jim2, nice graph. btw, that tiny green residential probably causes more adverse health impact than the power generation red.
Comment on Week in review – science edition by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Ron Graf
Jim D, Up until 10 years ago the whole state of Pennsylvania was teaching intelligent design along side evolution. PA liberal leaning state with a Democrat governor. Although I find it hard to understand how one could honestly dispute evolution, the caution in my mind about bias is not related to a single group of people, but to anyone who thinks their group is immune.
From my perspective I agree with creationist that spontaneous life, Earth and the universe are barely comprehensible. On the other hand, there is overwhelming evidence of it. I see CAGW as driven partly be religiosity (ideology and conformity to it). In addition, I see the evolution of technological civilization extrapolating beyond most people’s imagination. I see many non-“religious” people gathering their beliefs about future generations by not thinking about it all that much, and at the same time, accusing others (they see as religious) of that same thing.
I visited Anders’ site this week to comment on his post on a Matt Ridley article about filters for the success advanced civilizations to exist in the universe. Ridley, summoning Enrico Fermi’s famous quote during a private UFO discussion at Los Alamos, asked, “Where is everybody?” I was not all that surprised that most on the Anders string, including Steven, believed space exploration was a waste of money, that civilization is not changing all that much into the next century, etc… They could not foresee unforeseeable inventions or changes in society. I suspected warmers are not really futurists any more than bible fundamentalists are. I feel Elon Musk is a futurist but he will barely admit it. It’s not PC today as it was in the 1960s. I feel like a relic.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by matthewrmarler
Seeing Struggling Math Learners as ‘Sense Makers,’ Not ‘Mistake Makers’ [link]
Sure. Another way to avoid teaching proficiency and mastery of mathematics. Sooner or later, and the sooner the better, students have to practice to mastery and build on that mastery by practicing toward more mastery.
Better than the Koenigsberg bridge problem is the classic “proof” that all triangles are isoceles triangles.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by AK
It’s more a fact than a theory.
Actually, it’s a cluster of related theories, most of which have been more-or-less discredited. That cluster includes all the scientifically accepted explanations for the current state of life on earth.
It’s instructive to note the statement on the sticker that was prohibited:
[…] Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. […]
It specifically states that evolution “is […] not a fact”. This is a clear establishment of religion. A statement more in line with science might be
[…] Evolution is a theory, not known for certain to be a fact, regarding the origin of living things. […]
My guess is that would have flown, it’s certainly much more in line with real science than “evolution is true.”
↧
Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by jamesbbkk
It seems that he aims to show he is knowledgeable enough to take on the anti free speech racket the suit entails. Oh well, he must have blown the case.
↧
↧
Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by John Sidles
catweazle666, the information provided by citizen-science web-sites like the indispensable Explain xkcd/Land Mammals will greatly help in expanding your biomic horizons to encompass the broader, more mature scientific, economic, and moral landscape of Laudato Si’.
Enjoy your newly begun scientific, economic, and moral journey toward a broader, more enlightened conservatism, catweazle666!
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by matthewrmarler
Turbulent Eddie: <i>So, lets compare the anomalies. </i>
Good post, one of several good posts today. Thank you.
↧
Comment on ‘Climate culture’ versus ‘knowing disbelief’ by andywest2012
Thanks. The main finding agrees with other work by Kahan (he’s one of the authors on this paper), and is that also mentioned here, i.e. that those with higher science literacy / awareness are more polarized on climate change.
I’m not quite sure what it says about the Independents, because it appears to be testing a hypothesis that favoring egalitarian or heirarchical society is a predictive factor for climate change risk perception; I need to delve more. Anyhow, it isn’t considering that ‘climate culture’ may be an influence in its own right, because afaict from a quick glance the assumption appears to be that the orthodox climate change narrative is absolute fact and hence it can’t be considered as a cultural influence.
↧
Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by matthewrmarler
John Sidles: Answer For the overwhelming majority of mathematicians, scientists, and engineers, the simple answer is “no”.
Because:
• The legal merits of Mann vs Steyn and Steyn vs Man are contingent upon arcane legal minutiae that have no scientific interest whatsover.
You wrote that Steyn was “willfully ignorant”. You ought to back it up or retract it.
The arcane legal minutia (“burden of proof”, definition of “defamation”, freedom of speech and such) are the topic of the thread to which you are responding. They are of great interest to Michael Mann, Mark Steyn and diverse denizens here.
↧
↧
Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by -1=e^iπ
To be more accurate, I want to estimate the impulse response function, not just climate sensitivity. The instrumental data set is good for measuring fast feedbacks, but not slow feedbacks since we have less than 2 centuries of data. Paleoclimate estimates of the Holocene might be terrible at estimating the fast feedbacks, but might help better constrain the slow feedbacks. Combined they might give a decent picture of the impulse response function.
↧
Comment on ‘Climate culture’ versus ‘knowing disbelief’ by AK
<blockquote>How about “accept as more likely true than not” given that papers come with evidence and are built on previous evidence.</blockquote>I suspect what you're trying to say is that the orthodox "climate culture" accepts the supposed "consensus", while the "skeptics" are skeptical of it.
But it sill doesn't fly. First, there's clear evidence that the scientific process has been subverted to a political agenda since the last century. How much, and to what effect, remains a matter of debate <b>among scientists</b>.
Second is the clear "circle the wagons" mentality among people with a small subset of <b>policy views</b> regardless of "outsiders'" take on the science. It doesn't take a scientist to see that the thing is a scam. Those who understand the science can narrow the scam down to the policy debate, those who don't are likely to dismiss the whole thing, including science, as a scam.
