He will not be alone at the end.
Some people insist on no bias since their view must be correct. It is not just old behavior but one that also grows rather tedious with time.
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by Arch Stanton
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by ristvan
Tony, your ‘shocking’ comment ices solar for me. Solar and wind bad!!! Trout and salmon (and smallmouth bass, and snook) GOOD. End of discussion.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Faustino aka Genghis Cunn
jim2, Turnbull had to lock into existing climate policies to garner sufficient support. I don’t think he can afford to backtrack.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Faustino aka Genghis Cunn
Michael, the worst prime ministers were the desperate Gillard and Rudd and the inspiring (to some) but cavalier and misguided Whitlam. Abbott has, at best, been very poor – and in my view had to go – but he does have a number of achievements behind him.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Steven Mosher
Yup… GR boy
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by ristvan
DbG, yes, unless you also like outdoor snow sports. I like them less than before, but still like them a lot. It is just nicer to get in front of a cozy fire earlier in the day than before. Alas, ‘age’ does that eventually to all. But we soldier on.
BTW, you must be somewhere near north/inland of Saugatuck? I did drive radii compulsively for a year, all seasons, weekdays and weekends, statistics, before deciding where to look for ‘HEAVEN’ back in the mid 1980’s. Settled on the Uplands. Am ~5 miles west of Spring Green (Taliesin for architecture cognoscenti), and ~2 miles south of the Wisconsin River, in heaven on a headwater of Otter Creek (hint, trout). No cell phone reception yet. Google Earth can take you there if you know the farm contours. Try a house and barn on south side of CTY NN, tractor shed plus corral on the north. An old stone quarry just NE of NN, and about 1/4 mile east of main complex, gated, my private shooting range. One acre stocked pond 100 meters to the NW of tractor shed.
Now look at the deer and turkey infested woodlots. HEAVEN.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by ticketstopper
@Mosher
I think you mean…Yoop :)
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by willard (@nevaudit)
> Thank you for the link to the following paper, which seems to <em>support</em> my view.
Spoken like a true falsificationnist.
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by willb01
@Vaughan Pratt:
“Note that global temperatures involve one additional averaging step, namely over the grid cells. The result is invariant under change of cell size, and could be obtained instead simply by averaging over all thermometers.”
Does each grid cell have the same weight? Does each grid cell have the same number of thermometers? If the answer to the first question is Yes and to the second is No, then the weightings for all of the individual thermometer readings are not equal. Averaging over all thermometer readings will not give you the same result as averaging over all grid cells.
Besides that, the thermometer readings have been homogenized, so that you are no longer working with raw temperature data.
↧
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by willard (@nevaudit)
> The methodology proposed by Popper is commonly known as the hypothetico-deductive method.
That’s not a method, but only a model of scientific explanations. If you prefer, you can call it a rational reconstruction like Carnap did. Besides, that Gelman roots for it doesn’t mean it’s all rosy:
One important issue raised by the DN model concerns the explanatory status of the so-called special sciences—biology, psychology, economics and so on. These sciences are full of generalizations that appear to play an explanatory role and yet fail to satisfy many of the standard criteria for lawfulness.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-explanation
Hempel’s the guy who worked the most on that model, and he’s a holist.
***
Also beware that Gelman also had this to say about Popper:
Popper’s specific ideas about testing require, at the least, substantial modification. His idea of a test comes down to the rule of deduction which says that if p implies q, and q is false, then p must be false, with the roles of p and q being played by hypotheses and data, respectively. This is plainly inadequate for statistical hypotheses, yet, as critics have noted since Braithwaite (1953) at least, he oddly ignored the theory of statistical hypothesis testing.
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/philosophy.pdf
You really ought to read all this as a falsificationnist, Fiction.
At the very least, you ought to to really read this.
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by Steven Mosher
the skeptics.
the science debate.
folks had one. U didnt show. you commented on blogs.
maybe next time..
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by jim2
It’s been this dry in California before!
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/14/sierra-nevada-snowpack-lowest-in-500-years.html
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jim2
From the article:
…
Australian shares slipped early Tuesday, underperforming other regional bourses, following a change in the country’s leadership, after the ruling Liberal Party voted out Tony Abbott late Monday in favor of longtime rival Malcolm Turnbull.
…
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/14/asia-stocks-focus-on-boj-australia-leadership-amid-fed-rates-wait.html
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Peter Lang
Michael,
He’ll back track, bit by bit over time. Just watch. Look at his record. CAGW is one of his most deeply held beliefs, as are carbon pricing, renewable energy and the other things I mentioned. The real question is whether the conservatives in the party can slow him long enough until the next leadership change. He’ll appoint a cabinet that agrees with him and supports him and he’ll put pressure on the party members to come on board or have their ambitions for cabinet positions curtailed.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jim2
So … the next leadership change should be … oh … right around November, I’m guessing.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Joel Williams
NM Governor Unveils New State Energy Plan
Among other things, the blueprint calls for an “all of the above” approach to energy development that promotes the production of all sources of energy as a means of creating jobs, diversifying a key sector of the economy, and supporting our nation’s efforts to achieve energy independence.
http://www.ladailypost.com/content/governor-unveils-new-state-energy-plan
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jim2
And she’s a Redimowit, to boot.
↧
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by Pieter Steenekamp
@David: The court I describe is the district court in The Hague that ordered the Netherlands to step up its climate change actions – it’s referred to as the “Urgenda” ruling. I am only an engineer and know very little about legal stuff, that’s exactly why I refrain from commenting on the legal details. In this case I look at the bigger picture as it affects society.
I disagree with the ruling because I don’t support the conclusions of the IPCC that it’s urgent for humans to reduce CO2 emissions. As part of my day job as an engineer I do modeling and I have gone into some of the details of the IPCC publications and IMO they have it wrong.
I support Judith Curry’s views that the scientists just don’t know enough about the climate to take such a strong view on what to do about it.
But I do agree with a system where a court of law can order the government to take action if it’s urgently required in the interest of the world.
There are exceptions, like Judith Curry, but a very strong majority of the world’s scientific community support the IPCC.
I further also support the district court of The Hague to be influenced by the strong majority of the world’s scientists.
In my humble opinion (and I can just imagine David thinking – yest Pieter has so much to be humble about) the problem in the court ordering the government to step up its climate change actions is not in the power of the court to do it, but rather in the scientific community supporting the IPCC’s reports.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jim2
moderation
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by Peter Lang
Don Aitkin has an interesting post on the Urgenda ruling and whether similar court cases would have a chance of succeeding in Australia. I expect what he concludes would also apply in UK, Canada, US, New Zealand.
However, I think he missed something important in his second last paragraph:
“I don’t rule out some sort of action. It would need to be based on a claim about negligence on the part of the Government, argued to have something like a duty of care to the plaintiffs. Then the plaintiffs would need to show, I think, that the harm of global warming was known, and that the Government should have acted to do something about it, and that what it had done was not enough.”
I think Don missed an most important point. I think the plaintiffs would also need to show that if “the Government [had] acted to do something about it” the action taken would have reduced the harm done. The plaintiffs would have to demonstrate and quantify by how much the harm would have been reduced if the government had taken the actions.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
