climatereason | July 30, 2015 at 4:22 am |
“I really don’t know why certain people here have a problem with questions.”
By “certain people” do you mean the english major trying to masquerade as a scientist?
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by David Springer
↧
↧
Comment on Microgrids and “Clean” Energy by verdeviewer
PA, re copper prices:
AFIK, modern high-voltage overhead transmission lines are aluminum alloy. Copper is too heavy and expensive.
(A superconductor material strung overhead would have to conduct at some pretty high temperatures.)
↧
Comment on Microgrids and “Clean” Energy by Mark Silbert
Peter Lang,
Thanks for the link to the NEA report. Interesting reading.
I would like to see the references on the low effectiveness of wind in reducing CO2 emissions.
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by David L. Hagen
By using coercion of public intimidation , Tamino undermines the scientific method. It took an innocent child to expose the fact that <a href="http://www.andersen.sdu.dk/vaerk/hersholt/TheEmperorsNewClothes_e.html" rel="nofollow">the Emperor had no clothes</a>. All the rest were bowing to the politically correct "understanding"!
<a href="https://royalsociety.org/about-us/history/" / rel="nofollow">Thus the Royal Society chose </a>its
<blockquote>motto 'Nullius in verba' [which] roughly translates as 'take nobody's word for it'. It is an expression of the determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment</blockquote>
Tamino - Uphold the scientific method - sift the wheat from the chaff - or look for diamonds in the coal dust. <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2015/07/29/assessments-meta-analyses-discussion-and-peer-review/#comment-721462" rel="nofollow">It only takes one fact to nullify your politically correct theory.</a>
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by jungletrunks (@jungletrunks)
“Unfortunately, the public, to whom the message was sent, is not so discerning or skeptical of authority.”
TE, I think much of the public generally gets the politics behind AGW, which is why alarmism in the press gets ever more “ridiculous”. Although it’s true that much of the public still has a hard time quantifying the degree of cooperation (monopoly) between the political pundits and the scientists providing the work that sustains the politics, and the media.
↧
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by jim2
As Brandon Shollenberger highlighted recently, BEST is SMOBAR (Smoothed beyond all recognition).
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by opluso
JCH:
The earlier Weber paper provides an excellent analysis of their methods for using an automated, objective system for identifying annual laeyrs in marine sediments. However, the age and location do no not overlap with the later paper. The image you provided (same as the one I gave a link to) is from the more recent Weber paper and shows, in the upper left-hand corner, the estimated extent of the Patagonian Ice Sheet as well as presumed southwest wind direction. Taking those two together is what raises, in my mind, the question over potential contamination of cores in the Scotia Sea (as contrasted with the southeastern Weddell sea examined by the earlier Weber paper).
Why this could be important in the context of the Hansen hypothesis is that if the late Pleistocene sea level rise was driven mostly (or exlusively) by ice sheets that no longer exist (e.g., Laurentide, Scandanavian and Patagonian), then Hansen’s hypothesis of accelerating sea level rise is much weaker, IMO. That is one reason Hansen, et al., cited Weber and Fairbanks in the first place.
↧
Comment on Microgrids and “Clean” Energy by Canman
Jim2, Thanks for that link. To clarify, cogeneration means combined heat and power (CHP).
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by David L. Hagen
AK
Some contain innovative confidential material that can be used to file patents and start up /extend a company. e.g. see <a href="http://sciencesherpa.com/nih-sbir-grants-how-to-disclose-and-protect-proprietary-information/" / rel="nofollow">NIH on confidential material in SBIR applications.</a>
↧
↧
Comment on Microgrids and “Clean” Energy by Canman
Jim2’s first pie chart shows that microgrids are for industrial and commercail use and not people living off the grid.
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by AK
IMO the whole issue of tax money paying for research associated with IP needs to be clarified/revisited.
I'm not saying that it should never happen, but one of the main <b>original</b> aspects of patents was <b>disclosure</b>. A more important question is, why should the government be paying for research that's still too secret for patent filing? For that matter, why/when should research paid for by the government lead to patents at all?
