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

Comment on Blog topics discussion thread by Brandon Shollenberger

0
0

Mark Silbert, I just re-downloaded the preview for the book, and I’d say it confirms my interpretation. What I referred to was from Ian Plimer’s chapter, the first chapter of the book, but judging by what the book’s introduction says, I suspect Bob Carter’s chapter would be as troubling (if not more).

Anyway, the reason I can’t bring myself to read the book is it claims to be providing “The Facts” but begins by denying global warming. If I can’t trust it on simple things, I see no reason to trust it on anything. And if terrible essays are considered acceptable within the book, I see no reason to think it is worth spending my money on. That’s not “ruling it out based on a synopsis.” That’s saying when you accept low-quality work, you give me no incentive to spend money on your product.

Other people might find the book worthwhile. I’d probably read at least some of the essays in it if I had a copy of them. I just don’t see myself spending much money or time on a book whose message includes things like, “[T]here is no evidence the next 50 years will bring human induced warming.”

But I’m glad to hear you liked my book! I’ve actually been working on Part II today. I’ve been restructuring it in light of the new paper Michael Mann co-authored recently (which I first heard about on this site). That paper shamelessly re-uses the Mann 2008 data set, and I think I ought to include that in the book. People often say things have “moved on” from Mann’s hockey stick, so this can be a good example of (one reason) why his hockey stick papers still deserve focus.


Comment on Is climate change a ‘ruin’ problem? by Michael Cunningham

0
0

Excellent contribution to the debate, Judith, I hope you get to talk to Taleb. Faustino

Comment on Is climate change a ‘ruin’ problem? by mosomoso

0
0

This is about translating commonplaces and familiar saws into academic language to make it seem like something deep is being said or something is being analysed. Nothing got said or analysed, just a lot of obvious stuff got recast into awful academese. And we will be left with the same problems we had before, with some intellectual paralysis added as we scratch our heads fussing over the taxonomy of a particular problem.

“Robustly”…brrrr.

Comment on Is climate change a ‘ruin’ problem? by Eli Rabett

0
0

No, he assumes there are black swans who are black cats (unlike the luck warmers Taleb is a bit of a pessimist and assumes there are more bad surprises than good ones.)

Comment on Is climate change a ‘ruin’ problem? by Eli Rabett

0
0
Craig, it would be good if you paid a visit to reality. First, the risk from vaccinations was well characterized so there was no debate as to the percentage of bad outcomes, they were very small compared to the number of deaths avoided, so, unlike climate change, the risks for anyone being vaccinated were exceptionally small. Second it was recognized that a small number of people would be seriously adversely affected and a no fault compensations mechanism was set up to recompense them, aka <a href="http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/vaccine-programoffice-special-masters" rel="nofollow">the vaccine court</a> Third, whether you have figured it out or not we have radically restructured our economy in the last 15 years. It's called the INTERNET.

Comment on Is climate change a ‘ruin’ problem? by AK

0
0

What global devastation? What scenarios are you talking about?

Comment on Blog topics discussion thread by Mark Silbert

0
0

Brandon,

I don’t really want to get into an extended pissing contest with you about this book. But your continued use of the expression “denying global warming” seems extremely simplistic and an imprecise use of language. I doubt that any of the authors take exception with the fossil fuels, CO2, greenhouse effect meme, but there is a lot more involved than that.

Based on your comment history, I had assumed a reasonable level of sophistication on your part, which I have come to realize is not there. My mistake.

Comment on Is climate change a ‘ruin’ problem? by Craig Loehle

0
0

Eli: let me be more clear. There is an epidemic of autism. Someone claims their model is that it is caused by vaccines. By Taleb’s logic (and yours) the more uncertain we are about this tail the more action we should take.
Let’s take another example. People go blind and die from vitamin A deficiency. Golden rice already exists (unlike the imaginary carbon-free energy or efficient batteries) but the claim of a possible harm is keeping it out of the hands (and mouths) of real people, today, not 100 years from now. This is the PP.
In the climate arena, I have concluded that the models of alarm are grossly mistaken. Why should I take any action?


Comment on Is climate change a ‘ruin’ problem? by Willard

0
0

> This clarifies the conflict between [the position according to which we] don’t see danger (in favor of risk management), versus [the position according to which] the PP to avoid possible catastrophe or ruin (as inferred from climate model simulations)

Mr. T seems to have changed position out of sudden.

Comment on Is climate change a ‘ruin’ problem? by Stephen Segrest

0
0

My question today is “framed toward Developed Countries (like the U.S., Germany) and not Developing Countries (which many don’t even have access to electricity).

In Developed Countries, what if a macro view of including total environmental/human health concerns is taken in policy actions?

Instead of just CO2 and temperatures, what if the paradigm also includes things like mercury, smog, particulates, ozone depletion?

