Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148649 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Against ‘consensus’ messaging by GaryM

$
0
0

“After reading Kahan’s stuff, I wish he would apply his methods to understanding people who believe the scientific consensus on climate change (both scientists and the public).”

Not gonna happen. Here is a good explanation of why.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/419871/there-are-two-americas-and-only-one-truly-free-david-french

“Even the conservative churches I’ve attended have been more ideologically diverse than the two major liberal campuses where I either attended (Harvard Law School) or taught (Cornell Law School). Indeed, the numbers demonstrate the truth of my anecdotal experience, with self-professed Evangelicals more politically diverse than not only Ivy League faculties but entire, allegedly “diverse” Northeastern cities. In other words, you’re more likely to hear a meaningful debate between people of fundamentally different political opinions in a church pew than in New York City.”

As I have written here any times, progressives are incapable of critical thought with respect to their own beliefs,because they have been taught since preschool to never think critically about any politically correct ‘consensus’.


Comment on Against ‘consensus’ messaging by GaryM

$
0
0

“While I find Dan Kahan’s research and perspectives to be very interesting, all of this science of science communication strategy for climate messaging runs dangerously close to propaganda techniques.”

Dangerously close? They are nothing but propaganda techniques. But that is because any communication effected with the intent to influence public opinion and policy is a form of propaganda.

noun pro·pa·gan·da \ˌprä-pə-ˈgan-də: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person

Properly understood the word is value neutral.

It is the combination of propaganda with dishonesty, or sometimes just with rank incompetence, that is the real problem with climate ‘consensus’ propaganda.

Comment on Against ‘consensus’ messaging by nickels

$
0
0

Yes, what jim2 says. Either 97% of scientist agree, in which case its just applied science or 97% of scientists dont have a clue, in which case marx….er sorry, PNS applies.

Comment on Against ‘consensus’ messaging by Steven Mosher

$
0
0

jim2

Stupid questions. try again.

Comment on Against ‘consensus’ messaging by GaryM

$
0
0

Raising insipidity to a whole new level.

Comment on Against ‘consensus’ messaging by Ragnaar

$
0
0

Looking at some of the diagrams in the above video, I’ll suggest a history. Nice network before, mostly not top down communication. A problem is found. Old network found to be less than ideal to solve it. Hierarchical form appears that still has some network attributes. Some people think a more hierarchical structure would help. IPCC and professional organizations make statements. Some scientists then separate from the old network that has become more rigid. They collaborate with each other. Generalizing liberally, we have a laterally communicating skeptical network and a consensus hierarchy. The two will merge and hopefully we’ll get a functioning network. Looking at nature, I think the hierarchical form of one way communication is not predominate. But when we see it in nature it might be something like a hurricane that can overwhelm most everything else for a short amount of time. Then the hurricane collapses, the network reassembles, and things get better, efficient.

Comment on Against ‘consensus’ messaging by nickels

$
0
0

Oreskes does exactly the same two sided game. She claims one cannot know anything about reality and then turns around to claim consensus as a way of knowing something.
I had a weird affliction in college where I was excellent at logic, math, language and history but absolutely couldn’t process humanities theory. I thought I had autism of some kind but I now realize I was being fed such irrational lies that my brain literally rejected it. Pseudo logic, designed to sell an ideology. Wow.

Comment on Driving in the dark by David L. Hagen

$
0
0
Vaughan The FDA has forced medical science and the pharmaceutical industry into strict objective double blind methodology in clinical trials etc. to avoid severe biases. With "climate" science we have the advocates messaging both the data and the models to get what they believe will happen - e.g. with CO2 sensitivity about twice reality etc. See the latest evidence from Nic Lewis: <a href="http://climateaudit.org/2015/06/02/implications-of-recent-multimodel-attribution-studies-for-climate-sensitivity/#more-21165" rel="nofollow"> Implications of recent multimodel attribution studies for climate sensitivity </a> <blockquote> The parameter combination that best fitted the observational data gave a median estimate for ECS of 1.64°C. With non-aerosol forcing etc. uncertainties adequately allowed for, the 5–95% uncertainty range was 1.0–3.0°C. Figure 2 shows posterior PDFs for the two TCR estimates from my new study. The best estimates are within 0.05°C of each other. Their average is 1.37°C, with a 5–95% range of 0.65–2.2°C. This is within a few percent of the best estimates for TCR in Lewis and Curry (2014), and of those given in Otto et al (2013), of which I was a co-author alongside fourteen AR5 lead authors.</blockquote>

Comment on Driving in the dark by David L. Hagen

$
0
0

Vaughan
Re: “Now, what prediction of 20-year global climate do you feel has not been “proven or accurate”.
Start with the 1990 mean global warming prediction. Actual temperature rise has been slightly less than 50% of that prediction. (Having written a 330 page document based on the IPCC models can’t be trusted!) Secondly none predicted the 18.5 year pause. etc.

Comment on Driving in the dark by David L. Hagen

$
0
0

Vaughan
IPCC gave no recognition that scientific forecasting methods even existed. Armstrong finds the IPCC methods breached most applicable scientific forecasting principles as identified in the peer reviewed literature. The current models average of 200% actual temperature trends since 1990 are symptomatic of the IPCC’s very poor.

Comment on Driving in the dark by Mike Flynn

$
0
0

Vaughan Pratt,

You wrote –

“And since “global climate” obviously doesn’t mean this year or last, I’ll stick to the definition implied by the IPCC’s definition of Transient Climate Response, namely a 20-year running average. (The World Meteorological Organization supposedly uses 30 years for the definition of climate but I’ll believe that when I see it on a WMO website.)”