Third, a good deal of the loudest yelling is coming from people quick to denigrate as a "denier" anybody who quotes something they don't like <b>even from the latest IPCC report.</b> This stinks of the old "diabolical logic" of medieval churchmen: logic that started with biblical "truths" and led to unpalatable conclusions was simply dismissed as the "work of the devil".
And I could also add the blatant hucksterism: "4 out of 5 dentists recommend Crest." Ya think somebody has to be a scientist to make the <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=TcKr8db8L_AC&pg=PT163&dq=dentists+crest+campaign&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAGoVChMIr4aP09urxwIViY0NCh1bBgDU#v=onepage&q=dentists%20crest%20campaign&f=false" rel="nofollow">parallel?</a>
↧
Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by matthewrmarler
Jim D: Mann doesn’t have to prove Steyn was false or ignorant. He only needs to point to the several independent academic investigations that have not found fraud in what Mann did.
The more I read your posts, the more I suspect that you just plain do not know or understand very much.
The investigation of Mann by Penn State that did not find fraud was a travesty. It was the same committee, the same chairman and mostly the same members, that failed the Sandusky investigation; and it failed in the same ways, for example by counting the income for PSU that those men were partially responsible for, and by taking testimony only from the defendants.
Steyn’s briefs, responding in part to Mann’s mutually contradictory briefs, in Steyn v Mann (and some commentaries at Climate Audit) address the “exonerations” of Mann in detail.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jim2
Bad image. Anyway, nat gas prices have fallen from around $4.50 to $2.75 of late.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jim2
From the article:
…
The Environmental Protection Agency isn’t responding to claims by Todd Hennis, owner of the Gold King mine in Colorado that the agency coerced him to grant access to his property. Once taking over, of course, EPA’s incompetent attempts to remove debris created a massive 3 million gallon toxic waste spill from the mine.
Hennis told the CBS Denver affiliate that unless he allowed the EPA to have access and authority to conduct operations on the site the agency had threatened him with daily fines of $35,000.
“When you’re a small guy and you’re having a $35,000-a-day fine accrue against you, you have to run up the white flag,” Hennis explained.
Breitbart News asked the EPA on Friday to confirm or deny Hennis’s claim, but has received no reply.
…
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/16/epa-fails-to-acknowledge-it-coerced-mine-owner-to-grant-access/
↧
Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by matthewrmarler
John Sidles: Open questions Did Steyn’s disregard-of-fact (as documented by Mann’s filing) arise through ignorance? Was the ignorance willful? Was the intent malicious?
Mann’s filings (note plural) contain contradictions and errors. It was you who made the unsubstantiated charge that Steyn displayed “willful ignorance”.
Broad answers Although the details of the answers to these questions are legally contentious — involving minutiae of phrasing and intricacies of defamation law — it is none-the-less evident that, broadly speaking and judging by the traditional standards of rational discourse among mathematicians, scientists, and engineers, there are no answers to these questions that reflect very credibly upon Steyn’s brand of public discourse.
The details matter. Calling them “minutiae” does not make them not matter.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jim2
From the article:
TRUMPMENTUM: AT TOP OF THE POLLS, THE DONALD CATCHES FIRE ON THE TRAIL
…
“Mr. Trump, you said that the concept of global warming was created by China [to hurt the United States]. Can you explain precisely how China created the concept of global warming?” one reporter asked. Trump replied:
I said that in a very sarcastic fashion—but it’s helping China because China is doing very little about global warming and this country has gone overboard. You saw what happened the other day with President Obama’s bill. It’s going to put costs out of control, and we have to compete with China. We have to compete with the rest of the world. China loves what we’re doing on global warming, that I can tell you. You go over to China and see what their factories are doing. Their factories are doing absolutely nothing having to do with global warming and they won’t for many, many years. China is making it impossible between their devaluations—I was just talking about with somebody who really knows the subject—their devaluations and the whole thing with global warming, China is making it impossible for our companies to compete and we better get smart on this.
…
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3
Jim2, “Anyway, nat gas prices have fallen from around $4.50 to $2.75 of late.”
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/epa-report-fracking-no-drinking-water-harm-118643.html
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by harrywr2
Nice deliberately confusing argument.
It talk’s about current coal consumption then switches to talking about generating capacity.
China is going to need somewhere between 1,500 and 2,000 GW of dispatchable capacity.
As they currently have little in the way of natural gas.(if they did have natural gas it would go to things like fertizer) ‘dispatchable capacity’ means either coal of nuclear.
As in the US..a large portion of dispatchable capacity ends up being seasonal peakers.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jim2
I’m aware of the EPA ruling and not too sure your point. However, greater use for electricity generation, vehicle fuel, and LPG exports should help drive up the price.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Ron Graf
Jim D:
China is an example of what happens when the advocates of a clean and safe environment lose to industrial profitmaking and expansion. Their equivalent of the EPA, if such exists, has failed big-time. This is an example of where weak or no regulation leads. It’s a situation the western world was in in the 50’s an 60’s before they started to think more about clean air.
Jim, you are not “crazy” but your assumptions I respectfully disagree with:
1) China, under Mau and successors had the right political ideology and they, like the Stalinists, would have been successful with it had they had enough time, and had they not been corrupted and subverted by the USA.
2) Therefore, if the world was dominated by Marxism the leaders it could enforce environmental codes without concern for profit since there would be no such thing. Everyone would be just as industrious but they would be more conscientious stewards of the planet.
3) Because, after all, environmental codes are not the result of free peoples power to lobby their government to preserve nature, but are the result of a few very wise and caring individuals, who by Darwinistic laws naturally rise to be the leaders of totalitarian governments.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
