afonzarelli, I lie not far from the boreal forest and I have been in it many times and let me tell you, it is chock full of standing and slow moving water. Yes it has trees, It also has peat bogs, lakes and literally hectares and hectares of land drown by the activity to beavers.
Comment on Week in review – science edition by tumbleweedstumbling
↧
↧
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science. Part II by Geoff Sherrington
In the 1970-80s in the USA, there was a movement that has remarkable parallels to the climate change. There was a prediction that there would be an epidemic of cancers caused by man-made chemicals. This prediction led to a sudden increase in $$$ spending by an Establishment that grew, mainly with federal money, to develop and use rodents and other animals to test many chemicals for mutagenic or carcinogenic properties.
There was a compliant media, there were important new laws and new bureaucratic processes. The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 is an example. I think it is still on the books in some form or other.
The climate movement of today has large reliance on CO2 as a control knob and opposite views are dealt with by hostility.
The cancer epidemic prediction of yester year placed much reliance on its rodent testing.
The cancer movement failed. As of 2015, we have not seen a cancer epidemic, but we have to suffer the left over regulation and legislation. Why, every student knows that chemicals are harmful and have no place in protection of the environment.
The main sign of the cancer failure was the conversion of adherents into sceptics. Once several of the main players defected, it was all over. It was also realised that rodent tests could not often be extrapolated to humans.
Besides, there was still no epidemic building up, which was contrary to the main hypothesis. In parallel, do we see adverse warming effects from the dominant CO2 forecast?
It is much easier to understand the formation of the dominant Establishment in both climate work and past cancer work when you read “The Apocalyptics” by Edith Efron, ISBN 0-671-41743-6.
↧
Comment on Adjudicating the future: silencing climate dissent via the courts by brentns1
“At this point the science is almost irrelevant; the big issues in play are that India, Africa, etc. want electricity for its population and for economic development, and coal is the most economical way to accomplish that.”
The man who ‘invented’ Global Warming
Sir Crispin Charles Cervantes Tickell is one of the most influential people behind the idea of man-made global warming. Yet you could easily be forgiven for having never heard of him
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100069775/the-man-who-invented-global-warming/
“The market system is not functional,” insisted the chairman, Sir Crispin Tickell, incidentally, one of Prince Charles’ most trusted advisers
http://www.africaclimatesolution.org/news.php?id=6370
↧
Comment on The uncertainty of climate sensitivity and its implication for the Paris negotiations by Peter Lang
Jim D,
Sure does. What you’ve clearly demonstrated in this log discussion is:
1. You cannot admit when you are wrong – i.e. you are intellectually dishonest.
2. You have negligible understanding of the economic of mitigation policies, of IAMs. of the assumptions they use, of the basis of the SCC you quote frequently .
3. You are gullible, unsceptical and unable or unwilling to doe reality checks and challenge what you read
4.You are an ideologue – you read and quote only what supports your belief, no matter whether you understand it or not.
↧
Comment on The uncertainty of climate sensitivity and its implication for the Paris negotiations by Peter Lang
Jim D,
Thank you for your time, Peter. That concludes our discussion.
So, you abandon the debate, tail between your legs, without giving closure. You still didn’t actually acknowledge any of your blatant errors, misunderstandings and you continually used dishonest arguing tactics. You’re a disgrace.
What you’ve clearly demonstrated in this long discussion is:
1. You cannot admit when you are wrong – i.e. you are intellectually dishonest.
2. You have negligible understanding of the economics of mitigation policies, of IAMs. of the assumptions they use, of the basis of the SCC you quote frequently .
3. You are gullible, unsceptical and unable or unwilling to do reality checks on what you read.
4. You are an ideologue – you read and quote only what supports your belief, no matter whether you understand it or not.
Below is what I said in a previous comment. Nothing changed following that
What we have clearly established is:
1. Your initial rhetorical comment and assertion at the start of this debate were wrong
2. Your analysis using $40 ton SCC (to 2300) and 3000 Gt avoided (to 2100) is wrong, bogus
3. You don’t understand how the IAMs work
4. You don’t understand how to analyse net benefits of mitigation; i.e. net present value of benefit (i.e. PV damages avoided minus PV abatement cost)
5. You continually refused to try to understand or point out any significant error in the chart of present value net benefit per 5 years to 2100
6. You cannot admit when you are blatantly wrong no matter how clearly it is pointed out to you
7. You are intellectually dishonest.
That is what we’ve established.
