Thanks, Wagathon!
Comment on A peculiar kind of science by omanuel
↧
↧
Comment on A peculiar kind of science by timg56
I recall from several years ago when the Gun Control crowd was all excited about using the tobacco model to try and shut down the firearms industry.
It died a quick death. Once the trial attornies looked into the annual revenues of the various manufacturers they realized any damages and fees they would garner (should they have won) wouldn’t have covered their lunch tabs for the duration of the case.
I guess they think that isn’t a concern with the oil companies. Then again the oil companies have far more money to fight back than the tobacco companies.
↧
Comment on A peculiar kind of science by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3
Micheal, “They will have good intentions, in their minds, but will still do evil. The road to hell, eh? Ponder it seriously.”
Oh I do, though I am more looking at the humor created by over confidence and unintended consequences. Like say,
“You can make an unfounded pronouncement based on your ignorance of atheists, but will someone do the same to you?” :)
↧
Comment on Pink flamingos versus black swans by Rob Starkey (@Robbuffy)
Joseph–Yes there is a risk. You have no way of knowing that your proposed actions reduce or increase the risk. How does spending on that make sense?
↧
Comment on A peculiar kind of science by timg56
Don’t give it another thought Steven.
When it is something I am interested in I usually do try reading harder.
↧
↧
Comment on A peculiar kind of science by timg56
Mike Flynn,
“the experience of a British SAS unit inserted into desert country”
The example you give is not one of the problems of using averages. It is a problem of extremely poor planning on the part of the SAS unit. Proof I guess that even the best people can screw up.
↧
Comment on A peculiar kind of science by timg56
Chill out.
Jim D is like that little kid who keeps tugging at your sleeve going “But ….”.
He isn’t to be taken seriously.
↧
Comment on A perspective on uncertainty and climate science by Pooh, Dixie
“With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.”
Attributed to von Neumann by Enrico Fermi, as quoted by Freeman Dyson in “A meeting with Enrico Fermi” in Nature 427 (22 January 2004) p. 297
↧
Comment on A peculiar kind of science by scotts4sf
tonyb
Thanks for the response up thread re next articles.
CET back to 1088 will be interesting and useful.
You really think US and UK have been cooling?
Everything I read says hottest temps ever, except Steve Goddard web site.
Except for adjustments what data indicates cooling and over what period?
Also, sea level rise vs 7″ /per century average over last 100 years. Hard to tease out the real numbers on sea level with sinking land, raised land from glacial rebound, water aquifer depletions causing sinking and satellite measurements plus all adjustments. We need ground truth.
But thanks for all your work.
Scott
↧
↧
Comment on A peculiar kind of science by bobdroege
Hockeyschtick,
How come my gas cylinders in my lab are not hotter than the temperature of Venus, after all, they are at higher pressure.
You need to retake freshman chemistry, to learn how to apply the ideal gas law, cause you are flunking right now.
↧
Comment on A peculiar kind of science by Tyler Snow
“…who or what will divert the lemming tide?”
David, that’s a great question. My answer is, taxpayers who’s hard earned dollars are being used to support this crap against their will. I am FURIOUS beyond belief that my hard earned dollars are going to support this crap! I am an engineer, have generally leaned center to left politically, and supported specific well-audited government funded science. For all of you good publicly funded scientists out there, guess what? Your failure to reign in your climate zealot comrades has just screwed the pooch for all of science. I am so pissed, I am willing to cast my vote for Trump or Cruz so he can clean house on all of the government funded rent seekers. A lot of good science will also get thrown out with the bad. I am so pissed, I would support temporarily completely cutting off government funded science with the exception of military weaponry. If that means two million academics get fired, I’m fine by that, because only after the current leeches have been utterly destroyed can we begin to rebuild what we have lost.
Look at Trump’s poll numbers. What does that tell you? It says that there is a ground swell of anger out there the likes I haven’t seen in my lifetime. Immigration, obamacare, climate zealots, the list goes on. The silent majority center-to-right have had enough!
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by daveandrews723
Why is it that not one of the warmists’ models factored in the “pause” since 1998 that Lovejoy now claims was so “predictable”? Could it be their models were not based on the science but were influenced by an agenda they were trying to foist on the public? It seems to me Lovejoy should worry about defending the alarmists’ position instead of attacking the “denialists.” No, Mr. Lovejoy, the science is not settled.
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by popesclimatetheory
About 2000 years ago, there was a Roman Warm Period and then it got cold. About 1000 years ago, there was a Medieval Warm Period and then it got cold. That was called the Little Ice Age.
It is warm now because it is supposed to be warm now.
It is a natural cycle and we did not cause it.
↧
↧
Comment on A peculiar kind of science by scotts4sf
WAg,
there you go again.
Maine???
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by Willis Eschenbach
Thanks, Dr. Judith. Even at best, Lovejoy’s analysis only proves short-term correlation (65 years) of CO2 and temperature.
It is immediately contradicted by, inter lots of alia including your comments above, the fact that the Greenland ice cores show that CO2 continued to rise for a couple thousand years after we came out of the last Ice Age … but temperatures were generally
dropping all that time.
As to your question about what the EOS editors were thinking, I fear that as they say in court, “that question assumes facts not in evidence” …
Thanks as always,
w.
↧
Comment on A peculiar kind of science by JCH
It rained like crazy in DFW this morning. I had to go to the airport and pick up a stranded relative. They say some of it is from Patricia.
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by Willis Eschenbach
I use a lot of rules of thumb in this life. My rule of thumb regarding settled arguments is:
If one side claims the debate is over and they won … it isn’t, and they didn’t.
w.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by popesclimatetheory
Ok ‘denialists’, this is your opportunity to poke holes in Lovejoy’s argument. Its pretty easy, actually.
There is no need to poke holes. Just read the stuff, it is self poking.
Global warming science has concentrated on proving the theory that the postindustrial warming is largely caused by human activities. Yet no scientific theory can be proved beyond all doubt, and our attempts to convince people of the science are entering a period of diminishing returns.
It gets more and more difficult when the Mother Earth does not do what the Climate models promised us.
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by popesclimatetheory
++++++++++++++++++++++
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by Charlie Martin
The more effective the counter-arguments to the simplistic CO2-forced model become, the more the people in favor of that model try to declare the topic closed.
Which is, at its core, anti-science.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
