SS,
Don is funny, you are not. You sound like a pitchman for “renewables”. Boring and tedious.
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by justinwonder
↧
↧
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by justinwonder
New Orleans would need to plan for flooding even if the planet was cooling.
On another note, how is that Democratic run from the presidency doing? Looks like choice between a preconvict, a communist, and a buffoon. I can hardly wait.
↧
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by justinwonder
Meant for Jim D(emocrat)
↧
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by climatereason
Mark
I was referring to climate scientists. Al Gore is not a scientist, he is a showman. He wrote a very good book ‘earth in the balance’ some years ago. In it he documented numerous examples of climate change. He has equated Mans activities as of being capable of effecting similar changes.
I think he now believes his own publicity so I think ‘delusional’ rather than deliberately fraudulent, but there must e people out there who have heard his message directly that might have a different opinion. It would be interesting to hear what they think.
tonyb
↧
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by justinwonder
+1
Jet junkets, I like it!
↧
↧
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by beththeserf
Heh Justin, U 2 can jet-junket if only yer jump on
the doomsday-sayer-band-wagon-paper-trail. )
↧
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by schitzree
Forget 0%, what if it’s -20%.
The Climate is a complex system, and we’re not talking about adding additional energy to it, no matter how many nuclear bomb equivalents the Alarmists want to equal it to. The Greenhouse effect involves altering the flow of energy through that system, and we still don’t understand MOST of the components in it. It is very possible that changing the flow of infrared through the troposphere could cause changes in the Climate that divert energy in other part (evaporation, storms, ocean currents, ect.) and there by alter the flow of energy that escapes into space.
Possibly even greater then by the amount ‘back radiated’ by the increased CO2, thus a negative percentage. Or possibly it could REDUCE energy escaping in other parts, ie the ‘positive feedbacks’ that would be necessary to even reach the 2C limit pushed by the Alarmist.
This is but one of the fangs that the Uncertainty Monster gnaws us with, and the only way to dull it’s bite is by collecting more and more data. REAL data, made by taking observations of all the climates many peramaters.
↧
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by angech2014
No.
Jim D
please name 3, name 2 , name 1 although
Jim D Independent studies plural is what you said.
put up some independent studies or retract .
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Peter Lang
erikemagnuson,
A nuclear/solar mix has potential, with nuclear providing base load generation, solar taking care of maybe 60-70% of the peak load energy and reducing the energy storage requirements for an all nuclear approach.
That may work in some places but I suspect by the time nuclear gets to around 75% of total electricity generation world wide, as it has been for over 30 years in France ,there will be near no need for solar. Solar is not economical for grid supply just about anywhere and I doubt it ever will be. Perhaps a few percent of global electricity eventually, but not enough for us spending so much time debating and spending so much money trying to incentivise. That’s my humble opinion.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by angech2014
Some quotes above used the term grounded skepticism [beth]
This ia a good corollary to this post and worth a post in itself.
Grounded skepticism, enjoy
beththeserf |
” My grounded skepticism relates ter the missing hotspot
and cloud feedback uncertainties, my grounded distrust
relates ter gate keeping and lack of transparency.”
bernie1815
.” I distrust Michael Mann for his lack of transparency, unwillingness to discuss well-founded criticisms of his work, his naïve use of problematic statistical tools and his selective use of data.”
Daniel E Hofford
” When your measurements are smaller than the error bars, in what universe is that not noise and in what universe do you then make claims that ignore the error bars and still maintain any semblance of ‘science’ or intellectual integrity?”
↧
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by beththeserf
I draw yr attention to Professor Judith Curry’s blog policy
pertaining to the values of open society, values of inclusive
discussion between experts and non-experts and her
recognition that on all fronts of human enquiry, uncertainty
prevails.
Regarding ‘open society,’ Karl Popper wrote a famous book, ‘
‘The Open Society and Its Enemies’ in which he argues, as
did Socrates in 5th century BC Athens, that our knowledge
is uncertain. Popper presents a critical methodology that
presupposes constant activity on our part, a critical
methodology, a process of provisional theories, of schema
and correction in the light of experience and obstacles
they meet.
P. S: Say, have not many discoveries come from outside
a particular field of experts?