↧
↧
Comment on The uncertainty of climate sensitivity and its implication for the Paris negotiations by Peter Lang
CORRECTION:
“Not” should read “Note,” at start of this paragraph:
[Note: all policies have negative NPV to 2100]. It would not be politically sustainable for Governments to commit to policies that have negative NPV. In fact, to be politically sustainable over the term [i.e. multi years to a decade] governments have to invest in policies that give the highest net benefit.
↧
Comment on A perspective on uncertainty and climate science by davideisenstadt
so steve…what do you make of Robert G Brown’s analysis of the adjustments?
have you looked over his post at wuwt?
I think we are all curious about your take on his thoughts.
↧
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science. Part II by bedeverethewise
You’re confusing scientific facts with opinions Jim D. And you’re confusing you’re imagined ‘lot of “skeptics”‘ with real people.
↧
Comment on A perspective on uncertainty and climate science by davideisenstadt
Steve: with your degree in english, and a fairly sparse publishing history, and no experience at all, for example, in teaching any applied mathematics at a college level…just what do you consider your area of expertise to be?
as for this gem:
1)”Guess what? The human approach matches pretty well with
the statitistical approach. Maybe our code is a closet liberal.”
maybe your code reflects the presuppositions of the authors of the code…ya think?
Like “our code” is anything but the product of your assumptions and world view? like it could be anything else?
Does Mosh think that code has a “soul” an independent identity? its own motives?
No, of course not.
And then there is this:
“Pauses disappear? Depending on the assumptions YOU make
you can make a stronger pause or weaker pause.”
eh…no…the data show what it shows…now, if you choose to massage the data, I suppose you could make it do things it wouldn’t normally do, but thats you, not the data.
Let me give you some insight given to me by the guys who started Wharton econometrics back in the day, when I was learning macro modeling.
Every time you transform or filter or eff with your data set, you lose something…resolution, whatever…theres no free lunch…
So go on and krig and smooth and adjust away…
You still have chicken crap…youve just covered it with mayonnaise.
Really Mosh: as the public face of BEST, we expect….more from you.
If you’re not going to publish or teach, you could at least provide something more than the hand waving you’ve been reduced to producing….
↧
↧
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science. Part II by beththeserf
Apocalypse wow !
↧
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science. Part II by Faustino aka Genghis Cunn
I remember a bitter lament by a leading cancer researcher and surgeon, who pointed out that cancers from “environmental chemicals” were a minute fraction of one per cent of the whole, but pulled attention and research funding away from the handful of cancers which provide the great majority of cases. A neighbour of mine in the Queensland bush in the ’80s was adamant that her sick cat had come into contact with noxious chemicals; there were lots of dingoes about, his injuries were consistent with a dingo attack, supported by the fact that our cat, who roamed with him, disappeared on the same day he was hurt. But, no, it must be chemicals! Hard to tackle that mindset.
↧
Comment on A perspective on uncertainty and climate science by davideisenstadt
Geez Mosh:
“Computational constraints on small grid scale phenomena (convection cells) mean these have to be parameterized.”
why dont you just come out and write that because the resolution of the models is something like 7 orders of magnitude too coarse to even approach the level necessary to actually simulate emergent climatic phenomena, we have to pick numbers, and likely will have to continue to pick values for the next three or so decades.
“parametrization” …..nice word choice Steve; your background in English comes to the fore.
↧
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science. Part II by Faustino aka Genghis Cunn
Thanks, Wag, I make that argument generally – that the future will always surprise us, our power to predict it is negligible – the Crichton quote can reinforce that.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Rob Starkey (@Robbuffy)
Vaughan
Sadly, you demonstrate intellectual dishonesty. You are bright enough to know that what I have written is correct.
It is the responsibility of those who wish to incur costs (or use limited financial resources) to reduce CO2 emissions to demonstrate that there is a valid reason to prioritize the expense.
There is valid science to show that additional CO2 will result in slight warming. There is not valid science to demonstrate that additional CO2 will result in net negative changes (from human’s perspective) in the climate.
Please Vaughan, present or link to the evidence that you believe to be reliable to show that human released CO2 will result in net negative changes in the climate for the USA or the world.
Try not writing comments that the IPCC has provided this justification. You know that the models upon which the conclusions of the scientists who wrote those assessments have been found to be highly unreliable. I again ask you.
1. the projected rate of future warming as a function of CO2 (which is not yet known with sufficient fidelity)
2. What other conditions will change when and where as a result of #1
Many like you claim to know far more than is warranted.