Perhaps most research paid for from tax funds, especially if the "overhead" is taken from the grants, should end up in the public domain. That way, anybody who wanted to use it could. And anybody who wanted proprietary IP could fund their own research.
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by David L. Hagen
curryja
Consider it an <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/misinformers.php" rel="nofollow">climate science honor roll </a>of those whose facts and models cannot be rebutted. SkS descends to <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=ad+hominem&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-Address&ie=&oe=" rel="nofollow">gutter journalism of illogical ad hominem</a> attacks.
e.g. see <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+19%3A15-16&version=NIV" rel="nofollow">Paul vs sons of Skiva.</a> They will each receive their <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+20%3A11-15&version=ESV" rel="nofollow">come uppance.</a>
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Editor of the Fabius Maximus website
Jim D,
So you are throwing out three categories of answers by experts with the highest category of publications? ~15% of responses by people with over 30 publications each. Hey, what do they know?
You describe the categories as quartiles, although the supplement does not use the word?
OK, now I understand why you believe people who disagree with you (“skeptics”) are not sensible. You see the world in a funhouse mirror and are puzzled that others do not see the same picture.
I am done here.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by beththeserf
:)
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by genghiscunn
PA, the paper’s BAU case seems reasonable for modelling purposes, but they do accept many of the alleged costs of warming from other sources such as Stern, rather than assessing them independently. Given that they are developing a model as a teaching aid, I don’t quarrel with that. However, it will tend to bias any costs upwards and ignores benefits of e.g. greater plant growth, so their figures would tend to be biased to the dangerous warming case. This strengthens the point they make that costs borne now would be to favour people several generations hence and several times richer per capita than us. That, to me, implies that they have reservations about the GHG-reduction strategy, but that is secondary to their aim of developing a teaching tool. They are not looking for policy-relevant conclusions.
Faustino
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Nick Stokes
Tony,
I don't read Deltoid much now, as they don't have much new material. As to the link you mentioned, I'm not sure what I am expected to comment on re Ladurie or 1421. Many people feel the Chinese navy exploring the pole in 1421 is far-fetched and with shaky sources, so I suppose Lambert thinks that shows undue credulity. I can sympathize with that.
What I thought was more telling credulity was Rose's enthusiasm for the CENSORED-DATA furphy (" Surely this points to an egregious scientific scandal."). This follows a sceptic pattern where scientists are held to know that it's all a fraud, and if you listen and interpret closely, they are sure to let something slip. So in this case, Mann has a sort of portfolio in the attic where he puts all his guilty secrets, helpfully labelling them "CENSORED_DATA" and putting a copy on the web. Of course, in fact censored-data is simply <a href="https://www.google.com.au/search?q=CENSORED+DATA&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1" rel="nofollow">standard statistical terminology</a> for data with missing values subject to a one-sided restriction.
And credulity re Iraq - well, he may have apologised, but it is still gross credulity (at best).
But in terms of sloppy (and motivated) reporting, that post links (via Romm) to <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html" rel="nofollow">this</a>, which starts:
<i>"The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists."</i>
That is untrue. Eminent climate scientists do not believe that. But Rose's star exhibit was Prof Mojib Latif, who he quoted extensively. And <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/11/climate-change-global-warming-mojib-latif" rel="nofollow">here</a> is what Latif had to say about that.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
Maximus, they mention quartiles under Table S3, but I am done here too. Next time you mention the 47% perhaps you will at least think of your own 2.5% too.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by genghiscunn
RiHo, I worked as a journalist at times 1961-64 and left because it was too dishonest. The story is the thing, not the sometimes inconvenient facts or concepts of balance. Not true of all journos at all times, but generally the case.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by genghiscunn
I’m hoping that it will be A Bridge Too Far for the antipodeans. Lurking Panzer divisions overlooked and all that.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Peter Davies
Oh no! It appears that Faustino might also be suffering from the same problem as tonyb. Oh well, off the field he seems a decent sort of fellow so I will let his comment pass to the keeper. :)
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
