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

Comment on Improving climate change communication: moving beyond scientific certainty by Curious George

0
0

A nice resolution. What body can dictate obligations to all states?


Comment on Improving climate change communication: moving beyond scientific certainty by curryja

Comment on Improving climate change communication: moving beyond scientific certainty by Philip Lee

0
0

Pity the poor climate scientist. Climate storms have blown up his skirts so many times that the ugly picture of his backsides distract from what he says.
The only wicked thing about the climate problem is that there is no model suitable to support engineering trades for proposed actions while political gasbags demand action now.
Climate science isn’t science; it is politics.

Comment on Why Skeptics hate climate skeptics by aplanningengineer

Comment on Improving climate change communication: moving beyond scientific certainty by ristvan

0
0

Interesting analysis of a muddled press conference. It is far too late for a more honest communication of uncertainty to fix the underlying root problem AR5 said anthropogeic warming, 95% certainty. It said climate models had improved since AR4. Based on that, Obama’s SOTU said the science was settled. Hasn’t warmed in the 21st century, the CMIP5 models have been falsified, and the most charitable thing that can be said about Karl’s effort to disappear the pause by adjusting the data and loosening confidence bounds is that he shows themscience isn’t settled. To become ‘honest’ now just shows the past dishonesty. So the dishonesty will continue, and it will get louder and more obvious as Paris approaches. And the CAGW trainwreck will continue to get bigger, and ‘deadlier’ for those who are on it.

Comment on Improving climate change communication: moving beyond scientific certainty by Rob Starkey (@Robbuffy)

0
0

“CMIP5 models have been falsified”???

Comment on Why Skeptics hate climate skeptics by Don Monfort

0
0

I think the behavior that Reality Check has so aptly described is commonly called trolling. Although some practitioners aren’t so common. Some got pretty impressive skills that we hope will someday be used for good deeds, instead of for messing with people. An interesting question that this thread brings to my mind:

Is trolling a popular blog much more fun and satisfying than moderating a blog that few care to visit?

Comment on Week in review – Energy and policy edition by jim2

0
0

From the article:

Evidence that serious and widespread breaches of hospital- and healthcare networks is likely to be hiding on compromised and infect medical devices in clinical settings, including medical imaging machines, blood gas analyzers and more, according to a report by the firm TrapX. In the report, which will be released this week, the company details incidents of medical devices and management stations infected with malicious software at three, separate customer engagements. According to the report, medical devices – in particular so-called picture archive and communications systems (PACS) radiologic imaging systems – are all but invisible to security monitoring systems and provide a ready platform for malware infections to lurk on hospital networks, and for malicious actors to launch attacks on other, high value IT assets.

http://it.slashdot.org/story/15/06/08/166207/report-evidence-of-healthcare-breaches-lurks-on-infected-medical-devices


Comment on Improving climate change communication: moving beyond scientific certainty by Philip Lee

0
0

Chimpanzees don’t throw darts; they are known to throw the same stuff that AGW proponents throw, but with better accuracy.

Comment on Why Skeptics hate climate skeptics by Reality check

0
0

Willard: Nice try–miss by a mile. The word infantile is completely appropriate in the context I used it. I have a great deal of experience with toddlers and young children and this is how they behave. Also, being suspicious of your logic is only logical–you misused a fallacy. Logically, I cannot therefore trust your logic.

Really–trained psychologist risking losing my license? Another huge, desperate reach there.

ClimateBall–what a cute little idea there. I had no idea there was a trade-marked (not really, of course) name for the endless rambling of the worshippers of climate science and any who dare engage them. Of course, it’s not about science and that should conclusively prove there is no science in any of it. Thank you for verifying the complete absence of science.

I really don’t care at all what you comment. If there were any actual science in the comments, it might be worth checking out. The fact that you can only play a game and attempt to drag people into your quite useless commenting is a clear indication you have no interest whatsoever in climate change. You just like antagonizing people. I don’t have time for your games. I have a real life and things to do than play semantic, convoluted mind games with someone who obviously is clueless about climate change. You waste my time. There are people out there who actually are interested in why global warming is wrong and why followers of it are so rude and condescending. Feel free to come back and post whatever you want. I only address people who show an actual interest in climate science, not internet commenters that just like to take up space.

