Has the cost of groceries increased?
Comment on Will the President’s Clean Power Plan save consumers money? by Slywolfe
↧
↧
Comment on Will the President’s Clean Power Plan save consumers money? by Michael
chuckrr (@chuckerenno) – Libs seem incapable of making an argument that isn’t based on straw men..Its the “deal” or war. If your not for the deal you are for war. Show me the quotes of anyone opposed to the deal that advocates war.
“I believe they should be prepared to act on the very first day they take office,” he said. “It’s very possible, God forbid that this would happen, but very possible, that the next president could be called to take aggressive actions, including military actions, on their very first day in office.” – Scott Walker, Rupublican candidate.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by hockeyschtick
No Curt, it is impossible for a 217K blackbody to increase the frequency/temperature/energy content of a 255K blackbody by 33K up to 288K. This would require a spontaneous, continuing decrease of entropy forbidden by the 2nd LoT on a macro basis, and by quantum-entropy on a micro basis (explained in Chapter 13 of my linked text)
Please provide me with a published reference stating that a cold blackbody can warm a warmer blackbody by > 0K degrees.
Capt’d hasn’t read the US Std Atm 50 page physical chemistry derivation and thus has no clue that it IS NOT an empirical model, it is entirely derived from basic physics, chemistry, meteorology to a set of equations, which were then VERIFIED with millions of observations.
Unlike you and the other Fizzikxs majors here, these 100’s of atmospheric scientists knew, just like Maxwell, Clausius, Carnot, Boltzmann, Feynman, Chilingar, etc. etc. that the gravito-thermal GHE is physically correct and explains the IR backradiation as an effect not the cause of the GHE.
↧
Comment on Will the President’s Clean Power Plan save consumers money? by Don Monfort
How does that translate into Scott Walker advocating war, mikey? You are probably unaware of the military actions taken by Obumbles in the past and now, on a daily basis. Where did you cherry-pick that out of context quote from, mikey?
↧
Comment on The adversarial method versus Feynman integrity by ristvan
Arthur Smith, your assertions about the IPCC are false. The climate chapter of Arts of Truth documents several large and important examples in AR4 WG1. The exact opposite of Feynman integrity. Previous Guest post here No Bodies did the same for AR4 WG2. Essay Hiding the Hiatus in Blowing Smoke exposes the same lack of Feynman integrity in AR5. Your statement shows either lack of knowledge or lack of integrity.
↧
↧
Comment on Will the President’s Clean Power Plan save consumers money? by Don Monfort
You are lying about the deal, mikey. The nutty ayatollahs are not giving up nuclear power. Quote the text in the deal that says the nutty ayatollahs are giving up nuclear power. Have you missed the Obumbles claim that the deal lengthens the breakout time to a weapon to a year? How does that jibe with them giving up nuclear power? What reactor are they going to dismantle? Are you really this ignorant, or are you an America hater? I don’t see any other possibilities.
↧
Comment on The adversarial method versus Feynman integrity by beththeserf
.rednajliT
↧
Comment on The adversarial method versus Feynman integrity by harkin1
Here’s another quote from Feynman’s ‘Cargo Cult’ speech that fits perfectly with the current state of climate science.
“So I have just one wish for you – the good luck to be somewhere where you are free to maintain the kind of integrity I have described, and where you do not feel forced by a need to maintain your position in the organization, or financial support, or so on, to lose your integrity. May you have that freedom.”
one can wish!
↧
Comment on The adversarial method versus Feynman integrity by Danny Thomas
Dr. Curry. I think you short yourself with this:
“If you know me and think about the costs and benefits I’m facing, I think you will conclude that the most likely explanation for my decision to raise these issues is that I am genuinely trying to come to grips with what has gone wrong in macro-economics and that I am truly committed to science as the noblest human achievement. If you think about the costs I’ll pay for raising these concerns, including the cost of damaged relationships with people that I like, I think you will conclude that a personal commitment to science is the only thing that could be big enough to offset these costs.
JC comment: WOW. What a statement. I wish I had said this.”
I perceive much angst on the part of those courageous (silly?) enough to stand up as a voice of moderation against such a strong tide of alarmism. I’ve wondered to myself A) who’s right? & B) for those who are not at what cost must one feel that if wrong what will be the consequences?
I have to believe that it takes a strong constitution to be willing to be involved in the fray at all from a personal stand point leaving the professional concerns to the side. For this, you (and others) have my admiration.
Questioning should be the accepted norm, yet comes with many undesirables. I’ve faced them personally and cannot even imagine what others willing to do so have to deal with in such public formats.
↧
↧
Comment on The adversarial method versus Feynman integrity by Paul Matthews
Arthur’s response reminds me of another famous Feynman quote,
“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself–and you are the easiest person to fool.”
Has he forgotten
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !”
