Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Week in review 6/23/12 by kim

0
0

‘not with politics in mind’ he says. Snicker.
===================


Comment on Week in review 6/23/12 by Dave Springer

0
0

That’s such a just-so story. Incredible.

Keep going Jim. Make up another chapter describing the natural CO2 sequestration processes, what triggered them, and why they won’t sequester anthropogenic CO2.

Comment on Week in review 6/23/12 by kim

0
0

And the amplification of sequestration as CO2 levels rise.
=============

Comment on Week in review 6/23/12 by kim

0
0

‘You people’ is stylistically challenged. There is(are) a lot of ‘us’.
=============

Comment on Science held hostage in climate debate by hunter

0
0

It is obvious that Dr. Brown, in his comments on Bain’s Nature article is familiar with how AGW true believers approach discussion:
“Please understand that by creating a catch-all label like this, you quite literally are moving the entire discussion outside of the realm of science, where evidence and arguments are considered and weighed independent of the humans that advance them, where our desire to see one or another result proven are (or should be) irrelevant, where people weigh the difficulty of the problem being addressed as an important contributor (in a Bayesian sense) to how much we should believe any answer proposed — so far, into the realm where people do not think at all! They simply use a dismissive label such as “denier” and hence avoid any direct confrontation with the issues being challenged.”
Sort of sums fan, lolwot and our other trolls pretty well.

Comment on Science held hostage in climate debate by Dave Springer

0
0

Hagen, you should learn a little more about google searches. Yours lists all papers with the words maximum, climate, and entropy. Only the topmost hits are relevant to Paltridge. The rest just happen to have those three words scattered about in them. Enclosing “maximum entropy” in quotes reduces the hits to 7,000 from 29,000. Duh. And most of those just happen to mention climate. Nobel laureate Illya Prigione is the one who is generating all the scholarly interest in maximum entropy. And I still say maximum entropy is just another way of describing a concept as old as dirt called “the path of least resistance”.

Comment on Science held hostage in climate debate by hunter

0
0

Captain,
Trying to have a serious discussion with fan is like pig wrestling.
fan enjoys it greatly and you just get dirty.

Comment on Science held hostage in climate debate by Dave Springer

0
0

No, it sounds like I pissed on your pom-poms. LOL


Comment on Science held hostage in climate debate by Dave Springer

Comment on Week in review 6/23/12 by Tomcat

0
0

@David Wokick
the human effort [of data storage] is huge and subtracted from the research effort.

Data storage is an integral part of research. How can anyone stand on the shoulders of those who come before them, if the shoulders are not offered up?

Comment on Week in review 6/23/12 by Punksta

0
0

It’s very simple – grey literature is acceptable as long as it supports your predetermined findings and is politically correct.

Comment on Science held hostage in climate debate by Edim

0
0

Well, it’s just as odd as the consensus heat trapping, if not less. The bulk of the atmosphere (N2 and O2) gains energy from the surface by convection/evaporation plus from the absorbed radiative heat from ‘GHGs’. This energy of the bulk cannot be transfered to space – it can only be transfered to ‘GHGs’, which radiate it to space. So, in a way, N2 and O2 ‘trap’ the climate system heat. More CO2/H2O, less trapping.

Comment on Three new papers on interpreting temperature trends by Beth Cooper

0
0

CK , yer can’t have a UNtopian (Distopean) poem and bring in desert stars.
Desert stars are … well … ‘heavenly.’

Comment on Week in review 6/23/12 by Punksta

0
0

Re: Data Storage

(1) Is it really so expensive?
How much would it cost a journal to publish the data for the papers it publishes (on average) ?

(2) Does it really need to be stored on a public site?
Or does there just need to be some clear means of requesting it from the scientist in question? (This would need to be enforced by the threat of immediate and automatic ‘unpublishing’ of the paper should the scientist not oblige).

Comment on Week in review 6/23/12 by Pekka Pirilä

0
0

In many fields of science including most pure (non-applied) science practically all good research is published in peer reviewed articles. In these fields it’s fully justified to give little weight on grey literature and other writings that are not part of peer reviewed science (or in some cases important enough to warrant full attention before peer reviewing has not yet been done but is expected to come).