Comment on Improving climate change communication: moving beyond scientific certainty by sciguy54

0
0

Fortunately, there is no such body at this time. It remains up to the citizens of each state to determine their obligations and how to meet them. For now, at least. (hint: there are more than 58 states)

Comment on Improving climate change communication: moving beyond scientific certainty by ristvan

0
0

Rob, in 2009 NOAA’s State of the Climate report said it would take a 15 year pause to falsify the models. BAMS 90, Special supplement, Page 23.. In 2011 Santer published a paper saying 17. J. Geophys. Res. 116: D22105 (2011). As of 2014, the pause had lasted 16, 19, or 26 years depending on dataset. McKitrick, Open Journal of Statistics 4: 527-535. (2014). Details in essay An Awkward Pause in my ebook, foreword by Judith. The models are busted. And so are their sensitivity estimates. Lewis and Curry 2014.

Comment on Why Skeptics hate climate skeptics by Reality check

0
0

Oh, and thank you so much for posting my comment on your blog. You are such a sweetie for that. Feel free to post whatever I type—I appreciate any exposure my comments can get, though I am concerned about some here who say your blog is not widely read. Oh well, I’ll take having my logic and assesments repeated wherever. We can all use more reasoned thought, don’t you think?

Comment on Why Skeptics hate climate skeptics by Steven Mosher

0
0

I prefer palace etiquette.

Comment on Improving climate change communication: moving beyond scientific certainty by AK

0
0

Long-term “cycles” are certainly present in the data. They should be the default assumption.


Comment on Improving climate change communication: moving beyond scientific certainty by Bob Greene

0
0
Reblogged this on <a href="http://junkscience.com/2015/06/08/improving-climate-change-communication-moving-beyond-scientific-certainty/" rel="nofollow">JunkScience.com</a> and commented: Communication of climate certainty? Climate science seems to throw a hodge-podge of spotty measurements, mixed with assumptions and derive trends that exceed accuracy of measurements. It then reports and compares means without statistical comparison of those differences and makes statements with great certainty. It uses models with very poor predictive values and some communicate certainty that they have the key to controlling future global temperature. It would be akin to building a "precision" clock with a ruler that has the lowest measurement at 1" and guaranteeing the number of seconds it will gain or lose in 100 years. An interesting discussion on communications from political science/sociology.

Comment on Improving climate change communication: moving beyond scientific certainty by Rob Starkey (@Robbuffy)

0
0

Rud–it is a minor point but I do not think you really falsify a model. You show it’s relative accuracy. Aren’t CMIP models from the 2010 timeframe?

Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by Alexander Coulter

0
0

(These chains are long so I’m scrolling a lot to reply; I think this is in the correct chain. This is for Don Monfort (not Montfort).)

“you would have to admit that Ross didn’t say he was offering an example that was analogous to the Karl paper”

Ross and I have had a bit of an exchange at my original article and I have clarified what I meant, in response to clarifications he gave on what he meant. My main point is that his example *was* meant to show how some of the corrections can have an impact on trends, and that with the very large over-correction that was applied to the buoy simulated data, the uptick at the end deviated from the simulated “true” value inappropriately. I doubt that many others at WUWT have given a very close look at this issue, so when the numerical example showed warming above the “true” value, I was very suspicious of the intent behind the example (as well as, of course, the methods). Either way, my post now reflects a more nuanced description, though I have not weakened my stance.

“Why don’t you explain why adjusting the buoys was a good idea, rather than adjusting the ships that pass in the night, or adjusting both, or adjusting neither?”

I do, in my next post. (It is also linked in that one, in the indented section describing correction (1), by the word “later”.)

Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by Alexander Coulter

0
0

And Then There’s Physics: yes, you are correct; from the time stamp of my original article I may have posted it a couple hours after John posted his reply here. I swear I came to that conclusion myself though, I swears! :-)

Comment on Why Skeptics hate climate skeptics by Steven Mosher

0
0

“Also, being suspicious of your logic is only logical–you misused a fallacy. Logically, I cannot therefore trust your logic.”

willard did not misuse a fallacy. He pointed you at some arguments and accounts of the ad hom that are quite interesting. You should really read Doug Walton’s stuff. Especially if you have had any exposure to philosophy. I was pleasantly surprised to find out that much of what I believed about the fallacy was too limited or overly narrow.

http://www.dougwalton.ca/papers%20in%20pdf/04historical.pdf

Second, even under the assumption that he misused the fallacy, nothing logically follows from that other than he misused it. The logical implications can’t go much beyond that act. That you think there are implications beyond that is akin to another form of the ad hom.
kinda funny.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images