I’d liken it a doctor runing a blog where they provide links to other blog posts discussing the latest in why vaccines cause autism.
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Michael
Comment on Week in review – science edition by John Plodinec
The bigger issue is how do they know the number of trees “at the dawn of human civilization” [whenever that was] to two sig figs [46%???]? Damn, I wish I was that good.
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Bad Andrew
This question came up again this week:
Is the Global Warming Hoax over yet?
Andrew
Comment on The conceits of consensus by Arch Stanton
They believe in uniformity.
Comment on Week in review – science edition by verytallguy
Michael, where did I say I was surprised?
Comment on Week in review – science edition by verytallguy
Planning, what Michael said
Comment on Ins and outs of the ivory tower by Danny Thomas
Pat & P.E.
Even in my old field, there were state licencing, oversite, mandatory continuing education, and discipline up to and including a loss of the means to make a living (continue in the field).
Comment on Week in review – science edition by AK
Comment on Ins and outs of the ivory tower by Danny Thomas
Joseph,
I’d like to refer you back to our earlier conversation where there are clear indications of ‘groupthink’: “An increase in extreme weather is expected with global warming because rising temperatures affect weather parameters in several ways.”. http://www.skepticalscience.com/extreme-weather-global-warming.htm
Since they “expect” to find weather extremes could it be they aren’t looking for more moderation and therefore there are no papers to satisfy your concern?
Just askin’.
Comment on Week in review – science edition by bedeverethewise
aplanningengineer,
You are thinking about this like a normal, rational, thoughtful person. That is why you have trouble understanding the point of view of some of the more obsessed posters here.
Comment on Week in review – science edition by jim2
Thanks Peter. I was being a bit facetious. I suppose damage function is fitting for the Dismal Science. I mean, after all, benefit function would have worked just as well and would have been a bit more upbeat.
Comment on Week in review – science edition by richardswarthout
Engineer: Doubt that VTG is troubled. Merely seizing an opening to attack Dr Curry. I think she has explained that her week in review selections are based, not on her preferences, but on a rough count of the current news. I think she has also said that not much time is spent researching the selections. Her intent is to provide topics that can be debated. VTG rightly participated when he dug into the SLR topic but went off the rails when attacking Dr Curry: but nothing new there.
VTG: Re your previous comment on Dr Curry’s WSJ article – your supposed excerpt does not appear in that article. What’s going on inside the VTG skull?
Comment on Week in review – science edition by matthewrmarler
Comment on Week in review – science edition by omanuel
Peter, here’s encouraging news on Meltdown Proof Nuclear Reactors: http://junkscience.com/2015/09/05/meltdown-proof-nuke-reactors-i-vote-yes/
Comment on Week in review – science edition by matthewrmarler
“Emergent model for predicting the average surface temperature of rocky planets with diverse atmospheres” [link]
that’s interesting in the abstract way of a lot of the dynamical modeling of planet atmosphere, of the sort presented in the writings of Ghil and Dijkstra. It’s hard to see any immediate utility in the results of the work. That’s the sort of critique one might have written of Kepler’s work before Newton; perhaps this work will stimulate something really productive, and perhaps it will join the dozens of others published every month that have no long-term applicability.
Comment on Ins and outs of the ivory tower by stevenreincarnated
VP says: “The last time CO2 hit 400 ppmv was during the mid-Pliocene several million years ago, when sea levels were some 10-20 m higher than presently…”
Climate scientists say: :”
“In addition to the above experiment, several simulations were conducted using increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide; higher CO2 amounts have also been proposed as a potential cause of the warmer Pliocene climates (Crowley, 1991). Rind and Chandler, (1991) pointed out that SST patterns such as the one seen in the Pliocene are inconsistent with CO2 generated warming, however, it is possible that some combination of CO2 increase and ocean heat transport change could have resulted in the warmer Pliocene surface temperatures.”
I especially like the part about the warming being inconsistent with CO2 generated warming.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1994/of94-023/16_Chandler.html
Comment on Ins and outs of the ivory tower by Vaughan Pratt
Comment on Week in review – science edition by matthewrmarler
ristvan: The ’emergent model’ paper is so flawed it is amazing to have passed peer review. It is being touted (in places like Hockeyschtick) as showing radiative physics could be wrong.
It reads a little like a class exercise in a course on nonlinear dynamics: Take these data for this problem, do a lot of analyses that you have learned in this course, and see what you come up with. The kind of thing called “plug and chug”. Clearly only the talented and knowledgeable can do it at all, but to try to draw policy implications or anything other than modeling insights from the results is like building upon a sand castle.
It reminds me a little of pharmaceutical research, where the laboratory leaders say: Synthesize 400 variants of this compound and see whether any of them have good properties. Most fall out, but now and again comes along something like Prozac, Remacemide, or Prilosec.
Comment on Ins and outs of the ivory tower by AK
The last time CO2 hit 400 ppmv was during the mid-Pliocene several million years ago, […]
Maybe. Given that Salby’s effort to challenge the consensus on this point was sabotaged using bureaucratic hooliganism, I’m somewhat skeptical. But let’s assume you’re right, just for the sake of argument.
Based on the existing understanding of the impact of CO2 on surface temperature, the United Nations were rightly concerned that such an unprecedented rate of increase of CO2 might pose a threat to both society and nature.
They then elaborated that “concern” into a massive (attempted) power grab based on dodgy “science”.
You appear to be proposing to ignore this threat as nonexistent.
Indeed not! In fact, the latest IPCC “projections” suggest there’s plenty of time for BAU technological development to come up with good solutions to the problems.
However, I’m actually worried about the risk of sudden, “non-linear” changes, so I support any action that can be taken without creating a worse risk from:
• some sort of world-spanning bureaucracy with significant enforcement powers, or
• any significant increase in the cost/price of energy or other development that threatens the progress of the Industrial Revolution.
In my eyes that makes you irresponsible regarding the fate of the planet.
And in my eyes, your refusal to acknowledge any solution to the fossil carbon problem that doesn’t advance the Socialist agenda as “doing anything” makes you a worse threat to humanity than anything the climate could do.
Comment on Ins and outs of the ivory tower by Don Monfort
Your second paragraph wasn’t interesting, doc. But I will apologize for whatever it is you are complaining about, because I like you.