Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science. Part II by verytallguy

0
0

Denizens may appreciate a radically different perspective from a climate scientist who believes that the risks of AGW are being systematically underplayed due to external pressures…

…my long-standing engagement with many colleagues in science leaves me in no doubt that although they work diligently, often against a backdrop of organized scepticism, many are ultimately choosing to censor their own research.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/pdf/ngeo2559.pdf


Comment on How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop by peter3172

0
0

The very idea that the probability of some physical events can in any way be influenced by human uncertainty, is nothing short of ridiculous.

Shame on the Royal Society for associating their name with such unmitigated nonsense.

Comment on How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop by AK

0
0
<blockquote>And I bet they could sell tickets to watch all those rich people lose their Malibu homes.</blockquote>Over the space of 85 years? They could be born, grow old, and die watching the sea level rise what: <b>four freaking feet?</b>

Comment on How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop by JCH

0
0

The earth would keep spinning and the climate would continue changing. I’ve learned so much on Climate Etc.

Comment on How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop by JCH

0
0

Nothing can stop the people who are far dumber than the denizens on Climate Etc. from raising taxes and trying to do the impossible. You brainiacs might as well just lay back and figure out a way to enjoy your misery.

Comment on How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop by JCH

Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science. Part II by stevenreincarnated

0
0

It isn’t really a different perspective. It is just from the other side of the spectrum. In other words a denier paid off by big wind. A possible target for future RICO investigations?

Comment on How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop by davideisenstadt

0
0

Mosh:
If youre too lazy to cite that which you quote…why should anyone else bother to check your “work”?
For a guy with a degree in english, you seem quite blasé about providing the most elementary bits of information regarding those you “quote”
BTW…I never read anyone but you refer to feynman as “Dicky”
Mosh you do know thats the technique of a 12 year old.
Now really, you provide a unsourced block of quoted material regarding Feynman, which does nothing to bolster the point you attempted to make.
Then when you are called on providing sourceless quotations you attempt to shift lalme to…who?
those who read your stuff.
Is this really what BEST pays you to do?
This is the public face of the group that stole berkley’s name and reputation?
Sad mosh, really sad.


Comment on How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop by davideisenstadt

0
0

why must the hypothesis be: “only biased scientists exist”?
isn’t “biased scientists exist” enough?
Geez mosh…your losing your edge.

Comment on How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop by davideisenstadt

0
0

that should read “you’re”

Comment on How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop by Arch Stanton

Comment on How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop by Arch Stanton

Comment on How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop by mosomoso

Comment on How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop by Arch Stanton

Comment on How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop by AK

0
0
So I went looking for pages containing the picture you posted, and found several, including: <a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/03/09/storm-devastating-plum-island/pLVdmnfNbY3e3uZ8gNcznN/story.html" rel="nofollow">Storm devastating to Plum Island</a><blockquote>NEWBURY — They expect big storms to do big damage on Plum Island, where beach erosion has long threatened oceanfront homes. They just weren’t expecting this storm to be that bad; ultimately, it was the most damaging to hit the island in recent memory.</blockquote><blockquote>As high tide arrived Friday morning, an $800,000 house was ripped from its foundation by the crashing surf and toppled onto the beach. Two others were so damaged that they were expected to be a total loss. And another two could end up condemned. All told, 12 homes are in jeopardy on this small barrier island, according to Newbury building inspector Sam Joslin.</blockquote>[...]<blockquote>“There should have been steps allowed to protect these properties,” Bandoian said, echoing a complaint from many neighbors, who say that <b>environmental red tape has prohibited them from protecting their own homes with their own money.</b> “We’ve been trying since December to get approval to rebuild the sea wall that was damaged in a storm. The house had no protection.” [my bold]</blockquote>[...]<blockquote>“The fact of the matter is the environment is changing, but these homes weren’t in any danger when they were built,” Tarr said. “These are folks who aren’t asking for public money; they’re asking for public regulation to allow them to protect their homes. The problem is that <b>because of environmental regulations,</b> there are some tools that are off the table that we need to look at seriously. People have to come first, and these are people’s homes.” [my bold]</blockquote>[...] <a href="https://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/National-Wildlife/Animals/Archives/2015/Great-Marsh.aspx" rel="nofollow">The Great Marsh: Nature's Flood Insurance</a><blockquote>The Great Marsh project aims to identify and combat growing threats to what is still a healthy, intact ecosystem. One of these threats is beach erosion. The marsh endures only because it is protected by barrier islands, notably Plum Island, an 8.5-mile-long sweep of dunes, marsh and scrub forest and site of the Parker River National Wildlife Refuge. On the island’s built-up, northern tip, storms have collapsed dunes and sometimes toppled houses into the surf (above). A short-term fix—here and on other barrier islands—is to pile more sand on the dunes. <b>It would be wiser to limit or ban new construction on barrier beaches, but such efforts are inevitably a tough sell politically.</b> [my bold]</b></blockquote>An exemplary case of deception by taking a picture out of context.

Comment on How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop by Wagathon

0
0

Reasonable people don’t turn the scientific method on its head by adopting the null hypotheses of AGW as proof of global warming. “GISS will increase about 0.2 per decade for the first three decades of the 21st century.” Really? Prediction as proof? 2030 hasn’t happened yet, right? What about warming before first hour of the 21st century and after the LIA? All natural? What part isn’t natural? If global warming alarmists wish to theorize that most or all of global warming during the last half of the 20th century is man-made (AGW theory), then the null hypothesis has been rejected by centuries of observation: AGW theory has been falsified.

Comment on How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop by GaryM

0
0

I am seeing more stories lately, even from warmist sites, saying that we may be approaching another Maunder Minimum. The general opinion from these warmists is that such a minimum would not (of course) have any effect on global warming/climate change, but it might well cause significantly colder winters in Europe and parts of the US.

I’m just wondering how the precautionary principle plays in all this?

How precisely are we supposed to prepare for both warming and cooling at the same time? Neither is really certain to occur, but both are of sufficient risk that under the PP we should prepare for both. But how precisely do we do that? Other than giving ever more control over the economy to our progressive betters, obviously.

Comment on How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop by aaron

0
0

I hope to god we can keep concentrations above 350ppm.

Comment on How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop by aaron

0
0

First he should convince the traffic safety and the autotive industry of his “Veer for Deer” campaign.

Comment on How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop by mosomoso

0
0

Beach destroyers are great blamers of coal and of the life styles of vulgar aspirationals who can’t afford to park a house where a dune should be. If you ask the people who build on-coast for their thoughts on life they’ll mostly be deeply green and oh-so passionate about the planet thingy and the climate thingy. It’s just that their posh real estate preferences don’t match their posh HuffPo opinions.

Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images