This is the story of unions, especially public unions like teachers. Organizational success means growth, and more growth until the organization becomes such a hindrance to the common good. Then a new organization springs up (i.e. theTea Party) to attempt to reign things in. Judging by Trump’s uncanny popularity there is a broad sentiment against organized advocacy, (i.e. K Street).
Comment on Industry funding and bias by Ron Graf
↧
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by Mark Silbert
Gotta love it.
Steyn is one of a kind.
Looks like someone beat me to it and bought Brandon a copy of the book. Brandon has a scam going on getting free books. I bought him Steyn’s last one.
While Steyn’s post is absolutely hilarious, it has a very serious side as well about the depths that the Mannboys will go to to slur those that disagree with them and they think are “dangerous”.
Judith I suggest you get Steyn to autograph a copy of this post so you can get it framed for your office.
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by curryja
Maybe Josh needs to do a cartoon :)
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by mwgrant
A point conceded. And I had asked why would anyone buy the book? (Not a fan of the climate bickering.) Looking at column and LOL. Fine skills should always be appreciated.
↧
Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by physicistdave
John Sidles wrote to me:
>Physicistdave, it is a pleasure to remind you — and Climate Etc readers too — of James Hansen’s sterling track-record of “do-or-die, no-fudging-allowed predictions”, with include…
Okay, so you are engaged in a con job, aren’t you, John?
Predictions in physical science are expected to be quantitative, to follow in a way anyone can calculate for himself from the explicitly stated theory, to predict observations in a way such that everyone can agree as to whether or not observations confirm those predictions, and to cover a range of predictions (i.e., no cherry-picking post hoc).
I leave it as an exercise for the student to note that the examples you give fail to meet those criteria.
Now, if you or Hansen had predicted, quantitatively and in advance, the recent “pause” in apparent surface temperatures based on an explicit model of heat disappearing into the ocean depths, and if your detailed quantitative predictions agreed with detailed observations… well, then I’d be impressed.
But, neither you nor Hansen did. No one did.
This does not show you are bad people. It merely shows that this area of research, like most significant areas of research, is really, really hard. I am merely suggesting that everyone openly admit that no one has definitive results.
What makes me almost certain you are a con artist is this whopper:
>In particular, skepticism of IPCC predictions is entirely reasonable, in light of Hansen’s reasoned arguments that the IPCC estimates of future climate-change are too conservative, for the reason that the IPCC approach relies overmuch on large computer models, and too little upon fundamental thermodynamics considerations, the paleo record, and observational data.
The IPCC — and Judith and Lindzen et al. and I and all legit scientists — are not ignoring “fundamental thermodynamics considerations.” I have a Ph.D. in physics from Stanford, John (1983): I know “fundamental thermodynamics.”
And, no competent scientist thinks, to use your words, that “fundamental thermodynamics considerations, the paleo record, and observational data.” is sufficient to give valid predictions of future climate. The system is way, way too complicated — complex and not fully understood feedbacks, non-linearities, time lags, etc.
For some reason, you are playing a game here, John.
What’s going on?
I note that you chose not to respond to my question about whether you have a legitimate Ph.D. in some legitimate field of physical science.
I’ve been googling you: a lot of stuff has come up, and an awful lot of it does not quite smell right, John. Tell me where you got your Ph.D. and give basic evidence of your bona fides, please.
I would hate to have to get in touch with your employer and present some basic facts to them, but if it becomes evident that what I have seen of you on the Web is indeed a case of massive scientific fraud, I may have a professional obligation to do so.
Please provide the information to show that my suspicions are misguided.
Dave
↧
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by Michael
More stupid from Steyn.
Gender imbalance in some science feilds (hardly alone) is Michael Mann’s fault?
Judith, naturally, promotes this latest addition to the witch-hunt.
Steyn then tries to use the gender of some of the people he quoted a( a tiny handful) as yet another weapon to bash Mann – seems he finds their gender more interesting than their science.
Pretty desperate stuff.
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by harkin1
Appel is getting his clock cleaned by most commenters. Good to see an actual “serial misinformer” get so pwned that they feel exposed enough to ‘fess up.
One thing though, he still has not corrected nor updated the original Quark Soup blog post where he accuses Steyn and Curry of dishonestly (dare I say implying fraudulently?) altering quotes. That means the alarmist trolls can continue to link to it to smear Steyn and Curry.
I pointed this out to Appel, hopefully it will result in a correction.
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by curryja
Steyn does not have much trouble selling his books :)
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by Michael
I salute your refusal to get neck-deep in petty tribalism.
