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

Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by omanuel


Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Don Monfort

0
0

Is this fake heller another project of kenny attp? What a childish putz.

Thanks for this putz:

“As evidenced in private email exchanges with his colleagues, Mann was very reluctant to engage with Broecker over the hockey stick graph. In an extraordinarily prescient sentence in an email from February 2001, Mann wrote:

“I think its very unfortunate [Broecker]’s chosen to disinform the community rather than engage in a constructive dialogue (we tried the latter w/ him in a series of emails last year, but clearly to no avail). On the other hand, [I] think that a war of words w/ Broecker would be exploited by the skeptics, and perhaps we should just try to let this thing die…”

I wasn’t aware that the little snake is a serial defamer of fellow climate scientists. Now wonder the little snake doesn’t want to submit to discovery.

Comment on Industry funding and bias by ordvic

0
0

That is assuming he is not vacationing in Russia with all his commie buddies (sarc).

Comment on Industry funding and bias by Don Monfort

0
0

Yes, and 10:55 is still past his Emeritus bedtime.

Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by matthewrmarler

0
0

Jim D: Mann’s HS was like a first draft. Imperfect, but basically correct.

It might have been like that but it wasn’t. Mann tortured the data on purpose to try to remove the Medieval Warm Period, wrote a lot of contradictory propositions about it after the fact, and intentionally produced a fraudulent hockeystick graph (the first use of “Mann’s trick to hide the decline”).

I am beginning to appreciate why some commenters call you “yimmy” and such. You are either thick as a brick or something less respectable.

Comment on Industry funding and bias by David Wojick

0
0

I would like to point out that while the focus of my taxonomy of funding-induced biases is Federal funding, it also applies to industry funding, or any funding. In fact for each of the 15 different biases we give a snapshot of the existing research and most of that is on industry funding (where there is any). The biomedical community does most of it, because human health and lives are at stake, as with the sugar issue.
See my http://www.cato.org/publications/working-paper/government-buying-science-or-support-framework-analysis-federal-funding

Comment on Industry funding and bias by Craig Loehle

0
0

There is extreme point of view bias in academia that doesn’t need funding as an excuse. Any topic touching on social issues, psychology, economics, history, etc. is heavily affected by politics/worldview and academia is 95% voting democratic. Many faculty are quite radical (left). No conspiracy or nudge is needed for them to agree that sugar is bad, smoking should be banned, socialism is good, the minimum wage should be raised, etc etc. On a topic like climate, separating real impacts from the fevered imagination of people who see the end of the world everywhere all the time (like John Ehrlich way back in 1970) is unlikely to be done objectively.

Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by matthewrmarler

0
0

Jim D: Even M&M despite all their criticisms, and others who repeated it and tried to improve it according to their own data preferences, were never able to substantially alter Mann’s HS result.

More of the “thick as a brick or something less respectable”. Surely you know that wikipedia is untrustworthy on this topic. Subsequent work has restored the Medieval Warm Period that the handle of Mann’s fraudulent hockeystick had attempted to flatten.


Comment on Industry funding and bias by RiHo08

0
0

David Wojick’s point:

“As Kuhn pointed out, the paradigm defines the questions and CAGW is the paradigm in climate science today. That is the bias issue.”

is correct except the bias, at least from my point of view precedes the paradigm. The bias begins with the Administrations’s appointment of the Department Administrator who then chooses the Department Head who will follow the guidance of the Administration. Department Head pliability; not making waves; being agreeable in a disagreeable situation; being a “yes” man/woman. The Department Head then chooses the lead staffers and so on down the line. The Staffers then choose who to invite to write and review Requests For Proposals. Only known people with a known perspective are allowed. Money and administrative resources are then allocated to the Administration’s priority and all other projects are either carried to completion and not renewed, or administratively axed: “no results yet? bad project. Terminate funds. Thank you very much for your time and effort. Don’t call us, we’ll call you.”