The above applies to climate science. Consequently the WG1 report is almost totally based on peer reviewed publication with very little use of grey literature. As RC is about climate science the emphasis on peer reviewed science is right.

IPCC does, however, cover in its WG2 and WG3 reports a wide variety of issues that are not climate science and that are far from pure sciences. A lot of research is done in these fields but that research is to a very large extent less scientific and not as much of academic as of practical interest. Publications that report the results of such research are very often grey literature. RC may sometimes discuss these issues as well but they are certainly not in the core of RC activities.

The WG2 and WG3 reports are genuinely problematic. The issues covered in these reports are important for policy decisions. They report on much high quality research, peer reviewed and grey literature, but they report also on issues where the level of understanding is very poor and it’s often difficult to see whether a particular chapter reports on a well studied or on a very poorly understood matter or whether essentially everything reported on some issues is highly biased views from authors who can certainly not be considered objective.


Comment on Analyzing people who talk about AGW denialism by tempterrain

0
0

Maybe so, but It still doesn’t mean that every ‘Adolf’ is a mass murderer, any more than every use of the word denier is linked with one particular Adolf.

Comment on Week in review 6/23/12 by Pekka Pirilä

0
0

The extent and nature of data varies hugely. Therefore having some simple requirements for all data doesn’t make sense. The possibility of distributing with low cost even large amounts of date is rather recent. Therefore traditional practices of science do not cover sufficiently the issues of availability of data.

Even now the effort of collecting data is often very large. People would be less willing to make that effort if they would not have privileged enough access to the data. If these privileges would end with first publication they would postpone publication of early results, which would be detrimental to the progress.

It’s also common that the data cannot be organized easily to a well structured data set, but can still be used for a scientific purpose. The effort of making such data genuinely available might be many times larger than the value of the data.

The recent technical development has greatly changed the balance to favor more openness for the data. Thus it’s right to require that all data is made available after a proper delay (or immediately when a delay cannot be justified) and to the extent that can be done without disproportionate effort. Not allowing for any delay or requiring availability in all cases would, however, not be good for science or in public interest. How to reach the balance may be difficult but that’s the right goal.

Science is an area where libertarian type approach has worked rather well. By that I mean that the science is controlled mainly by voluntary and natural self-regulation. Scientists know from experience how they can find good science and what indicates that a paper is not of interest. Such self-regulated freedom of competition of scientific work leads all the time to errors in individual cases but given time it has led to the progress that we can see in retrospect. We should trust also in future to the power of self-regulation of science.

While the science itself is most certain to progress when given freedom, the issues are often different in the use of the results of science. That’s very much true when there’s willingness to use results of science that still changing continuously, i.e. it has not essentially settled. This is the question behind the concept of post-normal science that has wrongly been ridiculed by many who have totally misunderstood the idea. For the use of science that has not settled, the science itself does not give the answers and many scientists have also totally misunderstood their proper role as scientists.

Comment on Analyzing people who talk about AGW denialism by Pekka Pirilä

0
0

Removing words from the acceptable use of language is a bad practice. It’s particularly bad when no good alternatives exist.

It remains possible that a person denies something. What’s the acceptable noun for such a person?

Comment on Week in review 6/23/12 by Punksta

0
0

The extent and nature of data varies hugely. Therefore having some simple requirements for all data doesn’t make sense.

I fail to see what the extent and nature of the data have to do with publishing it or not, especially given today’s cheap and easy internet access. If ‘traditional’ climate scientists have yet to wake up to the internet then it’s high time they did.

If scientists want to self-regulate and hide their data as you suggest, that is one thing. But it is quite another when the science is used to inform government policy. For this, nothing less than total disclosure will suffice.

Comment on Week in review 6/23/12 by Vassily

0
0

Perhaps we need a legal approach here. Make it a criminal offense for a scientist who fails to supply any publicly-funded data he has assembled and used in a paper.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images