↧
Comment on The uncertainty of climate sensitivity and its implication for the Paris negotiations by Don Monfort
Nice work, Peter. You have laboriously confirmed what we already knew. All you will get out of clueless yimmy is mindless repetition of huffpo talking points.
↧
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science. Part II by RiHo08
If only women had listen to their mothers and eaten their vegetables, then women with breast cancer would not have developed breast cancer.
“Researchers see the evidence when they compare breast cancer rates in developed nations — like the United States — to rates in less-developed areas. Shockingly, women in developed nations have five times the rate of postmenopausal breast cancers and twice the rate of premenopausal breast cancers as do women in less developed countries.
Simply put, our unhealthy, stressful habits put us at greater risk.”
You see, you caused your own breast cancer by your unhealthy living habits.
One can live with such guilt and self-recriminations as found in main stream media and presumably well meaning sustainability focused women journalists, but, “it ain’t necessarily so. The things that your liable to read in the (journalistic) Bible, just ain’t necessarily so.” Correlations ain’t causation.
After you have lost weight, changed to a carbohydrate rich diet, cut out all red meat, quit smoking, quit drinking alcohol and, what happens when you do all that? You are in the same risk category as the women who gave the finger to the NY Times health journalist Wells, and lived as long as your co-hort who followed the new regimen. BTW, whatever happened to the power of positive thinking? They met the same fate at the same time.
Well you see, it is the prevention aspect that is important, right? Not your genes.
Science, that is, observational science, not the predictive kind, still has a lot more to say than those model guys and gals who seem to say what ought to happen; and then try to explain why it didn’t happen.
The catastrophe in climate science is those folks who try to predict the future.
↧
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science. Part II by JCH
How do you change apples falling from a tree?
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Vaughan Pratt
@DS: <i>The wikepedia article on proof doesn’t speak to the differences between hypothesis, theory, and law.</i>
David, if you believe the article needs to speak to them, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold" rel="nofollow">speak to Wikipedia</a> and fix it. Don't speak to me, the fact that I wrote most of that article <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content" rel="nofollow">doesn't mean I own it</a>.
@DS: <i>If you never counted how many papers on logic you’ve written how do you know it’s at least 50 and as many as 70? How much of your work would you say is based on such sloppy guesswork as that? I’d guess at least 50% and as much as 70%.</i>
One doesn't expect a biochemist to be competent at logic, any more than one would expect a logician to be competent at biochemistry
In this case the "sloppy reasoning" is entirely yours: there are a great many ways to rigorously demonstrate a lower bound on the cardinality of a subset A of a set X with say 100 elements without counting the elements of A.
Some are so complicated it would take you weeks if ever to convince yourself they work. Here's one whose correctness I'm sure you'll be able to figure out in less than 10 minutes. (Feel free to claim it only took you 10 seconds, we know you all too well.)
PROBLEM: Give a method of proving a lower bound of 50 on the cardinality of a subset A of a set X with 100 elements without counting the elements of A. In the case that A has fewer than 50 elements the only condition imposed on the method is that it not claim that A has at least 50 elements.
METHOD 0: Enumerate elements of X counting those that are in A until you reach a count of 50.
Here's the claim you should be able to convince yourself of. Don't forget to prove both directions.
CLAIM 1. There are at least 50 elements of A if and only if METHOD 0 reaches a count of 50 without previously having exhausted X.
CLAIM 2. If A has more than 50 elements then METHOD 0 fails to count the number of elements of A and proves nothing more than a lower bound of 50.
CLAIM 3: If A has 70 elements then METHOD 0 enumerates at most 80 elements of X, a savings of at least 20 over enumeration of all of X.
I've heard it rumored in certain circles that some biochemists can speak algebra. For them, the ultimate challenge:
CLAIM 4: If A has <i>x</i> ≥ 50 elements then METHOD 0 enumerates at most 150 − <i>x</i> elements of A, a savings of at least <i>x</i> − 50 over enumeration of all of X.
You may pick up your pen now.
↧
Comment on The uncertainty of climate sensitivity and its implication for the Paris negotiations by Peter Lang
Don,
Thank you. Your comment ismuch appreciated. It’s extremely frustrating debating with someone who will never admit he is wrong, never agrees to closure on any point, won’t read key references, doesn’t understand anything about the subject but can’t admit that, and continually uses intellectually dishonest tactics to digress and divert the debate.
↧
Comment on A perspective on uncertainty and climate science by mwgrant
If from the tones here I can tell who has been exposed to the dismal science. (Dismal because of track records, maybe ;o) )
English majors (and physics) are a hell of lot more fun—and informative.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