Bias all starts at the Administration level, and really at the Donor’s level who then help select the administration’s choices for Senate approval for Government Agency appointments. The President’s Chief of Staff then makes sure the Administration’s paradigm is articulated in all the right nooks and crannies of political power.

Only later do we hear where the the biases originated. CAGW is no different. We have a complicit President, encircled, as one might envision a moat, with the first line of defense for the castle walls: the Manns, Schmidts, etc under the watchful eyes of now, Tom S.

Comment on Industry funding and bias by Reality check

0
0

Why would you link yourself to a protected blog? Makes no sense.

Comment on Industry funding and bias by Reality check

0
0

Jim D: Doesn’t the satellite record back the skeptic position?

Comment on Industry funding and bias by climatereason

0
0

schitzree

Dr Vaughan Pratt is a well respected and liked academic contributor to this blog and is certainly not a troll. He is worth feeding.

tonyb

Comment on Industry funding and bias by Craig Loehle

0
0

Pasteur got funding to help the beer industry. He was one of the first industrial biologists. Never mentioned in the text books.

Comment on Industry funding and bias by opluso

0
0

Government agencies that provide research funding are the elephant in the room. The bureaucratic imperative is to grow and maintaining/increasing the research budget is part of that.

Government RFPs are rarely written in a vacuum. The symbiotic relationships between research contractors and government agencies are obvious. There is a great deal of coordination (e.g., tailoring the RFP to exclude potential competition) and padding of annual budget requests — simply “throwing some money” at a favored contractor is not unheard of.

About the only example of budgetary punishment for failed/incompetent research that I can think of was the time EIA paid a contractor to conduct the periodic CBECS survey of commercial building energy consumption. The contractor so flubbed the work that the Congressionally mandated tri-annual CBECS update could not be produced. In response, Congress cut the office’s budget.

http://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/

Comment on Industry funding and bias by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3

0
0

that was cute.

Let see, 12oz Coke, 140 calories, 12 oz Budweiser 145 calories, 12 oz Red Bull 157 calories, 12 oz grape juice 231 calories, 12 oz red wine ~289 calories.

Calories burned per hour of internet surfing: ~100
Calories burned per hour of walking your dog (without texting): ~450

Which has increased more, per capita consumption of Coke or per capita hours per day of butt in chair?

Once upon a time an overweight person was considered “prosperous”. Overweight people also has this “happy” stigma associated with them.


Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by aaron

0
0

What evidence for static bird populations and migration patterns in the past? Why temperature and not land use likely factors?

Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by Turbulent Eddie

0
0

Mann’s HS was like a first draft. Imperfect, but basically correct.

Wrong!

What part of “hide the decline” did you not hear about?

Mann was wrong, not because there has been warming, but precisely because the tree ring data indicated COOLING since 1960, not warming!

And according to Phil Jone’s email, hiding this decline was the intent!

Comment on Industry funding and bias by Brian White

0
0

I started a project about a new class of solar tracker (for dirt poor countries). I called the new trackers “dripper trackers” . There are 3 main variations. And a researcher from University of Victoria said it would be a “perfect project” for a student to complete in the “mecatronics” program. He was actually quite excited about it. Ideally a tiny stepper motor would be the timer for the thing. But 3 months later, “sorry, we cannot complete the project because you are not a company and you have no plans to commercialize the result”. And because I released the plans on the net, this applies to all universities worldwide. (Because they all have this stupid rules). Charity research is forbidden. And frankly, without the weight of a university “proof” that it works, nobody will bother with it. This is a weakness in the system. We should not be abandoning things because someone has no plans to commercialize it. Other people can commercialize it if they wish but it is never going to happen without the initial university input. Brian

Comment on Industry funding and bias by brentns1

Comment on Industry funding and bias by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3

0
0

CL, Pasteur also did unauthorized human health experimentation and his research was considered deceptive by some. He would not stand a chance in today’s academia.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images