Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Ignorance: the true engine of science by RiHo08


Comment on Ignorance: the true engine of science by Bart R

0
0

dp | April 24, 2012 at 10:38 am |

What a thoroughly mediocre response.

Hoover Dam? It was barely close enough even for government work. Over a hundred people died building it. It was a mess of controversy in law and politics at the state, federal and international level for decades before it was built, and is a constant concern to engineers even now. Heck, it even got the name of the imperfect government guy behind it slapped on it. Unless you’re saying Hoover was perfect?

A defense of the marketing definition of perfection is hardly a very perfect challenge to the observation that you imperfectly interpret to suit your own purposes.

Oh, and begging the question? Tch. What a perfect example of embracing the wrong result as a premise to a wrong argument.

Comment on Ignorance: the true engine of science by Tom

0
0

Back to the Zodiac…

Comment on Ignorance: the true engine of science by Tom

Comment on Ignorance: the true engine of science by Tom

0
0

Eli Rabett,
Surprise!
April 24th, 2012

Now, Mr. Lovelock, admits he was wrong. How about the rest of your crowd?

Comment on Ignorance: the true engine of science by Joy Black

0
0

“Those persons who love sausage, and those persons who love justice, should never watch either being made” (attributed to Bismark).
————-
This applies especially to mathematics, science, engineering, and medicine… those who expect uniform perfection of results, that is achieved by uniformly saintly behavior, inevitably will be disappointed.

We can hope that many practitioners in these disciplines (teachers especially) will persistently strive toward perfection … and that the overall result will be more nearly perfect than the individual efforts that contribute to it … this sustained striving toward excellence, and the resulting slow improvement of the results, is the utmost that can be expected.

Comment on Ignorance: the true engine of science by timg56

0
0

I was there for the first time last March, attending a conference. My first thought walking down Bourbon St was “Why did I wait so long.” My second thought was “Probably lucky I did, as I’m less likely to get in trouble these days.”

Oh, it was 80 degreesmost of the week. Warm even for NO. And I loved every degree of it. We are just now starting to see some decent spring weather up here in the PNW.

Comment on Ignorance: the true engine of science by timg56

0
0

lolwot,

The “expert” drum beating is getting rather worn and out of tune. Anybody who has followed the issue knows that there are qualified people on both sides of the issue. If someone like Peter Gleick can be called an “expert” on the issue, then there are an abundant number of people who do not blindly accept every statement from a select group of scientists as the gospael.


Comment on Ignorance: the true engine of science by timg56

0
0

Hell Barry,

They haven’t hit the 50,000 mark , let alone the 50 million number they claimed.

Though I bet it they tried really hard they might get to 5o

Comment on Ignorance: the true engine of science by John Carpenter

0
0

“For a start, there are many examples of technological exploitation when we didn’t have a clue as to the underlying causal mechanisms involved.”

I would take it a little further and say this is the norm in technological advancement. Most of the time we exploit new technologies and the science and understanding have to catch up some time later. It goes all the way back to man conquering fire. We learned to use it way before we knew what it was.

Comment on Week in review 4/20/12 by Don Monfort

0
0

Look barty, you asked for an example of an honest debate and I gave it to you. What is ironic about that? You have not commented about the debate. I guess you did not watch it. Don’t ask me for anything else.

I didn’t say the voting of the NPR audience settled the science. A debate about science is not science. Do you get that? Whether the alleged science of CAGW is right or wrong, the public ain’t buying it. That is what counts for us evil deniers. We don’t care if the world burns up, as long as we keep getting our checks from Big Oil. But you knew that.

Now that’s all the time I have for you. You are another clown, like joshy, who is out to save the world from evil deniers, by talking us to death.

Comment on Ignorance: the true engine of science by omanuel

0
0

Ignorance (Lack of information) is used by opposing political forces in their battle to control people.

Much to the surprise of some, the Climategate documents and emails released in Nov 2009 were simply part of this worldwide conflict.

Two Other Examples:
1. The books, “The Naked Ape”and “1984″ are promoted by opposing sides in the world-wide attempt to control people by controlling access to information.

_a). George Orwell’s 1948 book, “1984″
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/

_b.) Desmond Morris’s 1967 book “The Naked Ape”
http://www.evolbiol.ru/large_files/naked_ape.pdf

2. Two opinions on the nature of Earth’s heat source are promoted by opposing political forces since Hiroshima was consumed by “nuclear fires” on 6 Aug 1945.

According to Hoyle, those differences of opinion did not exist seventy-two years ago, in the Spring of 1940, when “We both believed that the Sun was made mostly of iron, . . .The high-iron solution continued to reign supreme . . . (at any rate, in the astronomical circles to which I was privy) until after the Second World War, . . .” (last paragraph, p 153)
Sir Fred Hoyle, “Home Is Where the Wind Blows” (University Science Books, 1994) 443 pp.

In Oct 1957, Fred Hoyle co-authored the “Bible” on synthesis of the elements in stars [B2FH (Burbidge, Burbidge, Fowler and Hoyle), “Synthesis of elements in stars”, Reviews of Modern Physics, 29, 547-654 (1957).
http://rmp.aps.org/pdf/RMP/v29/i4/p547_1

He or another author surreptitiously exposed the “Big Lie”by slyly drawing in a line on Fig. VI,3 (page 586) to illustrate the effects of mass fractionation across abundances of s-products (A = 63-209 amu) in the solar photosphere.

