Comment on Week in review – science edition by climatereason

August 23, 2015, 2:10 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by climatereason

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by climatereason

$

0

0

Editor

You quote The Guardian as being part of the Major media. They more rightly belong to the fringe media with daily sales now of only 180000 copies.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/oct/10/abc-figures-show-papers-efforts-to-stem-circulation-decline

All newspaper sales have declined over the last few years but the Guardian remains influential only amongst the left wing and the BBC. To the rest of us it is irrelevant and sometimes laughable with its bias and assertions. The gatekeepers on its comments section seem to be there to rapidly close down debate on things they disagree with.

This is a shame as in past years the Guardian campaigned on a number of different and important issues. However, now it seems to pander to the climate obsessed views of its tiny readership.

I hope it survives but also hope it gets back to its campaigning ways on subjects other than climate.

tonyb

---

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by climatereason

August 23, 2015, 2:22 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Steven Mosher

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by climatereason

$

0

0

Breaking news

BBC to fire the Met Office from supplying its forecasts and end its 92 year old relationship

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3207392/Met-Office-fury-BBC-gives-contract-worth-millions-foreigners.html

The Met Office is close by me in Exeter. Its local forecats are often hopeless and inaccurate and sometimes I feel they would get it right more often if they looked out of their window instead of at their computer screens.

However, British weather is notoriously fickle and difficult to predict. The competitors are a NZ group (!!!) and Meteo, which seem a poor alternative. I have no knowledge of the former but Meteo I have found very unreliable when using them on the Continent.

tonyb

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Steven Mosher

August 23, 2015, 5:28 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by ristvan

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by climatereason

$

0

0

willard

“It’s even simpler than that: suppose I suppose seven things before breakfast, and suppose I use these suppositions to rehash lukewarm green line tests all over again:”

its not about being tested.

Its a simple observation and one that you yourself would agree to but for the fact that you choose not to be agreeable today.

in general people are not going to question a method if that method gives substantially the same result as other methods.

in general they are going to see this as confirming evidence not as disconfirming evidence.

The fact that one of the most rational people I have encounter on the internet can’t assent to this is kinda funny.

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by ristvan

August 23, 2015, 5:34 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jim2

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Steven Mosher

$

0

0

To simplify and explicate the con law arguement, the first clause of the 14th amendment specifies two citizenship tests. 1. Born. 2. Subjects to allegiance. It is the second part that is subject to interpretetion as to intent.
At the time, the 14th was passed to prevent southern states from denying emancipated slaves US citizenship. There was a ferocious on record debate about Indians (these days, pc original Americans). It was crystal clear that being born here did notvia 14th convey to them citizenship, since they owed allegiance to their tribe and reservation, not the US. It was not until 1923 that ‘Indians’ were granted the OPTIONAL right of birthright citizenship under the second partof the test.
Moreover, the only time SCOTUS ruled, they found the Chinese daughter of LEGAL Chinese residents was a citizen. NOT of illegal residents. Fascinating.

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jim2

August 23, 2015, 5:38 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by ristvan

$

0

0

From the article:
…
Car information security is a complete wreck — here’s why
…

http://boingboing.net/2015/08/23/car-information-security-is-a.html?utm_content=buffer6d5bf&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by Jim D

August 23, 2015, 5:40 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by stevenreincarnated

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jim2

$

0

0

He explains that the 1988 model had a higher sensitivity than the consensus. Other models did better including Hansen’s 1981 one. Mann showed the same lines, but did not go into such details. Study them both and see what they say about them. It is not an identical interpretation for sure.

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

August 23, 2015, 5:48 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by Jim D

$

0

0

Jim, so the argument is if Hansen didn’t have so many wrong it would have matched up almost perfectly like it does in the graph Mann shows. Perhaps that argument should have been presented along with the explanations for why some climate scientists think there was a divergence instead of just redrawing the graph without explanation.

Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by Jim D

August 23, 2015, 5:53 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by bobdroege

≪ Previous: Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by stevenreincarnated

$

0

0

Nuccitelli had a lot more time to explain things in a focused talk on this subject. Mann breezed through it as part of a much longer talk with a lot more diverse content.

---

Comment on Week in review – science edition by bobdroege

August 23, 2015, 5:53 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by GaryM

≪ Previous: Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by Jim D

$

0

0

The near term GMST is already in the range of 0.3 to 0.7 above the 1985 to 2005 reference period. I just calculated it using GISS and the 2014 value is barely in that range. I use GISS because it is easily provided in a form I can use to do calculations.

Nothing wrong with Popper, you just have a problem using him correctly. There are many observations that would falsify AGW.
A negative trend with a trend value higher than the uncertainty value for that trend would be awful hard to explain.
Put that on the table and I’ll get me coat.

