomplete cases, like classical and quantum physics. Still, it seems hard to definitively prove much of anything.
It seems reasonable to me that we accept some substantial amount of evidence instead. Maybe quantum physics would serve as an example; it stands because it works. It makes predictions that are borne out in reality, time and time again. If it didn’t work, all sorts of devices that rely on it wouldn’t work. So it seems reasonable to accept it.
In my case with respect to climate science, I can say that I’d never have thought to question the science in the first place except that atmospheric temperatures haven’t behaved as projected by AR4, and this appeared to surprise the climate science community. So, in my view, there’s something wrong. I’m not willing to accept additional regulation and restrictions on my freedom on the say so of a science that isn’t able to make useful and accurate predictions. But if the evidence were stronger? There’s a point past which I’d change my mind.
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by Brandon C
“The fact is that the warming since 1950 is twice what you would expect from CO2 alone.”
Ok, so the trend is higher for a particular period than just CO2, but who ever said that natural variation had to end because CO2 forcing started? It does not require positive feedback if natural variation is adequate. It may not even equal the expected CO2 forcing once you factor in natural variation. What is natural variation? I don’t have a solid answer, but we could use the historical record to work out a very rough guess. I have set this up trying to maximize the trend slope of the recent CO2 forced warming, Then I have added a similar length trend line to the data before any significant CO2 increase. (feel free to cherry pick a better set, I only tried to maximize recent trend slope and used that to dictate sample length for past trend)
There does not even need to be hardly any additional CO2 forcing added to the non-CO2 forced warming, let alone positive feedback. To assume positive feedback, requires and assumption that whatever dictated past natural warming, has quit and no longer is an influence. Yes this is a simple exercise, but still a valid one to show what past natural variation might be. It does not require any significant additional forcing above natural variation to arrive at the warming observed in the later half on the 1900’s. But without a full and complete understanding of the forcings that caused past shifts of near equal trend, your just guessing on attributions of CO2 and positive feedbacks.
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by Willard
> I, for one, “believe” that IPCC might have been a better organization had they not stepped of into the realm of “policy”. Thank you for the lesson.
You’re most welcome, Danny Thomas. Beware that it’s easier to agree with stuff with which you already agree. What matters more, to me, is to show that the “stiffling dissent” meme is mostly a meme.
Wigley’s rant may be better known. That Wigley was in an academic cage fight with Hulme, the newborn champion of CG I and II, might be less known.
In any case, beware memes. If you don’t trust me on this, trust Dr. Essex.
↧
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by Danny Thomas
Willard,
Let me ask you this if I may. While I agree that agreeing with oneself is easy, and as I’ve not yet seen anyone ask you directly, are there any “memes” within the IPCC which give you “pause”?
Another lesson I’ve been presented here is to only trust “my own lying eyes”. Now my eyes are not calibrated towards the science in sufficent depth to for me to trust them much. But I can read, and often find contrary evidence either head to head within a specific arena (SLR and the W. Post articles as example). And I find enough concern w/ IPCC “projections” to support my personal “meme” of skepticism of the nuts and bolts of the topic. Offered only so you’re aware of the background for my question.
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by Eddie Turbulence
I, for one, “believe” that IPCC might have been a better organization had they not stepped of into the realm of “policy”.
The IPCC is a creation of the UN – a political organization.
The IPCC was a tool of policy from the beginning.
Do read about Maurice Strong, the Club of Rome, and the quote:
“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.”
↧
Comment on Christopher Essex on suppressing scientific inquiry by Danny Thomas
Eddie Turbulence,
I’ve read some of the history, but was only responding to the content of the e-mail in Willard’s offering w/r/t the “standing” of IPCC. Thanks for the suggestion as that history is relevant to the understanding of “skepticsm” of the entirety even if one happens to agree (or acknowledge) the value of at least some of the nuts and bolts from which that entirety is made.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
