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

Comment on Driving in the dark by Mike Flynn

0
0

Vaughan

I’m not sure why the benefit of hindsight means you can predict the future better than a first class mind like Svante Arrhenius, (Nobel Prize, physicist, chemist, and all that), but if you say it, it must be so.

If the effect of increasing CO2 levels is not your area, why do you argue with someone whose area area it appears to be?

You say “let it rain”. Is this as dismissive of the deaths caused by floods, as Marie Antoinette’s “Let them eat cake” remark?

I best let you go. My questions are only rhetorical.


Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by catweazle666

0
0

…and Then There’s Physics: “If we get to 600ppm and stop all emissions, it would take around 250 years to return to 400ppm.”

No it wouldn’t, not even close.

Stop making stuff up.

Comment on Against ‘consensus’ messaging by micro6500

0
0

wrong

I’m sympathetic to your busy schedule, and needing to be pithy. So I’ve taken the initiative to write out a couple of responses that you can save and use as needed:

You’re a mutton head, read the blog harder.

You’re a mutton head, read the linked paper/article harder.

You’re a mutton head, BEST has posted that years ago, you need to read harder

You’re a mutton head, BEST doesn’t do any such thing, go read our doc’s harder

You’re a mutton head, you can’t average temperatures

You’re a mutton head, you can’t just average surface station data

You’re a mutton head, Satellites don’t measure temperature.

You’re a mutton head, all measurements are estimates.

To everyone else, in case referring to this guide is still to time consuming, you can treat it as a Moshism translation guide.

:)

Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by sciguy54

0
0

Sorry for the dup… not sure how it got there:(

Comment on Against ‘consensus’ messaging by nickels

0
0

“The scientific consensus might, of
course, be wrong. If the history of science
teaches anything, it is humility, and no one
can be faulted for failing to act on what is
not known. But our grandchildren will
surely blame us if they find that we understood
the reality of anthropogenic climate
change and failed to do anything about it”

https://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full.pdf

I challenge anyone to name a proponent of the consensus for whom social justice is not inextricably tied to their conclusions.

Comment on Against ‘consensus’ messaging by Fernando Leanme (@FernandoLeanme)

0
0

Maybe the messaging should be something like: “it’s getting warmer and we need to raise diesel prices to $15 per gallon”??? Or “we perceive more extreme weather and we need to charge you $0.40 per kWh”??? That ought to get people’s attention.

Comment on Against ‘consensus’ messaging by matthewrmarler

0
0

Paul Matthews: The blog would be more readable if completely off-topic comments like this, and responses, were deleted.

I thought that jim2’s post about the droughts was the best today.

Sooner or later these “consensus” folks who worry about “communication” are going to have to face up to the fact, illustrated by jim2’s post on drought, that the biggest problem the “communicators” face is that the rest of us have caught on the the fact that they don’t understand what’s happening or how it’s happening or what’s going to happen next.

Here is a recent review of some dam removal projects in California:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6234/496.full.pdf

Unfortunately it is behind a paywall. I exhausted my privilege by sending copies to some friends.

Imagine everyone’s surprise when the unpredicted rains cause great flows of water through those opened gorges, and everyone wonders: Why were we not prepared to store all of that water? Why did we believe the prognostications that drought would be a permanent consequence of “global warming” caused by anthropogenic CO2? Probably some “science communicators” will write some more essays like today’s about why the 97% consensus is really correct despite a completely disastrous record of false predictions, a record that everyone by now knows about.

Comment on Against ‘consensus’ messaging by KenW

0
0

Lewandowsky, Cook, Oreskes, Mann,,.
They represent all of Climate Science.
What more could we want?


Comment on Against ‘consensus’ messaging by Bad Andrew

0
0

“My definition of science is what scientists actually do. That was the Kuhnian breakthrough.”

Sounds like a Mosherism to me. And that ain’t a compliment.

Andrew

Comment on Against ‘consensus’ messaging by KenW

0
0

They represent 97% of Climate Science,
‘scuse me

Comment on Against ‘consensus’ messaging by Steven Mosher

0
0

Jeff you don’t know every much about PNS.
I had a wonderful week of discussions with Ravetz in Lisbon a while back
discussing the common misconceptions folks have.

Let me suggest that you read some fundamental texts.
Then write the author.
Then bounce your ideas of people who have studied this.
Then after you’ve done your homework.
Pause.
read some more.
Then write.

Comment on Driving in the dark by David L. Hagen

0
0
Vaughan See: <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/505.htm" rel="nofollow">IPCC 14.2.2.2 Balancing the need for finer scales and the need for ensembles</a><blockquote>“In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the <b>long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible</b>. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential.”</blockquote> BUT currently the model ensemble appears about 200% of actual. etc.

Comment on Against ‘consensus’ messaging by Steven Mosher

0
0

“Stepping back to see the bigger picture, the cause of this duality comes into plain view.”

go play popper with your theory about the “causes” of the “duality”

come back when you —-

1. Understand Popper and why he is not an authority regardless of who cites him.
2. Understand PNS.

Here is another clue. start with ontology.

Comment on Against ‘consensus’ messaging by Steven Mosher

0
0

Jeff the links works fine and demonstrate why you are wrong.
thanks.

Comment on Against ‘consensus’ messaging by schitzree

0
0

Wow. Followed that link and a few more down the line to a thread on WUWT from 2013 that I had missed at the time. I didn’t know Willis had caught him sock puppeting his own blog to troll skeptics.


Comment on Against ‘consensus’ messaging by Steven Mosher

0
0

it has zero to do with his argument.

Comment on Against ‘consensus’ messaging by mosomoso

0
0

Not happy with the way a giant fib has been thrust down the public throat, Kahan seeks a fairer, better, more open, more refined way…of thrusting a giant fib down the public throat.

Comment on Against ‘consensus’ messaging by matthewrmarler

0
0

Steven Mosher: I had a wonderful week of discussions with Ravetz in Lisbon a while back
discussing the common misconceptions folks have.

PNS is the sort of junk that sounds good in conversation, but falls apart when written and analyzed. The terms of reference are so poorly defined that you can’t tell from reading whether it says anything in particular about anything in particular.

Comment on Against ‘consensus’ messaging by matthewrmarler

0
0

Williis Eschenbach: And now, the man whose idea of ethical communication is to hide behind a sock puppet on his own website just to screw with the visitors gets to parade his expertise in communication?

That’s funny. But it only shows that the man is flawed, perhaps the dreaded “hypocrite”, but not that his ideas are not worth discussing.

Comment on Against ‘consensus’ messaging by matthewrmarler

0
0

Steven Mosher: your problem is ontology. think about it.

You mean like: I wonder if Steven Mosher even exists? Or did you mean odontology, like: Bite me?

Boy, talk about an obscure science communicator!

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live


Latest Images