Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on RICO! by beththeserf

0
0

‘ Illegal to mislead?’
How about Paul Ehrlich, Alan Greenspan or Joseph
Stiglitz’ predictions?

Review of Philip E Tetlock ‘s book,’ Expert Political J
udgement; How Good Is It?How Can We Know.’

‘It is the somewhat gratifying lesson of Philip Tetlock’s
book . . . that people who make prediction their business-
people who appear as experts on television, get quoted
in newspaper articles, advise governments and businesses,
and participate in punditry roundtables–are no better than
the rest of us. When they’re wrong, they’re rarely held
accountable, and they rarely admit it, either. . . . It would
be nice if there were fewer partisans on television
disguised as “analysts” and “experts”. . . . But the best
lesson of Tetlock’s book may be the one that he seems
most reluctant to draw: Think for yourself.”
-Louis Menand, The New Yorker

On the question of expert prediction, Philip Tetlock
systematically collected a great number of individual
forecasts about political and economic events, made
by recognized experts over a period of more than 20
years and showed that these forecasts were not very
much better than making predictions by chance.


Comment on RICO! by superchillskeptic

0
0

It seems that the alarmists will just keep getting crazier and crazier until (imho) they do something so outrageous that it causes their movement to implode. This has happened before with eugenics, Joe McCarthy and Salem.

But I completely understand why they are panicking. They are not stupid and they surely must sense that the huge leap to the left that the democrats have taken will cost them power. They have already lost the congress and will soon lose the presidency. And, with Paris fast approaching, they must surely see this as a last change to “save the planet”. lol…sorry, that always makes me laugh.

Anyway, this looks to me as though we have some professors who are clearly trampling all over the academic freedom of others. I expect their employers to take appropriate action (but I won’t hold my breath).

Comment on RICO! by thomaswfuller2

Comment on RICO! by Barnes

0
0

If rico laws were to be applied, they should be applied to those who lie and manipulate data to acheive desired conclusion – that is, the alarmists.

Comment on RICO! by matthewrmarler

0
0
Craig Loehle: <i> Matthew: perhaps you need to read up on the Wisconsin political witch hunt that just got called off by the Wis supreme court (after several years and people losing jobs). </i> Do you think that is what the petitioners are advocating? That members of the executive branch break the law? I think they are advocating a formal, legal proceeding in accordance with Federal law, and that is what I am writing about.

Comment on RICO! by matthewrmarler

0
0

AK: Of course, IANAL,

I was hoping that we would have had some experienced lawyers chiming in by now.

That was a good post.

Comment on Hiatus revisionism by verytallguy

0
0

Agnostic,

it boggles my mind that Judith, yourself and others believe that her arguing for what she judges to be a “robust policy” is any different in principle to other scientists arguing there is a robust case for strong mitigation policies.

Then you all have the gall to criticise their scientific ethics!

Honestly, I find that exasperatingly disingenuous.

Comment on Hiatus revisionism by Steven Mosher

0
0

J*shua

“A survey of expert opinion on the time series is useful. A survey of expert opinion of a truncated time series is less useful than a survey of expert opinion on the entire time series.”

except they didn’t do that. They surveyed people who purported to have at minimum an MA in statistics.

last time Lew did this he screwed it up as well.

bottom line and “expert” who answered the question wasn’t acting like an expert. The basically asked them to perform a non expert behavior.
Sadly people complied which has more to do with their subjects desire to please a researcher.


Comment on RICO! by Steven Mosher

0
0

I guess that means we dont know that climate has changed over the past few million years.

1. we cant trust land sea observations
2. we cant trust Paleo

we have no basis for concluding that climate has changed, ever.

This is formally known as “climate change denial”

Comment on Hiatus revisionism by Ragnaar

0
0

I am a libertarian and am an advocate for liberty. Most politicians are advocates for jobs. Who isn’t? I am an extremist while most politicians are boringly predictable. The advocacy label more easily sticks to me as I am not in the middle of the left/right spectrum. Advocating for adaptation is a middle ground approach while mitigation is what I’ll call a principle based extreme. They are in the same boat as the libertarians. The moderate approach is adaptation. Who isn’t for adaptation? Principled extremists. I am saying extremism equals advocate. Moderation does not. This is an oversimplification of course. Who isn’t for storm surge protection? The problem is we know how to do it well and it’s boring. New things like renewables while packaged as something else are extreme, if they don’t make economic sense and are not reliable. If they cause grid problems.