↧
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by schitzree
A lot of people also prefer going to heaven over burning in the firey pits of hell. Does this mean we should all convert, Jim D? And if so, to which religion? They don’t all agree you know. ^¿^
↧
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by Peter Davies
Barnes “As for the state of the science, my personal prediction is that it will take 2 or more generations before the lie of CAGW is fully laid to rest – and it may take longer given how invested the proponents are and who they are …… ”
Yep. One funeral at a time one must presume. I’ll bet that in another hundred year’s time, historians will look at this debate and wonder what all the fuss was about.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by climatereason
Josh&a
I just don’t get the appeal of Trump. He seems to me to be a bully who stamps his feet if he doesn’t get his own way .Mind you, Hillary Clinton does not seem an appealing candidate either.
tonyb
↧
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by Michael Cunningham
And I bet that in a hundred years time the countries that took alleged CAGW seriously will have fallen far behind those which don’t. Western Civilisation, on yer bike.
↧
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by ulriclyons
You can trust that the experts have their global climate model, upside down, back to front, and inside out, and is only fit as an analogue of the human condition.
1) They have the polar see-saw upside down, increased forcing of the climate cools the Arctic by increasing positive AO/NAO.
2) They have forcing versus surface temp’s backwards, increased forcing of the climate cools the surface at up to interdecadal scales (AMO).
3) Natural variability of atmospheric teleconnections is not internal or chaotic, it is largely solar forced at down to daily scales and can be forecast at such scales years in advance. Hence the model is inside out.
1) is an analogue for sexual polarity, 2) is an analogue for emotional polarity, and 3) is an analogue for intuition polarity, the latter being in the realm of projections and hypocrisy and mirrors of perception.
↧
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by Michael Cunningham
moso, several hours ago I attempted to reply to your opening posts, but was continually blocked whether I attempted to use my WP account or Facebook. I wrote then: “I’ve just started the article but found a couple of show-stoppers very early on, which, together with the pompous, long-winded style, make me wonder whether it’s worth continuing. Your posts suggest not.” Further investigation led to me giving it a miss.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by Michael Cunningham
moso, my follow-up comment hours ago as i read a little further was: “While I may be informed that the last years of the twentieth century are among the hottest in centuries, and I may then on reflection take this to be strong evidence of anthropogenic global climate change,” So, no scientific method for you, Ben. A total non-sequitur. Some good crits from the denizens.
↧
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)
Thank you, Daniel, for reminding me (not that I had reallyforgotten this video!) of that which was instrumental – and very influential – in sending me off on my own personal journey of discovery.
I had inadvertently stumbled onto this particular battlefield approximately 10 days BC [Before Climategate]. Yes, I had heard of “global warming” – and thanks to the MSM, who hadn’t, at that point?! But it certainly wasn’t one of my interests or concerns. Notwithstanding the fact that, at that point, I was a resident of BC, home of a range of oh-so-keenie greenie alarmists, of many political stripes.
When I subsequently learned that the “primary” pusher was the self-proclaimed “gold standard” IPCC, a “child” of the (to this day, still “unchartered”) UNEP and the UN’s WMO … well, that kind of set off my personal alarm bells.
At that point in my life, anything emanating (either directly or indirectly) from the decreasingly credible arms, elbows, hands, fingers etc. of the UN was reason enough to cast doubt on that which they were advocating.
And, in the interim, nothing emanating from those many fronts (and/or their every increasing “army” of chosen NGOs) has given me any rational cause to doubt the lack of validity in their endorsements and/or pronouncements.
↧
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by mosomoso
A lot of education is about filling up the required number of pages with argument or verbiage. I wonder if Publish-or-Perish doesn’t have some of its origins in that demand for length and padding. Curiously, this does not lessen the taste for manipulative “surveys” where sensible qualification and elaboration are stifled for the sake of arriving at superficial numbers and percentages.
If high intelligence is an uncommon ability to simplify, maybe educators should direct students to state their case at necessary length…rather than just make length. And when something is obvious or a platitude, try not to say it at all.
There seem to be two extremes in education these days: the El Nino of simplistic box-ticking and the La Nina of aimless word-shovelling.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
