I’m CEO of a small exploration company and my equal opportunity recruiting policy for earth science graduates has changed. Policy now is to not employ graduates if they have graduated from a university with a policy in force of not investing in mining companies….. Seems fair that it works both ways.
Comment on Hypocrisy at universities over oil company funding/divestment by EEO Lank
↧
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by kim
Heh, I never link. On occasion I’ve provided an url. I don’t have to prove anything or win an argument, however, I do cling to the wreckage.
=================
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by aaron
<blockquote>Lou, how do you come up with that? By assuming the feedbacks to all forcing types are relatively equal?</blockquote>
And that the forcings were small and short lived.
↧
Comment on Adjudicating scientific disputes in climate science by rhhardin
It’s not a dispute about science. It’s a dispute about what thinks of itself as science, a dispute about who gets to wear the symbol.
It’s sort of a sociological problem.
You can still find scientists out there probably. Look for curiosity-guided work. Perhaps it’s still even published, though it may have been displaced by climate science by now.
The early JGR, say from the 70s and before, might be an interesting contrast.
↧
Comment on Adjudicating scientific disputes in climate science by nickels
The law, with all its vague non-quantifiable concepts such as ‘reasonable doubt’,etc… is actually more rigorous than the modern day scientific community.
Wow. How did that happen? I gained a slight bit of respect for the legal paradigm.
↧
↧
Comment on Adjudicating scientific disputes in climate science by scotts4sf
Pretty amazing.
FOIA requests to gov agencies would require the e-mails to random citizens, much less Congress. Must be something difficult to explain to generate the defiance. Only excemption would be presonal information or national security information and Hillary Clinton showed us all that communications can be open to Russian, Chinese, Iranian governments and not to Congress or American public.
Scott
↧
Comment on Adjudicating scientific disputes in climate science by Vaughan Pratt
Bob, a time integral is simply an integral with respect to time. For example if the flow from the tap into the tub increases linearly with time, such that the flow is 0 pints/second at time t = 0 seconds, 1 pint/second at t = 1, etc., then the amount of water added to the tub between time 2 seconds and 5 seconds is the integral of tdt from 2 to 5. Since the indefinite integral is 0.5*t^2, the definite integral is 0.5*5^2 – 0.5*2^2 = (25 − 4)/2 = 10.5 pints.
↧
Comment on Adjudicating scientific disputes in climate science by nickels
Let’s face it. Critical theory is the new Post-Juadic secular messianic religion, the modern University it’s new Talmudic society, the university professor the secular Rabbi, and consensus the new Chazal.
Climate science is all about social justice, which is the basis for the revolutionary morality of critical theory.
↧
Comment on Adjudicating scientific disputes in climate science by rabbit
The mindset of the law is fundamentally different than that of science.
In law, questions are brought before judges, who then provide answers.
In science, there is no judge to provide answers, only reality, and reality does not hand down definitive judgements for us to read. We can only guess at what it’s trying to tell us by prodding and poking, and we often change our minds as to its message. We can never be entirely sure we have it right, no matter how substantial the evidence.
Do judges understand these fundamental differences? I’m not convinced all do. Some may think the science would benefit from figures of authority to winnow truth from falsehood.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by mwgrant
Mosh,
Looking at the context –
There is no pause IN the data. First you have to pick a model. Then fit the model. Then read the trend in the model. [The(se)] Data have no trend. [The] Models do.
I read last two sentences with loss of specificity and as a general assertion while regarding data as a set of ntuples including observation and location (or time, etc.). Of course the is the matter of data reduction, processing….
So I’ll stand pat on my comment given that read. Thanks for your clarification.
↧
Comment on Adjudicating scientific disputes in climate science by blouis79
So it is more likely that Russian scientists will perform the scientific experiments that prove that the physics described to cause global warming is unproven and scientifically fallacious.
↧
Comment on Adjudicating scientific disputes in climate science by Craig Loehle
Those who want to assert a consensus and shut down debate would do well to remember many other issues where past consensus is now viewed as wrong: the claim that dark skinned races are inferior, myriad health claims for foods (still made, rarely verified), sending those with TB to live in caves to cure them, weird “cures” for mental illness now viewed as torture, etc. Also worth mentioning the violent response to the Atkins diet which in spite of its hostile reception does seem to work.
Or perhaps they want to freeze all knowledge at the level of what they learned in school?
↧
Comment on Adjudicating scientific disputes in climate science by kim
The sillies. Tabu is simply more attractive to the curious. When will they ever learn?
===========
↧
↧
Comment on Adjudicating scientific disputes in climate science by Arch Stanton
Puttin, me on?
http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/29/russias-putin-says-global-warming-is-a-fraud/
He’s made his decision. How about you?
↧
Comment on Adjudicating scientific disputes in climate science by matthewrmarler
jim2: <i>“These are government employees using government email making decisions that have potentially far-reaching implications and it’s the committee’s role to understand the full context of that decision-making process,” the aide said. </i>
I am not sure that govt-funded scientists understand that they are not Galileo, Newton and Einstein.
↧
Comment on Adjudicating scientific disputes in climate science by Wagathon
What does a judge do when credibility is necessarily dispositive of the issue of the reliability experts’ opinion testimony? Easy… look to the consensus. But, academia’s supposed ‘consensus’ of opinion about AGW theory is totally bogus. That much has been proven!
↧
Comment on Adjudicating scientific disputes in climate science by kim
This is curious. The BRICs are supposed to be holding fast to the climate guilt schtick in order to shakedown the developed countries.
I guess I can count on this tactic leading up to Obama falling prat. What else is new?
=================
↧
↧
Comment on Adjudicating scientific disputes in climate science by Pat Cassen
Sorry Mike, the online paper may need a subscription. Here’s the citation, if you can get Physics Today at a library:
Physics today, ISSN 0031-9228, Vol. 67, Nº. 7, 2014, pág. 42
It is a comprehensive review as of 2014, including some historical perspective and details of the seasonal and year-to-year variability, mechanisms, etc. A main point is that recovery is slow and variable due to the long lifetime of CFCs and the variability of the controlling dynamics.
↧
Comment on Adjudicating scientific disputes in climate science by Wagathon
<b>Rule 702. Testimony by Expert Witnesses</b>
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:
(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
↧
Comment on Adjudicating scientific disputes in climate science by kim
I no longer use the term ‘critical thinking’ because it has been so debased. I prefer ‘analytical thinking’ now instead, but can’t wait for it to be depraved, too.
===========
↧