↧
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by matthewrmarler
russellaeitz: I had a duty to warn potential victims that they will encounter little new in his latest amateur legal brief- his career of deliberate misquotation continues as it must, because he rivals Rush as a font of misinformation.
Compiling and publishing a lot of material that is not new can be useful, as with the Pentagon Papers in days of yore or the many Annual Reviews.
Perhaps you would be willing to compile a volume of Steyn’s deliberate misquotations? You could append it to your amicus curiae brief in favor of Mann in Steyn v Mann — Mann needs help.
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by schitzree
Greens only hate large families when the belong to other people. Their own are of course exempt from the need to reduce world population to less then 1/10.
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by Don Monfort
He needs to raise the price point on his 99 cent e-books. I am getting a vision of brandoon standing in the median with a sad looking dog, a shopping cart full of stuff and a hand lettered sign. We could do him a mitzvah by chipping in to buy him a sense of humor.
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by Brandon S? (@Corpus_no_Logos)
Judith, that post is horrible. What Steyn says about me isn’t remotely close to accurate. I didn’t say a word in defense of Tamino, and I’ve criticized him over this very issue in the past.
The only thing I did is point out Mark Steyn is completely wrong to suggest Tamino called you “Aunt Judy” as a reference to some term used in the p0rn industry, because he was. That’s not defending Tamino’s insults. It’s simply pointing out a bizarre thing Steyn said is bizarre. His reaction was completely unjustified, and it is nothing more than unabashed tribalism.
(On a completely unimportant note, there is no c in my last name.)
↧
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by Brandon S? (@Corpus_no_Logos)
Mark Silbert, that post shows more about the depths people will go to to slur people who speak out the “skeptic” heroes. Steyn’s post is completely absurd. If the sides of the debate were switched, people would be calling him dishonest for it, not praising him for it. The idea I said anything to defend Tamino’s insults is completely absurd, yet Steyn wrote paragraph after paragraph based upon it.
As for getting free copies of books, what can I say? A long time back I made a policy that I will read any book I’m given for free. It’s a good way to ensure I’m exposed to ideas I might otherwise not consider. It’s also a good way to ensure I read many books I will wish I hadn’t read. Believe me, these are some of them.
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by Mark Silbert
I can’t wait to see a cartoon by Josh. That would be a collector’s item.
Don, I am not quite sure how to take Brandon. Your characterization may be the real deal, in which case you gotta feel sorry for the guy. Steyn’s take was pretty perceptive too. I looked over some of his posts/tweets………kinda scary.
I am on my way to Seattle from Vancouver on Amtrak heading back to Santa Fe tomorrow. I spent some time re-bonding with the magnificent Pacific near Tofino. It’s still there, beautiful and majestic as ever. Can’t see that CAGW has had any effect.
↧
Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by John Sidles
physicistdave opines “What makes me almost certain you are a con artist is this whopper: “Skepticism of IPCC predictions is entirely reasonable, in light of Hansen’s reasoned arguments that the IPCC estimates of future climate-change are too conservative”
Climate Etc readers — and Judith’s climate-science students in particular — are invited to reflect for themselves the worth of Jim Hansen’s arguments relative to physicistdave’s arguments.
Thank you, physicistdave, for helping everyone to appreciate the scientific grounds and rhetorical methods of climate-change skepticism relative to climate-change science.
Richard Feynman would be proud of your teaching effectiveness!
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by Brandon S? (@Corpus_no_Logos)
matthewrmarler:
Compiling and publishing a lot of material that is not new can be useful, as with the Pentagon Papers in days of yore or the many Annual Reviews.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that also the purpose of the IPCC?
:D
↧
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by Brandon S? (@Corpus_no_Logos)
Huh? How does that post lead to the conclusion Michael Mann is gross? I think it shows Mark Steyn is gross in that he completely misrepresents what I said and did in order to paint me in a negative light, falsely claiming I defended Tamino’s sexist insults. I think it also shows Tamino is gross in that he uses sexist insults.
But it doesn’t show anything about Mann. The only thing the post even really talks about Mann doing is tweeting a picture one of his fans took to show support for him. That’s certainly not gross.
↧
Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by omanuel
Thanks for your efforts. The drowning also struggle mightily before sinking.
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by schitzree
And what I get from this is that the left and greens will always swing to whichever side of science that results in the most hand wringing and panic that can be used against business and capitalism. Consensus only matters to them when it’s one they believe in.
That and it’s always apparently Ok to forge evidence when you can’t find what you ‘know’ must be true. Funny how climate skeptics never have to make up fake ‘confidential’ e-mails and memos. ^¿^
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
