ResearchGate may solve our dilemma, if ResearchGate remains open.
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by omanuel
Comment on Climate closure (?) by Science or Fiction
Honestly Shaun, you are a professor – but did not refrain yourself from name calling. To me, name calling is something I do not expect to see in opinion pieces by professors.
“Name calling is abusive or insulting language referring to a person or group, a verbal abuse. This phenomenon is studied by a variety of academic disciplines from anthropology, to child psychology, to politics. It is also studied by rhetoricians, and a variety of other disciplines that study propaganda techniques and their causes and effects. The technique is most frequently employed within political discourse and school systems, in an attempt to negatively impact their opponent.” Ref. Wikipedia.
And I really wonder – did your complete courses on scientific theory?
“Instead of struggling to prove humans are to blame, let’s prove denialist fantasies wrong”
Your miss the point of science entirely:
Ideas, hypotheses and theories are merited by the severity of tests they have been exposed to and survived.
If you want to strengthen your pet theory, you should expose your pet theory to severe testing. Only then will you be able to utter a scientific statement, a statement having the form:
These are my ideas, hypothesis and theory. These are necessary deduced consequences thereof. If my idea is correct, I deduct that the following will have to be observed, in nature, or as the output of a a test.
Then – I would list, and refer to in traceable ways, the tests which has been conducted – the observations which has been made. I would also state the uncertainty level of the dependent variable – the output of my theory – and the uncertainty level of the observed quantities – the results of my tests.
I would also know that a theory is more valuable the more it excludes from happening, A theory which allows everything explains nothing.
These are the first lines of the Logic of scientific discovery by Karl Popper:
“A scientist, whether theorist or experimenter, puts forward statements, or systems of statements, and tests them step by step. In the field of the empirical sciences, more particularly, he constructs hypotheses, or systems of theories, and tests them against experience by observation and experiment.”
http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/popper-logic-scientific-discovery.pdf
Please note that Karl Popper did not say:
In addition to struggle to prove that he is right, a scientist should try to prove that his opponents fantasies are wrong.
This seems to be your approach.
However, what you have provided, is only another line of justification for your pet theory, justification based on inductive reasoning. Reasoning which has been properly debunked in this post, its comments and replies.
I hope, for the future of your students, that you are not the one who holds the courses on scientific theory.
Comment on Climate closure (?) by Berényi Péter
Comment on Climate closure (?) by Bartemis
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by AK
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jim2
WTI is back around $45 after visiting around $50 last week.
WTI Prices:
10/23/15
OIL 44.60
BRENT 47.99
NAT GAS 2.286
RBOB GAS 1.3036
Images from http://marketrealist.com
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by timg56
The Berkeley Stanford and the study on hurrican related damages are excellent.
Excellent as in they offer excellent evidence that economics is as full of made up crap as climate science.
Anyone note that the entire premise of the hurricane paper is a line from the IPCC report saying it is a certainty that the intensity and frequency of huricanes are increasing due to climate change? Forget the actual numbers. Just go with an assumption and pretend it is a fact.
Imagine what would happen if accountants adopted the same methods?
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by justinwonder
The society members:
Comment on Climate closure (?) by verdeviewer
I just compared trends from the NCDC Feb 2015 Land/Ocean temperature dataset to today’s Land/Ocean dataset.
In the February dataset, the trend from 1880 through 1998 was 0.5°/C per century. The trend from 1998 through 2014 was 0.6°C per century.
Today, the trend from 1880 through 1998 is still 0.5°/C per century. But the trend from 1998 through 2014 has increased to 1.0°C per century.
In just 8 months, the upward temperature trend during the previous 17-year-interval has increased 67%. Pretty scary.
The moment of closure has passed again. Climatic deterioration is a done deal. Dissenting data will be denied.
Comment on Climate closure (?) by catweazle666
WebHubTelescope: “Lovejoy is right.”
Well, that settles it.
If you believe that, it’s sure to be a load of old donkey droppings.
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by ristvan
The Stanford/Berkeley climate/economics paper is seriously flawed. i am surprised it passed Nature review. Take 30 years of data on temperature and economic development for 166 countries to tease out an ‘optimum’ tempe for labor and agricultural productivity development. Come up with ~55F annual average— surprise, the temperate mean annual temperature for the US, Europe, and China. Common sense red flag 1: the US CONUS regional mean temps alone vary nearly as much as the whole sample of 166 countries. I personally compare South Florida to Chicago and Wisconsin many times a year. Miami annual mean 77F, Chicago 50F. Shows how statistically junky such cross sectional analysis is.
Common sense red flag 2: Most developing countries with poor economic productivity growth are in ‘tropical’ Latin America (e.g. Nicaragua, Honduras, Venezuela…), Africa (Nigeria, Liberia, Zimbabwe, Congo…) or Southeast Asia (Myanmar, Thailand,…). It is self evident that in all of those places, socialism, corruption, and military juntas are much bigger productivity hindrances than climate.
Worse, the paper takes this absurdly confounded cross sectional result and then applies it as if it were an economic time series to estimate the ‘productivity damage function for the world’ for modeled 2100 warming. A big scary number just in time for Paris. Scary because it projects the consequences of Ortega, Chavez, Goodluck, Mugabe, and a brutally regressive Burmese military junta onto global warming.
Shame on Berkeley and Stanford for producing such econometric garbage. And on Bloomberg BW for amplifying it.
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by justinwonder
NOAA will have access to the best obstructionist advisors that taxpayers can buy, the aforementioned agencies of this most transparent administration evah! Unprecedented transparency! Why, we can see right through them!
Comment on Climate closure (?) by Willis Eschenbach
Comment on Climate closure (?) by AK
For over 100 years, SH and NH are in lockstep.
What’s in lockstep? Do you even know?
Comment on Climate closure (?) by Tucci78
Comment on Climate closure (?) by wert
Lovejoy:
Hence a 1°C fluctuation is about five standard deviations, or a 1 in 3,000,000 chance
Omg. What’s that in acre feet? :-)
This gives a probability of at most 1 in 1000
This is a bit like finding a 1000-sided die at side 999 top, and then telling this is a one to thousand chance – when your point is that it is not a chance. Well, maybe not!
There are plenty of things to explain still, beginning from when adjusting past changes to predicting future correctly? And why satellites series diverge from surface?
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Joseph
Were they kept out of the IPCC report? And what makes you think it was a “valid scientific view?” I wouldn’t want garbage in the IPCC report either. Would you?
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jim2
Yep. I posted an article that predicted a new surge in immigration into the US due to the storm. Hope that one is now wrong.
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jim2
The junkyard of “science.”
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jim2
I wasn’t that the paper was wrong, just that is was produced by the wrong tribe.