For example, the EPA (forced by the Courts) is requesting comments to reduce ozone pollution to a range of 60 to 70 parts per billion, from 75 ppb. This Reg is 60 ppb in the E.U. and 62 ppb in Canada. Each ratchet down (e.g., 70, 65, 62, 60) has uncertainty to the cost/health benefits (e.g., asthma).

But this uncertainty only deals with smog. What if this issue was approached in a holistic way including smog and AGW?

As a stand alone issue, maybe the uncertainty only justifies smog Regs at 75 ppb. By combining smog and AGW, maybe the justification is 60 ppb.

The concept of approaching AGW from a pollution standpoint is from Dr. Ramanathan and called “Fast Mitigation”.

Comment on Is climate change a ‘ruin’ problem? by Willard

0
0

> Why should I take any action?

Mr. T is too big not to.

Comment on Is climate change a ‘ruin’ problem? by Diag

0
0

We believe that the PP should be evoked only in extreme situations: when the potential harm is systemic (rather than localized) and the consequences can involve total irreversible ruin, such as the extinction of human beings or all life on the planet.

Which is to say never. Extinction of all life on the planet? Asteroids haven’t done it, so my estimate of the probability of that happening before the sun dies is zero. Extinction of human beings? Probability of all out nuclear war, sooner or later, pretty high, maybe even inevitable. Yet, some groups somewhere will survive and carry on. Not life as we know it, but life as we have known it.

The worst cases of “ruin” are the end of life as we know it.
Pity we have to end life as we know it in order to save life as we know it. /sarc

The four horsemen of the apocalypse are disease, famine, war, and a black swan.

Comment on Criticism, tolerance and changing your mind by Wagathon

0
0

“Today we are very conscious of the threat we face from the supreme intolerance of Islamic fundamentalism. It could not be a worse time to abandon our own traditions of reason and tolerance, and to embrace instead the irrationality and intolerance of eco- fundamentalism, where reasoned questioning of its mantras is regarded as a form of blasphemy.” (Nigel Lawson)

Comment on Criticism, tolerance and changing your mind by Mark Bofill

0
0
<blockquote>Sorry — you don’t get points for accepting someone who wants to be just like you. You get points for accepting someone who doesn’t want to be like you — that’s where the difficulty lies.</blockquote> Where is the line to be drawn? Is there a line to be drawn? I suspect the apparent paradox in the study I mentioned <a href="http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/375" rel="nofollow">earlier</a>, that the social psychologists surveyed simultaneously said discrimination was largely absent from their professional environments and that they'd discriminate against conservatives might have been due to these academics thinking at least that they were adhering to intolerance for intolerance. That is (perhaps) how does one deal with the intolerance of the Right, except to treat it with intolerance? I am not trying to construct a straw man, I am trying to get at an issue. This may or may not have anything to do with their motivations, I've got no idea. How should this be dealt with? In the political arena, with the Religious Freedoms bill in Indiana and the one contemplated in Alabama, is this an example of tolerance for intolerance? Sure, this goes beyond the scope of the climate science discussion. If it's OT and a problem Dr. Curry will let us know I imagine.

Comment on Criticism, tolerance and changing your mind by rhhardin

0
0

All this about evidence and changing your mind is fine, but it’s not the real item. You’re invited to say how much change and how much evidence and it becomes fog.

Curiosity takes care of everything.

Nobody in climate science appears to be curious.


Comment on Criticism, tolerance and changing your mind by Mark Bofill

0
0

Intolerance for intolerance? Good point. I don’t know if this is a good idea or not.
What’s the alternative?

Comment on Criticism, tolerance and changing your mind by Mark Bofill

0
0

Methinks you might oversimplify a bit. (an opinion, not a critique).

Doubtless I do. I don’t mind a critique, in fact it’s more or less welcome.
I wonder if you wouldn’t provide me some spoilers from your book? :)

Thanks Ristvan.

Comment on Criticism, tolerance and changing your mind by jim2

0
0

Joahua – your apparent desire to “reduce the adversarial nature of the discussion” is a straw man. There is no reason people who disagree should begin to agree to give someone else a warm fuzzy. In fact, it would be rather idiotic to change ones position solely to give the appearance of harmony. Now, if there were developments in proof that man-made CO2 would bring down catastrophe on our collective head, then THAT would be a good reason to change opinion. Data.

Comment on Criticism, tolerance and changing your mind by jim2

0
0

I don’t see any examples of that, Joshua. Once again you make unfounded statements.

Comment on Criticism, tolerance and changing your mind by jim2

0
0

Mark Bofill. Simply demand they prove their nebulous assertions about skeptics and Dr. Curry. It won’t take 300 words to ask for that. I don’t see it very often out of them.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images