You need to read harder and meticulously check your own biased view of me.. A lukewarmer.. And your own biased view of the so called evidence based way.
Comment on A peculiar kind of science by Steven Mosher
↧
↧
Comment on A peculiar kind of science by Joshua
===> “…for expensive actions…”
Rather ironic, under the circumstances.
↧
Comment on A peculiar kind of science by -1=e^iπ
@Mosher – Keep up the good work on BEST.
↧
Comment on A peculiar kind of science by stevefitzpatrick
Steve Mosher,
Yes, crowds (say, every S&P 500 investor) are much more often correct than are individuals. That is because crowds encompass wider range of thinking, experience, and information.
A crowd is no committee… crowds are not “selected”. Committees are selected…. and usually very carefully selected, with an eye on the ‘desired’ outcome of the committee deliberations. Trial lawyers understand that jury selection is key to trial outcome. Trial lawyers are not the only people who are aware of this. The difference between juries and committees of those alarmed about GHG driven warming is that jury selection is adversarial, while committees of the alarmed face no adversarial selection process. The ‘fix is in’ when committees of the alarmed make long term projections of warming and its consequences. The public weighs evidence, costs, and benefits very differently than a committee of the alarmed, and looks at a much wider range of issues… including many ‘negatives’ which committees of the alarmed consider ‘positives’.
I think the ‘crowd’ of the wider public is more capable of evaluating credibility than any committee. Which I think is why little has changed since Kyoto. If “the science” in support of warming driven doom becomes more credible, then the (public) crowd will recognize that and support costly draconian changes in energy supply. It’s not sufficiently credible yet….. and based on what I have learned of “the science”, I honestly doubt it ever will be.
↧
Comment on A peculiar kind of science by David Springer
No, it really did exist. In some disciplines it existed not long ago. Consider computer science. So much of it was done in garages in Silicon Valley before it was named Silicon Valley it became cliche. Then it switched to college dorm rooms where Facebook and a legion of other killer apps were invented by lone wolves.
In theoretical physics lone wolves still operate too. Granted that in most disciplines the low hanging fruit is gone and breakthroughs require teams with a lot of money to spend.
↧
↧
Comment on A peculiar kind of science by davideisenstadt
MOsh:
you may be well served by reading your prior posts, and attempting to maintain some sort of consistency from thread to thread…that might help everyone.
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’”
Lewis Carroll
↧
Comment on A peculiar kind of science by beththeserf
With yer committee,
facts are likely infinitely
compliant, dependent on necessity,
yer mission accomplishing.
↧
Comment on A peculiar kind of science by Wagathon
Left or liberal, Freeman Dyson (“Obama ‘took the wrong side’…,” Register) asks a good question about climate change: “How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?”
↧
Comment on A peculiar kind of science by Wagathon
<blockquote>“To any unprejudiced person reading this account [a new report, (see below)], the facts should be obvious: that the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide as a sustainer of wildlife and crop plants are enormously beneficial, that the possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated, and that the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage,” ~Freeman Dyson ('Carbon Dioxide: The Good News, GWPF)</blockquote>
↧
↧
Comment on A peculiar kind of science by climatereason
Bazaar??? As in horse trading from a market stall?
Certainly not irrelevant. It is by no means warm everywhere. Global averages hide the many nuances.
Anyway, you didn’t answer my question as to how Lomborg had lied to you?
tonyb
↧
Comment on A peculiar kind of science by jungletrunks (@jungletrunks)
Don, there was an interesting push back from Exxon today. http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Industry/2015/10/22/Exxon-slams-report-for-cherry-picking-climate-legacy/6231445509659/?spt=su&or=btn_tw
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by popesclimatetheory
This is just common sense when given an evidence-based uncertainty range.
There is a Major Problem with this.
The uncertainty range is based on theory and flawed Climate Model Output. That is opinion and not any kind of evidence based on real data. The uncertainty range is worse than useless.