Gee. From a website wmo.int claiming to be the website of the WMO –

“What is Climate?
Climate, sometimes understood as the “average weather,” is defined as the measurement of the mean and variability of relevant quantities of certain variables (such as temperature, precipitation or wind) over a period of time, ranging from months to thousands or millions of years.

The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system.”

I’m sure you will tell me and others that it’s “not really” the WMO, or they “don’t understand”, or maybe that it’s “more complicated than that”.

Of course, you could refuse to look at the WMO website, and could claim that you didn’t see it.

But no matter. The IPCC thoughtfully supplies the following definition of climate, for those unable to locate the WMO website –

“Climate
Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the �average weather�, or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). These quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation, and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system.”

So, in typical eccentric Warmist fashion, you make up your own definition based on an implication derived from a definition of something else.

Might I suggest you familiarise yourself with relevant definitions, and a grasp of basic physics.

Your sniggers and sneers might be taken more seriously, if you made fewer unsupported assertions. Don’t you agree?

Comment on Against ‘consensus’ messaging by Peter Lang

$
0
0

Steven Mosher,

Stupid, dumb comment, try again

Comment on Deforestation in the UK by chrism56

$
0
0

Here where I live in Taupo, New Zealand, we have a large wood pelletising plant. It has a mountain of woodchips outside supplied by the local sawmills. The plant is up for sale as they have no significant market, especially since the subsidies in Europe were reduced.
The wood comes from pines that grow very fast here – about 30 years to reach 60m high. However, there is low prices for the wood or pulp and paper so the land is being converted into dairy farms.
There is a wood burning boiler at the pulp and paper mill up the road. They use it to dispose of all the wood waste they can’t use in the plant. It produces 40MW and the factory steam. They need supplementary gas firing to keep it running. The looked at harvesting wood waste left in the forest from the logging operations. It wasn’t economic for them, even with the forest next door to the mill, so I doubt whether it is worthwhile for anyone else.

Comment on Deforestation in the UK by Stanton Brown

$
0
0

See also Ethanol mandate in the USA. Government is incompetent and corrupt — always. Because power corrupts. And as govt takes control of more and more of our lives, it becomes even less capable at handling the simple basics that it really ought to try to handle.

So these type of environmental mandates by govt are a real lose, lose, lose proposition. They end up making the environment worse, the economy weaker, and they distract the govt such that basic govt administration is even worse.

Comment on Deforestation in the UK by micro6500

$
0
0

verdeviewer commented on
in response to curryja:
by Judith Curry More wood being burnt from British woods than since industrial revolution. – David Rose
So, thanks to EU mandates, trees in the SE U.S. are cut using fossil fuel, transported to the mill using fossil fuel, pelletized using fossil fuel, shipped 3800 miles using fossil fuel, and burned (by some accounts creating more asthma-inducing particulates than coal) to produce absurdly-expensive electricity.

I can’t help but think my(our) parents were as aghast at the changes in their world, but it seems to me most of the world has gone crazy.
This is but one example, Germany building coal power plants because they shutdown their nuclear power stations and replaced them with wind and solar, and found out that was killing their manufacturing base with high priced energy.
The US has build wind farms that chop endangered bald eagles to death, solar boilers that torches birds that fly through reflected sunlight, with nary a peep from the EPA. While at the same time the EPA wants a say in the puddle of standing water in your backyard.
And then we have a young blond haired white woman, Rachel Dolezal who have been self identifying herself as a black. And she had gotten away with it for many years, it was only after someone interviewed her parents that this sorry affair became news. Now there’s rumors she’s shopping for a gig on TV.

If it wasn’t for the trillions that this whole CAGW cost,a bunch of scientists milking NSF wouldn’t even make the blogoshere.


Comment on Against ‘consensus’ messaging by nickels

Comment on Deforestation in the UK by fulltimetumbleweed/tumbleweedstumbling

$
0
0

Aspen is indeed a poor wood for heating. I live in the parkland in Canada, a mixed zone between boreal and prairie. Here a tree of two stories high and more than 6 inches in girth is a very big tall. So Ishould have been more precise about what I mean by a “tree”. There isn’t real a lot of other wood to choose. Aspen in the predominant wood. We usually cut and stack our wood and it has time for a couple of years of seasoning. When we first arrived there was a long track of logs strung up in trees, uprooted and hung there by a tornado. Based on when the general store replaced their roof those had been seasoning for about seven years. Wood is a fine heat source out in the country where population density is low and cutting is sustainable but I am not a big fan of shipping wood into the city.

Comment on Deforestation in the UK by wijnand2015

$
0
0

Damn Momoso, that one is out of the park.

+many

Comment on Deforestation in the UK by jeffnsails850

$
0
0

Speaking of bad policy, here’s US presidential candidate Martin O’Malley promising executive order to make all new federal buildings to be “net zero” emissions and federal vehicles “low or zero” emissions.
I didn’t know Tesla made tanks and post office jeeps. And I guess we can only build federal buildings next to nuclear power plants. The rest of the promises are even goofier.
A perfect example of politicians being misled by the warm.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/06/18/pope-francis-encyclical-clean-energy-technology-campaign-column/28859409/

Comment on Deforestation in the UK by wijnand2015

$
0
0

Apologies for spelling your name incorrectly, Mosomoso.

Viewing all 148649 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images