“Getting people we know and trust is vital”
and the IPCC’s ignoring of research that doesn’t fit the agenda, such as the non-hockeystick of the Finnish LUSTIA group?
And journal editors abusing their position by writing to reviewers saying things like
“I believe I gave you one some time ago … which I think will be a rejection but I need hard justification”?
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by peter3172
PLEASE stop now.
↧
Comment on Will the President’s Clean Power Plan save consumers money? by fulltimetumbleweed/tumbleweedstumbling
Yes, but to be fair the dollar has undergone a huge drop of about 30 cents in exchange with the USA and since most of our food comes from there, some of that might be due to other things. The hydro jump can only be attributed to the green revolution.
↧
Comment on The adversarial method versus Feynman integrity by aplanningengineer
“To me 2000 was a watershed year for science, the year when speculation, particularly with regards to cataclysmic events, became legitimate.”
That’s when it became apparent to me that there is little defense against “speculation” as regards POTENTIAL cataclysmic events. There was no way to counter the doomsayers. No way a rational person can say “no way”. Could there have been such a thing as a Y2K expert who believed the problem was small? Or by definition were such people considered uninformed or at least non-experts. I was as convinced as a person could be that our modeling software would be fine, but did test after test under outside pressure because we couldn’t be “sure”.
So much time was put into checking and cross checking, because there was no way to “prove” that a digit shift to 2000 wouldn’t trigger major problems. In the end the damage was so minimal across the board that it was clear that the preparation for Y2K was far more costly than the impacts of non preparation. But you can’t tell that to a Y2K expert beforehand.
↧
↧
Comment on The adversarial method versus Feynman integrity by Paul Matthews
Roger Pielke on twitter:
Roger A. Pielke Sr @RogerAPielkeSr 36m36 minutes ago
Just concluded a failed attempt to engage with Gavin Schmidt – see twitter exchange. He fits the def of huckster in http://judithcurry.com/2015/08/12/the-adversarial-method-versus-feynman-integrity-2/ …
↧
Comment on The adversarial method versus Feynman integrity by Stanton Brown
Y2K played a big part in the inflation of the tech bubble that became known as the dot.com bubble. Companies, governments, and institutions moved forward all their tech budgets for the early 2000s and spent them in 1998 and 1999 to upgrade and deal with Y2K. Tech stocks already riding the dot.com mania blew sky high. Then the spending dried up in the early 2000s and the Nasdaq crashed.
↧
Comment on The adversarial method versus Feynman integrity by peter2108
Karl Popper vs Paul Feyerabend in the 1960’s was this same debate.
↧
Comment on The adversarial method versus Feynman integrity by timg56
Arthur,
I understand that it is often the case that the higher up you go in educational level, the narrower the focus, but in your case it sounds like you earned your PhD in nit picking.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by hockeyschtick
No, I’m not going to stop defending the ridiculous false claims being made about the US Std Atm physical derivation, and the works of the great physicists Maxwell, Carnot, Clausius, Boltzmann, Feynman, etc., ALL of whom proved the gravito-thermal GHE is correct.
I’m also not going to stop refuting the ridiculous claims being made that a cold blackbody at 217K can cause a warm blackbody at 255K to increase its temperature/energy/frequency by one iota, much less by 33K!
The NET radiation between those two blackbodies is
5.6704e-8*(255^4 – 217^4) = 114 W/m2 from HOT to COLD
Carl et al ridiculously claim that NET radiation of 114W/m2 from HOT to COLD can INCREASE the temperature/frequency/energy of the HOT body from 255K to 288K!! How can energy LOSS of 114W/m2 from the HOT body cause an energy GAIN in the HOT body?
↧
Comment on The adversarial method versus Feynman integrity by timg56
Michael,
still getting residuals from your old Hee Haw gig?
↧
Comment on The adversarial method versus Feynman integrity by Stanton Brown
Dr. Rutledge,
How much of the problem do you think is due to the lack of any quality control process in science (or academia)? A growing number of stats experts and others are pointing out that the majority of studies are flawed (see Amgen and Bayer replication efforts, talk to venture capitalists about their inability to replicate, see John Ioannides’ work, Matt Briggs, et al).
Yet, even knowing that studies are likely flawed, scientists read the abstract of published studies and cite the supposed “findings” as if they are established facts. Not only that, they specifically demand that the public defer to their ‘expertise’, even though their own personal knowledge is limited to nothing more than having read the abstracts of studies that are likely flawed. The hubris is mind-boggling.
My point — if scientists embraced a little humility, admitted that many studies are flawed, reserved judgment until studies with policy implications have been replicated (assumptions examined, etc.), and admitted that far less is known than is presently claimed, would science be less adversarial? After all, if everyone acknowledges how ignorant we all are, how flawed we can be, and how uncertain our knowledge, there simply is less to be confrontational about.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