The Roman and Medieval Warm periods did occur without our manmade CO2. This warm period is caused by the same causes as the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods. NO ONE HAS PROVED THIS WRONG. NO ONE HAS IDENTIFIED A CAUSE FOR PAST WARM PERIODS THAT HAS STOPPED.
↧
Comment on A peculiar kind of science by omanuel
Thank you, Wagathon. Please post a link for the above quote Freeman Dyson quote. Thanks.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by popesclimatetheory
People like to discuss tipping points.
If you look at real data, there clearly is two tipping points.
When Earth is warm, it always tips toward cooler. Cause it snows more.
When Earth is cool, it always tips toward warmer. Cause it snows less.
↧
Comment on A peculiar kind of science by Wagathon
In response to the esteemed Senator Whitehouse from RI, “Carbon dioxide levels have risen inexorably since the 1700s. Yet despite this, climate sensitive indicators of human and environmental wellbeing that carbon dioxide affects directly, such as crop yields, food production, prevalence of hunger, access to cleaner water and biological productivity, and those that it affects indirectly, such as living standards and life expectancies, have improved virtually everywhere. In most areas they have never been higher, nor do they show any sustained signs of reversing.” (<a href="http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2015/10/benefits1.pdf" rel="nofollow">Full report</a>)
↧
Comment on A peculiar kind of science by Arch Stanton
Long Green is still the valid picture.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/10/18/the-preposterous-green-institute-and-the-ipcc/
Bias is as bias does, it’s a pattern.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by popesclimatetheory
Don, no, the point is that adding uncertainty as the skeptics want to do
I am a skeptic of the alarmist warming junk.
I am not a climate skeptic. We have warmed and cooled in the same bounds for ten thousand years. I am 97% sure we will warm and cool in those same bounds for the nest ten thousand years. This modern, more stable, robust, climate cycle started ten thousand years ago, after millions of years of colder and warmer. This is the new normal.
Explain why we have been so stable in this new cycle and explain what stopped so that we can get out of this cycle. CO2 did not put us in this cycle and CO2 cannot take us out of this cycle.
I do explain this cycle. Ocean levels and currents are perfect and we will stay in this cycle until you can change ocean levels and currents.
http://popesclimatetheory.com/page55.html
↧
↧
Comment on A peculiar kind of science by Don Monfort
This BS Exxon-RICO-tobacco meme is another story the little greenie loons will keep hammering. We can count on little yimmy to bring it up, daily. Here is the alleged evidence the goon senator cites for the basis of the RICO case:
“That was in 1977. That same year, James F. Black, a top scientific researcher at the Exxon Corporation gave that company’s executives a similar warning: “[T]here is general scientific agreement,” he told Exxon’s Management Committee, “that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels.” According to emerging reports, Exxon executives kept that warning a closely guarded company secret for years.”
Case closed. String ’em up!
↧
Comment on A peculiar kind of science by Mike Hohmann
Apart from this official IPCC spokesman:
In an interview published in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung on 14 November 2010, Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of IPCC Working Group III, said “The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War…. one must say clearly that de facto we redistribute the world’s wealth by climate policy…. One has to rid oneself of the illusion that international climate politics have anything to do with environmental concerns.”
…I have not had anyone criticising this calculation of mine:
http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/eating-sun-fourth-estatelondon-2009.html especially not in the light of this:
http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/thefour-laws-withoutwhich-nothing.html
↧
Comment on A peculiar kind of science by scotts4sf
tonyb
Your faith in the integrity of climate temperatures as reported by the gov experts is touching. But as you said to JCH above.
explain.
Dr Maroharsy uses Rutheglen as a prime example of unjustified changes by BOM in Australia.
What is your take on that issue. Homoginazation from 100’s km away seems unjustified under almost any instances. Arctic krieging and SST adjustments from ship intakes to buoy thermocouples seem unjustified. Changes to ARGO thermocouples seem unjustified.
I want to accept the integrity of gov funded mainstream climate science but my confidence in the observations degrades with continuous changes to historical records.
What do you think.
explain?
I enjoy and trust your data and instincts.
Scott
↧
