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

Comment on Tackling human biases in science by dikranmarsupial


Comment on What would it take to convince you about global warming? by jacobress

0
0

“Look what Elon Musk did with Tesla. His organization, funded by stock holders”
And by large government backed loans.

Comment on Tackling human biases in science by Mike Flynn

0
0

What is the difference to the human race if Dr Salby is right or wrong?

Specifically, why should the subsistence farmer in Nepal, care one way or the other!

Facts are facts. Opinions are opinions. No more, no less.

Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Danny Thomas

0
0

JIM D,
Think Don may be right when Jim D writes: “Applying terms like anthropogenic cooling are ridiculous for the same reason as your anthropogenic sink.”

Guess that would apply equally to using that term as a modifier for say warming; CO2; Ocean’s “acidification”; etc.

This gem: ” Combustion looks the same whether a man did it or nature. ” appears to mean if we log a forest that’s anthro but if we burn it down it’s not.

Comment on What would it take to convince you about global warming? by jacobress

Comment on What would it take to convince you about global warming? by jacobress

Comment on Tackling human biases in science by dikranmarsupial

0
0

Mike Flynn “What is the difference to the human race if Dr Salby is right or wrong?”

If he is right, there is no point in doing anything to restrict fossil fuel (and land use change) emissions as that is not what is causing the observed increase in atmospheric CO2. I wish he was right, as it would be one less problem for the world to worry about and we could concentrate on the other problems on the list. Sadly, he isn’t right (the reasons have been explained in detail elsewhere), so we don’t have that luxury.

Comment on What would it take to convince you about global warming? by jacobress


Comment on What would it take to convince you about global warming? by jacobress

0
0

Absolutely correct.

Comment on What would it take to convince you about global warming? by jacobress

0
0

And no hockey-sticks please.
It was the hockey-stick that convinced me most of all that this climate hysteria is nonsense.

Comment on Tackling human biases in science by Ferdinand Engelbeen

0
0

While some results are sure to be false negatives—that is, results that appear incorrectly to rule something out—Hartgerink says he has never read a paper that concludes as much about its findings.

Our youngest daughter did encounter such a bias, about 20 years ago now: she made a Ph.D. work in Belgium and the UK commissioned by the UN for the detection of the small personal mines which were used in (too) many conflict areas and still years later hurt and kill a lot of people. These are small plastic mines, which are undetectable with metal detectors.
The method she used was NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance), extreme high frequencies send down the ground and where -NO2 is present (in practically all explosives) that gets in vibration and sends its own frequency back. Maybe that method nowadays is used at airports to check the luggage.

She did make a lot of tests with field “portable” equipment with a lot of failures and after many tests more solid successes.
In her thesis she described all results: the failures and reasons for failure and the successes. Her prof from Belgium fully agreed. The UK prof didn’t agree: she should only mention the successes…
She refused to remove the failures out of her thesis and after a few months of disagreement between the two professors she did stop here Ph.D. work and started a more practical job, she now is a professional helicopter pilot…

Comment on What would it take to convince you about global warming? by jacobress

0
0

I will take the alarmist scientists (like Hansen or Gavin) more seriously once they denounce the hockey-stick for the nonsense it is.
As long as they adhere religiously to it, I have my proof that they are biased.

Comment on What would it take to convince you about global warming? by jacobress

0
0

The “why conservatives should love a carbon tax” was reproduced on this site, and has got plenty of critical comments…

Comment on Tackling human biases in science by Oldman Rivers

0
0

Thanks Turbulent Eddie. That list of yours should be printed out, framed then hung in everyone’s house or school or business or wherever.
It won’t be but it should be!

Comment on What would it take to convince you about global warming? by jacobress

0
0

I mean, what’s the point of mentioning it again? Bad arguments won’t die…


Comment on What would it take to convince you about global warming? by jacobress

Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Richard Arrett

0
0

I agree that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is anthro (but don’t buy that the entire rise is anthro).

But for humans action in raising the atmospheric CO2, the sinks would not have risen – which makes the rise in sinks anthro also.

Pretend humans disappeared in 1600 and tell me that the sinks would have risen to their current level.

Saying the sinks rise is natural is like saying that the rise in emissions is natural.

Doesn’t pass the but for test.

Anthro sink increase needs to be netted against anthro emissions.

Comment on Tackling human biases in science by ordvic

0
0

The problem here is not the scientific method. You cannot work something out in the laboratory that is in the future. From your link to the article about falsifiability the first three ways suggested all require the future to play out. No one can be smug and rest on their laurals that everything is worked out and science has spoken. Only the future will determine what was correct and what wasn’t. I suspect it will be a mixed bag. In the meantime there is plenty of room for bias betting on the outcome.

Comment on Tackling human biases in science by philsalmon

0
0

A sad story, as a Brit living in Belgium this embarrasses me on behalf of UK academia. It rings true unfortunately, UK academics are prone to politicization of their research which is always corrosive of standards. The research funding structure is such that media attention can be worth more than consensus of peers.

Comment on Tackling human biases in science by dikranmarsupial

0
0

That is a great pity Ferdinand, she was quite right to include and explain the failures in her thesis.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images