By the way, where are you getting the idea we are spending almost 2% of global GDP on the global warming industry?

Comment on Week in review – science edition by GaryM

August 23, 2015, 5:56 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by stevenreincarnated

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by bobdroege

$

0

0

“The upward trend has resumed in 2014, now the warmest year on record,” Kevin Trenberth

2014 is reported as the ‘warmest year’, by just two-hundredths of a degree, 0.02C, with a margin of error of approximately 0.1C, with a 38% confidence level.

And in “climate science” this becomes simply “2014, now the warmest year on record….”

Not to mention that a 15 year trend that was denied by the “scientists” for 14 years, has now “ended” after a one year .02 “spike” in temps, with a 38% confidence level.

It would be funny if it weren’t so sad.

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

August 23, 2015, 5:57 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by chuckrr (@chuckerenno)

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by GaryM

$

0

0

Jim, if he didn’t have time to give an accurate representation of what really is the situation then perhaps he shouldn’t have included it at all.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by chuckrr (@chuckerenno)

August 23, 2015, 6:14 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by Don Monfort

≪ Previous: Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by stevenreincarnated

$

0

0

It is funny. We always need to be able to laugh at the world and ourselves.

Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by Don Monfort

August 23, 2015, 6:16 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Faustino aka Genghis Cunn

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by chuckrr (@chuckerenno)

$

0

0

That’s what I was talking about, Dave. It’s in some kind of indecipherable code, so nobody can steal his ideas. I hope Judith gives him a guest post. Or maybe a three part series, like the one we had before from some oscillator dude. Buts lets not talk about it, Dave. House rules.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Faustino aka Genghis Cunn

August 23, 2015, 6:31 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Faustino aka Genghis Cunn

≪ Previous: Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by Don Monfort

$

0

0

JimD, thanks, I first used a computer in 1966 but am computer-illiterate in many areas. Given the opportunity, I’ll double up. As an aside, the Telegraph online sometimes puts me up as genghiscunn, no picture, sometimes Michael Cunningham with a portrait of Genghis Khan. Promoting split personalities perhaps.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Faustino aka Genghis Cunn

August 23, 2015, 6:32 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Turbulent Eddie

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Faustino aka Genghis Cunn

$

0

0

Excuse me, that should be Jim D. I must be spaced out so to speak.

---

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Turbulent Eddie

August 23, 2015, 6:41 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by ordvic

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Faustino aka Genghis Cunn

$

0

0

I wonder how much of that renewable is corn ethanol.

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by ordvic

August 23, 2015, 7:06 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by David L. Hagen

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Turbulent Eddie

$

0

0

She didn’t hit a homerun in my eyes. Cruz questioning the consensus was more forthright and less of a dodge than Fiorina. It was also taking first things first. Obviously the first was easier to criticize since it takes on supposedly 97% of scientists that he is not. Everyone knows the futility of CO2 mitigation so it is a much easier target even if the numbers are wrong.

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by David L. Hagen

August 23, 2015, 7:18 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by DataTurk

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by ordvic

$

0

0

<a href="http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/07/21/kansas-scraps-renewable-energy-mandates" rel="nofollow">Kansas Scraps Renewable Energy Mandates</a> <blockquote>In a significant setback for the renewable energy industry, Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback (R) signed a law rescinding the state’s renewable energy mandates and replacing them with strictly voluntary goals. Kansas enacted its mandate in 2009, requiring investor-owned utilities and electric cooperatives to provide at least 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources. The mandate rises to 20 percent in 2020. The wind industry initially opposed the legislation but eventually ceased fighting the change in exchange for lawmakers withdrawing a proposed excise tax on wind energy production. . . . “Federal government data show wind power is substantially more expensive than coal, natural gas, and nuclear energy. That is why the wind power industry cannot exist in its current form without laws forcing consumers to purchase its product. The economic pain of Kansas’ wind power mandate is evident in the state’s electricity prices, which rose eight times faster than the national average between 2009 and 2013, coinciding with the substantial increase in wind power generation in Kansas. </blockquote>

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

August 23, 2015, 7:34 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jim2

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by David L. Hagen

$

0

0

PDave, your version is of course correct in a scientific setting. My version, or variations on that theme, is the question I use to determine whether I am talking to a scientist or an advocate. I don’t know that a temperate response
has ever convinced an advocate to rethink their position and adopt a more scientific approach, but at least I get the satisfaction of separating the fish from the fowl.

I suspect I know where our manic friend upthread falls in this spectrum, but I also know that the question causes a certain dissonant discomfort in certain types of people.

Which is always fun to watch. Feynman knew this, I imagine!

DT

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jim2

August 23, 2015, 7:46 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by DataTurk

$

0

0

Sad, actually.