In 2005, we combined all 72 data points for s-only isotopes from Fig. VI,3 (page 586) and Fig. VI,1 (page 584) of B2FH to illustrate the effects of mass fractionation across abundances of s-products (A = 22-209 amu) in the solar photosphere.

O. Manuel, William A. Myers, Yasmet Singh and Marcel Pleess, “Solar abundance of elements from neutron-capture cross sections,” 36th Lunar & Planetary Science Conference, 1033 (2005).
http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/LunarAbstract.pdf

The results leave no doubt who is promoting misinformation about Earth’s heat source – the Sun.

With kind regards,
– Oliver
http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/

Comment on Ignorance: the true engine of science by Doug Allen

0
0

I think you’re a bit thin-skinned. As a liberal, I find that you and many others on this blog continually engage in stereotyping of liberals. I find that offensive, but it comes with the territory. Although I’m a liberal, I’m a lukewarmer, fiscaly conservative in some ways, and neither a fan of big government nor a fan of lots of deregulation. Because you conservatives have successfully made liberal a perjoritive in the minds of many (what a tragedy for understanding political philosophy and history), I prefer the term center left. I find much of the conservative rant here just as mindless, insulting and unhelpful as the climate consensus rant.
I do appreciate your scientific insights and contributions.

Comment on Ignorance: the true engine of science by Paul Vaughan

0
0

Yesterday’s microscopes were blinded by El Niño.
Is there an easy workaround?
YES:

“Pólya notes that ‘human superiority consists in going around an obstacle that cannot be overcome directly’”

“Pólya advises that this requires that the student have the patience to wait until the bright idea appears (subconsciously).”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Solve_It

3 of Pólya’s problem solving suggestions are KEY at this stage in the evolution of Climatology:
1. “Use symmetry.”
2. “Solve a simpler problem.”
3. “Eliminate possibilities.”

The solar-terrestrial double-helix of equator-pole gradients:
http://i43.tinypic.com/o52jbd.png

The focus CAN be sharpened. I’m refining tools.

At the global scale, nuances of the simple symmetry encoded in Earth Orientation Parameters constrain (via the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum) the set of permissible climate model states.

Background primers:
1. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/30/open-thread-weekend-9/#comment-940636
2. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/10/solar-terrestrial-lunisolar-components-of-rate-of-change-of-length-of-day/ (Serious parties eying today’s cutting edge: Devote lucid attention to the nuances of cross-scale aggregation.)

Conjecture: The nature of solar-terrestrial relations can be generalized across a wide range of geophysical variables.

Comment on Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth by Albert Stienstra

0
0

The cosmic rays from black holes consist of particles with energies of 10E18 – 10E20 eV. The flux density on earth is no more than 1-2 particles per square km per year. This is totally different from the cosmic rays originating from Super Novae with energies around 10E9 eV and flux densities of thousands of particles per square km per year. The Nature article from your link is behind a paywall and I do not believe articles from Nature are worth paying for. SInce you say the article claims or indicates that cosmic rays originate from black holes I feel quite strengthened in my opinion of Nature. Svensmark has nothing to fear from that publication.


Comment on Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth by Stacey

0
0

Hey Jude
What happens when the cosmic rays meet the solar wind and is there any effect on the output of the sun?
Sorry if these are stupid questions but no doubt you won’t be surprised considering the source :-)

Comment on Ignorance: the true engine of science by Chief Hydrologist

0
0

Geeze Louise,

Do you have a reading comprehension problem too. I was complaining about being censored for being too personal and insulting. I am quite willing to play nice but it needs to be a 2 way process.

‘The following will not be tolerated here:

1.Comments using offensive words will be flagged by the spam filter.
2.No ad hominem attacks, slurs or personal insults. Do not attribute motives to another participant.
3.Snarkiness is not appreciated here; nastiness and excessive rudeness are not allowed.
4.Don’t grind your personal axes by filling up the comments with extensive posts that are not deemed relevant or interesting in the context of blog objectives.’

I have successfully to date ignored each and every one of your inane utterances. Hell of a way to start with me. Why don’t you quote me in the full context? The whole sentence would be a good start.

Judith has a light hand and she needs to get a lot tougher with recalcitrants and bullies. Civilised eSalon discourse is possible but not in this environment.

Robert I Ellison
Chief Hydrologist

Comment on Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth by peeke

0
0

Wasn’t that on ultra high energy cosmic ray particles? The bulk of cosmic rays are not that energized.

Comment on Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth by Ron Manley

0
0

Svensmark may be correct in his conclusion that a two parameter model, tectonics and supernovae, can directly explain the fluctuation of life on earth and, indirectly, levels of CO2 and climate but I’m not convinced he has proved it. The word ‘assume’ (and derivatives) appears in his paper 20 times along with 6 ‘approximates’, 6 ‘likelies’ and 15 ‘hypotheses’. If you select two parameters out of, say, 20 possibilities (or, what amounts to the same thing, two data representations out of 20) you have greatly increased the degrees of freedom in your model. Svensmark’s key figure (number 20), which purports to show a link between supernova rates and marine genera, has about 5 pairs of peaks and troughs. To represent 5 events with a model which has 20 degrees of freedom is no big deal.

I’m also wondering what has happened to his previous theory, that there is a strong negative correlation between sunspots and cosmic radiation reaching earth (true) and that this effects the climate by varying the level of cloudiness (still unproven).

Comment on Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth by Bruce Cunningham

0
0

The dubious and unethical workings of Mann, Jones, and Hansen have been openly and expertly exposed for several years now, and should be obvious to even the densest of dolts. That you are defending them is outright laughable.

Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images