> The city of Southampton spends more than twice as much each year on street cleaning – £8m – than the world does on the IPCC – £3.6m.
Comment on Between tribalism and trust by neverendingaudit
↧
↧
Comment on Between tribalism and trust by Joe's World
Fan,
Too much corrupted areas of society WOULD have major effects and consequences, such as religion and the leaders that follow absolutely without question.
We placed ABSOLUTE TRUST in our scientists to solve problems so that we may NOT have to do it ourselves.
Unfortunately, they followed the paths of their own and NOT science!
↧
Comment on Between tribalism and trust by neverendingaudit
Pekka,
I don’t think Andy’s statement concerning what is known well is there to answer the question of justifiable action. I believe his statement is here to remind us that we got to do something else than nothing. We got to agree on that proposition, a proposition so central that everything else is on its periphery.
I don’t think your claim that we need to know better how harmful or risky the warming is has been justified. All depends on the way better is being defined, and since it has not been defined yet, it’s just an ad hoc criterion. Scientific results can always be better, scientific results ought to always be better.
I value the ideal of perfection. But it’s just an ideal. Anyone who lived with a perfectionnist knows that it’s not an ideal trait.
↧
Comment on Between tribalism and trust by Bart R
An experiment in tribalism and trust:
Post a series of topics, half a ‘control’ group under the usual rules of commenting and the other half barring the use of any reference to specific people or identifiable groups (other than the minimum requirements to cite source material, such as published articles).
No “I”, no “you”, no “they” or “them” or “we” or “us”, no adjectives describing people, either perjorative or praising (no “delinquent”, no “diligent”), no “team”, no “herd”.. Nothing about the tribes. Just about the ideas.
And no links to articles hosted on cites that do not respect this focus on ideas over making it about personalities.
Remove all the crutches of distrust, all the easy means to sow untruth and inject distractions. Get the people out of the middle of the discussion, for half the topics in the series.
I predict a postcount of 5% in those impersonal topics compared to the insult-drenched, invective spewing tribal control group.
Which tells us what?
↧
Comment on 5 logical fallacies that make you more wrong than you think by thisisnotgoodtogo
Steve,
Now I’ll try to show my position again.
I think it not outrageous that many lay people called “fraud” over the Jones actions as revealed in that email.
I think it was not supportable to claim that it meant “No Global Warming” in any way you look at it.
However, those that did not err in that way ( inferring “no global warming”), but called it fraud because it was trick to hide something that was important. Hide it from whom ? From them, of course, hide it from the public
↧
↧
Comment on Between tribalism and trust by Tom
↧
Comment on Between tribalism and trust by The Viscount Aardvark Q. Trebuchet-Oxymoron, the 1th
↧
Comment on Carbon cycle questions by doctorbunsenhoneydew
BTW, if you can come up with the equations, please post them on SkS as well, I don’t often read this blog anymore (it appears to be about the sociology of science, rather than the science itself).
↧
Comment on 5 logical fallacies that make you more wrong than you think by pokerguy
Krugman sounds like my old rabbi. Too bad we don’t get to hear Shwarz’ response to Krugman’s rebutal at the end. Krugman of course appears utterly unpersuaded. Personally, I don’t think there’s any way out of this situation. There’s too much debt, and the only cure is default and probably world wide depression.
↧
↧
Comment on Between tribalism and trust by Steve McIntyre
A longer version is online here, http://lund2012.earthsystemgovernance.org/LC2012-paper222.pdf
It cites many blog posts including our host here, but conspicuously makes no citation of anything from Climate Audit, though I’m mentioned as part of the blogosphere.
Nor does he mention Donna Laframboise, whose analysis of the links between IPCC and the large NGOs, especially WWF and Greenpeace, is something that should give real concern to supporters of the IPCC project.
↧
Comment on Between tribalism and trust by Bart R
An example of $865 million spent on AGW. All going from the pockets of taxpayers (not US taxpayers in this case, mind) to an oil company.
Much more accounting of “IPCC Funding” like this, and they’ll let the Enron guys out of jail early for comparative good behavior.
↧
Comment on Between tribalism and trust by Bart R
.. though not in a way any real accountant would take seriously, of course, as it follows no generally accepted standard of accounting principles.
Indeed, any diligent numbers man would call for an detailed audit of the claims.
Unless he was rooting for his tribe.
↧
Comment on Between tribalism and trust by JCH
I’ve read it. Imo they suffer from what I call 2100 syndrome. I think they’re way off.
Assuming one meter is a correct prediction, that will become assimilated by the marketplace sometime during the 21st Century – starting say in 2050. And then people will begin asking about by 2105, 2110, 2120, etc.. Because if one meter by 2100 is correct, the next meter will be on top of them much much faster than the first meter.
So nice little estimates of how many structures and how many people will be within one meter by 2100, they’re as useless and stinky as used toilet paper. That woefully underestimates the stuff that could hit the fan well before 2100.
↧
↧
Comment on 5 logical fallacies that make you more wrong than you think by Jim D
The link you pointed to was not even an alarmist, but it is better to look at how governments are already spending money on climate change or planning to, rather than speculate based on what random bloggers think they will or even want to do. Generally speaking, spending, or at least saving up, slowly over a longer lead time is better and leaves more flexibility than suddenly needing revenue later when the projects are about to begin which could lead to more difficulty for everyone as other spending gets cut. Saving is of course difficult for a government unless it is in a protected “lock-box” such as the way government pays for pensions, senior healthcare, etc. Unfortunately long-term planning such as this is also difficult for typical governments these days, but hopefully they will have some foresight. Can the private sector raise these future revenues in some way? I don’t think so, but am open to ideas. I think they will rely on the government having some funds ready for them.
↧
Comment on 5 logical fallacies that make you more wrong than you think by Jim D
There is an alternative which is to wait to the last minute and issue bonds as you need them for projects. This is also known as government borrowing or raising the deficit, which is currently frowned upon, because you are put on the hook for interest later.
↧
Comment on Between tribalism and trust by JimJ
Hey Mike, your booger infested comments is one of the reasons I lurk here and I’m certain I’m not alone. Please reconsider!
Jim
↧
Comment on Between tribalism and trust by Steven Mosher
We have the same priviledges. I dont abuse mine.
↧
↧
Comment on Between tribalism and trust by Steven Mosher
Joshua, you dont speak for all of us. You might be interested that the person who complained about your post about lindzen was Jewish. and yes, I believe he takes offense at the use of the term denier. I don’t, but I find it counter productive and stupid.
↧
Comment on Between tribalism and trust by Steven Mosher
You’d be closer to that mindset than I would be, so you figure it out
↧
Comment on Between tribalism and trust by Captain Kangaroo
Danged scientists don’t have no danged credibility. What we really need is cheap and abundant energy. 
Best regards
Captain (Robbo) Kangaroo
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/reactors.html
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
