What the climate science global warming “scientists” have done to public trust in science and the smearing of the reputation of all scientists is beyond appalling. Hopefully once this mess settles down we can learn to guard ourselves from such charlatans.
Comment on Industry funding and bias by fulltimetumbleweed/tumbleweedstumbling
↧
↧
Comment on Industry funding and bias by fulltimetumbleweed/tumbleweedstumbling
A real scientist does not sue a journalist or a fellow scientist critic for disagreeing with them. A real scientist shares all data in request and helps everyone else to try to replicate how he did what he did. Only a political shill hides behind law suites.
↧
Comment on Industry funding and bias by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3
Butt in chair is one of those confounding factors. Another interesting confounding factor is fad diet health impacts. Once you are “labeled” obese you are more likely to experiment with various fad diets to ditch the label, the over doing it effect.
The canned tuna diet came close to killing a number of people and highlighted the Mercury issue. The high dollar “white” tuna and Albaco has more Mercury so the more affluent were more greatly impacted.
http://www.livescience.com/10777-obese-healthy-gray-area-confounds-science.html
↧
Comment on Industry funding and bias by bedeverethewise
Do you have a first robotics team?
↧
Comment on Industry funding and bias by bedeverethewise
What does Pravda say?
↧
↧
Comment on Industry funding and bias by fulltimetumbleweed/tumbleweedstumbling
Gary that is a great point I hadn’t considered. Governments pushing global warming and climate change frequently have their own reward in mind. That is justifying carbon tax and wealth redistribution. Therefore governments, who don’t have to survive in reality and always have the public purse to dip into, are far more suspect than industry that needs accurate results.
↧
Comment on Industry funding and bias by fulltimetumbleweed/tumbleweedstumbling
Pasteur was not allowed to join the reputable chemistry science clubs of his day either.
↧
Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by Punksta
<i>The world’s mathematicians, scientists, and engineers regard a great portion of anti-Mann rhetoric to be ill-founded faux-mathematical bafflegab</i>
Not so. NOT A SINGLE ONE could be found to give him a good reference in the court case. Not even a reallt rabid politically motived one. His arrogant and blatant hiding and fiddling data and abusive attitude is even too much for them to stomach. And his Hockey Stick even the IPCC has long since beem dropped.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by blueice2hotsea
PA
I will try to restate my point more clearly.
TCR will not necessarily be reduced even though in the paper you referenced observed forcing from CO2 is lower than derived from radiative transfer models and even though I gave an actual example where calculated TCR decreases.
Depending upon calculation methodology, forcing isn’t relevant:
e.g. TCR = (T-T0) * ln 2 / ln(C/C0)
Note: this observed TCR may or may not be comparable to GCM TCR due to 70 yr doubling time CO2 is not controlled.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by blueice2hotsea
<i>...forcing isn’t relevant</i>
Erm, the <i>value</i> of the forcing isn't relevant.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3
blue, “However, λ, the climate sensitivity parameter is inversely proportional to ΔF, so one would not expect TCR to decrease(!) for direct calculations, no?”
Lambda is the sum of a number of feedbacks with glacial area being a big one. As glacial area decreases lambda would decrease significantly. That is just one example. I am not sure why you wouldn’t expect TCR not to decrease other than not considering the actual factors involved in lambda.
↧
Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by Don Monfort
We ain’t much impressed with the ill-informed patronizing prattle of the Pernicious Peronista Pope, fanny-johnny. Or should we call you, johnny-fanny?
↧
Comment on Carly Fiorina hits the ‘sweet spot’ on climate change by Judith Curry’s Text Messages Hacked, Deniergate Begins | Tony Heller (aka Steven Goddard), Exposed
[…] you know if I think I need you. MS: OK. You did a really great job ingratiating yourself with them on your blog post about her policy statement on climate change. JC: Thanks, Mark, I greatly appreciate that. […]
↧
↧
Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by John Sidles
<b>The Court Renders Its Verdict</b>
The court of mathematical, scientific, and engineering judgement has rendered its verdict: <i><b><a href="https://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm#S6" rel="nofollow">Mann's 1998 hockey-stick of climate-change is judged to be broadly correct</a>.</b></i>
That's why the IPCC's most recent <i>Synthesis Report</i> (2014) includes <b><a href="http://judithcurry.com/2015/08/13/mark-steyns-new-book-on-michael-mann/#comments" rel="nofollow">plenty of hockey-stick graphs</a></b>
<b>Conclusion</b> No amount of courtroom wrangling about legal minutiae can alter the <i>scientific</i> verdict … which is why <b><a href="http://judithcurry.com/2015/08/13/mark-steyns-new-book-on-michael-mann/#comment-724978" rel="nofollow">the overwhelming majority of mathematicians, scientists, and engineers are uninterested in courtroom wrangling</a>.</b>
These are realities, Mark Steyn!
↧
Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by timg56
Teflon Jim is imprevious to reasoned argument.
But I’ll give him his due, he is fearless in his willingness to make statements which more often than not are divorced from reality.
↧
Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by John Sidles
Don Monfort, in your mind, who are the persons presently comprising the “we” who view Jorge Mario Bergoglio as “an ill-informed patronizing pernicious peronista”?
Conclusion Most thoughtful citizens have a different view.
↧
Comment on Industry funding and bias by fulltimetumbleweed/tumbleweedstumbling
This is SO true. You only need to look at the studies of academia and the percentage of Republicans in tenured position, or the totally preposterous academia based demonization of Israel. It is a self perpetuating mindset as well. I had one interview where I was questioned extensively on my Zionism even though the job was about teaching genetics which should have had nothing to do with my political leanings. I even asked the interviewer what my membership in The Winnipeg Zionist Initiative had to do with the position. He replied that I would not just be teaching the content of a specific subject, I would be acting as a role model and mentor to young minds and they had to be certain I was the right sort of person for that. Oh and I didn’t get that job. No surprise.
↧
↧
Comment on Industry funding and bias by fulltimetumbleweed/tumbleweedstumbling
And it also affects media. I saw a piece about who gets into journalism school. There’s a reason so many FOX commentators came into journalism by nontraditional routes.
↧
Comment on Industry funding and bias by justinwonder
“…questioned…my Zionism…”
Here in the US I think that would be an illegal question on both freedom of religion and political discrimination grounds, especially if it was a public institution.
↧
Comment on Industry funding and bias by fulltimetumbleweed/tumbleweedstumbling
This makes me laugh. One of the reasons I like watching FOX is they can be counted on to always present multiple perspectives and they tolerate multiple perspectives in their staff and commentators. I’ll bet anyone on the Guardian staff who doesn’t tow the Guardian line on climate change has long since ceased to be on staff.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