Comment on RICO! by carbonicus

0
0

A brave scientific leader you are, JC.

I could not have known just how much so when we spoke after your panel at the GA Env. Conference in summer 2009. Frankly, I came away from the discussion thinking you were quite objective on the matter and motivated only by the where the science would lead you, not where you would lead the science; not a “denier” and not a Warmunist.

Now, because of posts like this, I predict that you and a few dozen others will go down in scientific history on this topic, relative to defense of scientific integrity and freedom on an issue that spent the better part of a generation devolving to the point where RICO cases are suggested against dissenting scientists and corporations and “skeptics” are obliquely likened to Holocaust “deniers”.

I salute your courage to speak out on this.

Comment on JC’s conscience by Punksta

0
0

JC Of course industry funding (especially if it is tainted with fossil fuels) is regarded as a source of bias, whereas funding from green organizations somehow isn’t.

Vastly more worryingly, funding from government is not regarded as a source of bias
– when plainly government has such an obvious and huge vested interest in fomenting alarmism, and is also the overwhelmingly dominant funder of climate science.

Comment on JC’s conscience by Punksta

0
0

JC “That said, funding is probably a smaller source of bias than peer pressure to follow a consensus

No – since the consensus itself is a product of the vested interest funding in the first place.

Comment on RICO! by mosomoso

0
0

Good on you, Faustino. Inflicting energy poverty via climate activism is more likely to make World Vision a poverty generator.

Tim Costello enjoyed a larger income from his charity position than his brother when the latter was Australian treasurer. His “total remuneration” package is now $316,000 per year. Then there are all those jet trails that go with such a high profile and high level of concern.

I wouldn’t grudge him a good income if it weren’t for the real downside of monster charities like WV and Oxfam: the “social justice” and “climate justice” activism which sucks funds given for actual charity. I doubt that these “programs” are included in the 23%-21% for fundraising and admin which World Vision actually admits to. They actually state that field programs and “advocacy work” are merged as real outcomes. And I also wonder whether child sponsorship is not more of a deluxe donation stimulator than an efficient poverty reducer, though I could be proven wrong about that.

If you criticise, there will be an expensive website or glossy pamphlets with lots of glossy black faces, grateful or suffering, to prove you wrong. (World Vision are great at the orange-brown bling.)

Best to donate to organisations more active than activist, I’d reckon.

Comment on RICO! by Jim D

0
0

Yes, corruption in politics is a serious issue. They are concerned with interest money being used against scientific evidence as in past cases. It is a valid concern. The problem exists.


Comment on RICO! by Punksta

0
0

(1) pay scientists to produce studies advancing your interests;
(2) develop an intricate web of PR experts and front groups to cover up uncertanties in the real science;
(3) relentlessly attack your opponents.

Yip, definitely a case to use RICO against the government funded climate science gang.

Comment on RICO! by matthewrmarler

0
0

David L. Hagen: “Lysenkoism began in the late 1920

By that time the free press had been destroyed and the Gulag Archipelago was established. Every opposition party was destroyed. Farmland was being collectivized, and the army leadership purged, i.e. executed.

In the US in 2010 and 2014 the opponents of the administration’s policies won the elections, and now serve. (they can’t decide on a common and effective strategy against the administration, but that is a different set of problems. They are in no danger of imprisonment on trumped-up charges.) At the state level, opponents of the administration have nearly a 2 – 1 majority in governorships and legislatures. Despite its best efforts, the administration has not been able to halt the growth of the oil and gas industries, or end the growth of the non-unionized auto industries. Contra-consensus books on climate enjoy huge sales.

Comment on RICO! by matthewrmarler

0
0

Daniel E. Hofford: You really should read Atlas Shrugged.

Oh, please. It was ok, but it was too long by half. it’s totally unrelated to the climate science debates and this petition for a RICO investigation.

Comment on RICO! by Punksta

0
0

Whitehouse is advocating for legal proceedings against a “sophisticated campaign to mislead the American public.”

Like hiding data, hiding declines, redefining peer review, bogus math that finds hockey sticks in random data … that sort of thing presumably.

Comment on RICO! by Faustino aka Genghis Cunn

0
0

moso, of those helping overseas, we support MSF, which seems to have no agenda other than to give help where urgently needed and which, unlike many NGOs, uses all but a very small fraction of its income to provide on-the-ground help. For the record, I’ve done voluntary work for over 40 years, you don’t need $300,000 a year if your motivation is to help others.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images