How about this: At the beginning of a day, you get to make 5 free comments, and then can only make one for every 5 total. IOW, when you hit the limit, you have to wait for five more by others before you can comment again.
Comment on Climate Etc. at 2 by P.E.
↧
↧
Comment on Activate (?) your science by Peter Lang
Faustino
@ September 2, 2012 at 7:57 pm
I’ve repeatedly stressed that the best we can say about the future is that there will be constant change, and many of these changes will surprise us. I’ve therefore advocated policies which promote innovation, adaptability and flexibility, in short, which increase our ability to deal well with whatever emerges, to take advantage of opportunities and minimise the damage of adverse changes; and to avoid costly policies based on insufficient evidence which limit our capacity to deal with what does in fact emerge.
I agree 100%. I think this is a very important point and very well stated. Thank you again.
I think that the main difference between us [Pekka Pirila and Faustino] is that you [Pekka Pirila] are closer to the science and technology coal-face than I am, so can address many issues with knowledge which I lack.
When it comes to the economic analyses, I think it is better to be impartial. For that reason, Faustino is in a better position to provide good policy advice than is Pekka Pirila.
Please allow me to explain what I mean by this statement.
We do need the specialist knowledge and advice from Pekka Pirila (and the many others in all aspects of climate science, climate change economics, engineering, international law, etc.). However, the input from those concerned about climate change needs to be kept in proper perspective with all other areas of policy. In my opinion that has not been the case with climate change policies over the past two decades (since about 1990). I argue we need the appropriate level of input for all other areas of policy development (Defence, Foreign Affairs and Trade, Health, Education, governance, etc). Climate change is not the only long term risk we face. It is not the highest risk, and not the risk with the worst consequences. But it is getting attention and expenditure which is way out of proportion.
World Economic Forum Global Risks 2012 ranks the risks facing the globe in the coming decade. This provides a framework that shows that we have spent far too much money and focus on the risks of climate change when compared with the other, higher risks.
For these reasons, I argue that the policy advice to governmentss need to be provided by objective, impartial advisers like Faustino seems to be. Only they can pull it all together in reasonably balanced way.
[Faustino, I am writing for all readers, so if I seem to be preaching to you about what you already know, please don’t interpret my comments that way.]
↧
Comment on Climate Etc. at 2 by David Wojick
I do not see why eliminating nesting should reduce nasty comments, but one could try it. It should just make it harder to see what each comment is about, because the meaning of a comment typically depends on the line of thought leading up to it. People will have to at least somehow indicate which comment in the linear string above they are commenting on. There are several conventions for doing this.
But the point is that the line of reasoning leading to a given comment will be too hard to reconstruct. No one reads this blog around the clock, remembering every comment and which comment it addresses, but that is when the comments occur, around the clock. Most of the structure will be lost. Ironically the rapid back and forth, where a lot of the nastiness probably occurs, will be retained, because these comments will be close by in the linear temporal string of comments.
↧
Comment on Activate (?) your science by Faustino
Peter, I read that as meaning that we can’t be definitive about the more distant future (I agree, and with discount rates of 6% distant costs and benefits have little impact on NPV), but that whenever we make a decision (in the here and now), we are implicitly ranking alternatives as to their future impact. Pekka agrees that the better our ability to assess costs and benefits, the better is our basis for decision-making. But choices will be made (cf the Rudd-Gillard governments) even without detailed CBA; the decision-makers’ valuation is implicit in their decision. In Australia since 2007, so many of those decisions have, in my view, been wrong, and the government’s refusal to seek advice from the PC et al, or their over-ruling of good advice, e.g. on the Australia Network, with no good policy reason, indicates that they are not driven by the broad public interest, which is best revealed by PC-style inquiries. I think that there is value in work you’ve done which indicates, for example, that on the government’s own assumptions we will incur massive net costs by 2050 for modest emissions reductions of little if any value, and that we have no hope of maintaining an acceptable lifestyle on the basis of so-called alternative energy. I think that let’s us say: your policy choices are indefensible.
But the uncertainties are so great, I would, as often stated, depend less on looking 40-odd years ahead and more on pursuing in the present policies which enhance our capacity with regard to any future.
Incidentally, re your and Vaughan’s comments on post-tax NPV, tax is a transfer payment, it doesn’t affect the overall net valuation of costs and benefits for society as a whole. So the discount rate does not consider tax. For a company, of course, assumptions on taxation will affect the NPV, and companies seek much higher expected rates of return.
↧
Comment on Climate Etc. at 2 by Peter Lang
Michael,
We agree. That’s great 
I’ve made a wee demonstration of how it could work following on from the excellent start by Pekka Pirila and Faustino here: http://judithcurry.com/2012/08/30/activate-your-science/#comment-235207
(only slightly spoilt by Jim2′s comment. Consider it as if it had been posted on the top level.)
↧
↧
Comment on Climate Etc. at 2 by David L. Hagen
curryja
I affirm restoring “categories” when you can.
Encourage much more detailed categories to be able to better find posts on a particular subject. Especially break down your “uncertainty” categories.
Random/Type A, Systematic/Type B, Total error;
Conventional standard error, Hurst-Kolmogorov standard error;
Random, Markov, Hurst Kolmogorov, Hurst Kolmogorov-Bias;
Knowns, Known Unknowns, Unknown Unknowns.
Global, regional, local. Land, Ocean, glaciers;
Glaciers: Greenland, Arctic, Antarctic, Himalayan, Andes.
Noise: white noise, pink noise, red noise;
etc.
Systematic Type B may be as large as Random/Type A errors, but are rarely specifically identified, let alone quantified.
The HK standard error (including long term persistance) is about double the classical standard error. Koutsoyiannis et al. at ITIA
↧
Comment on Climate Etc. at 2 by David Wojick
But the discussion, who says what to whom, is not controlled by how the comments are arranged on the screen. It is just a question of how easy it is to follow the discussion. But you are right in that nesting should make it easier to skip, or find, an given issue, which I do frequently. But people may have to learn this the hard way.
↧
Comment on Activate (?) your science by Faustino
Peter, your post hadn’t appeared when I began drafting my previous one. The only area where I’d differ is that while many of those in or close to climate science see that as a dominant issue which dwarfs all others, I think that Pekka is perhaps more cognisant of broader issues than you perceive. He is certainly amenable to the kind of views that we post.
↧
Comment on Climate Etc. at 2 by Peter Lang
Woops, posted last comment before I’d completed it.
Michael,
We agree. That’s great.
I’ve made a wee demonstration of how it would work following on from the excellent start by Pekka Pirila and Faustino here: http://judithcurry.com/2012/08/30/activate-your-science/#comment-235207
(only slightly spoilt by Jim2′s comment. Consider it as if it had been posted on the top level.)
However, Michael, I caution against using numbers. It causes problems. For example, on this site: http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2012/06/05/conservatives-who-think-seriously-about-the-planet/#comment-112290 (be sure to read the relevant and very informative comment at that link ), the numbers change when a comment that was held in moderation is released from moderation. As a result, when a comment refers to an earlier comment by number, the number can change. In a long thread that does spoil it somewhat. So I find the practice of referring to contributor, date and time date, to be better as used on BNC; e.g. http://bravenewclimate.com/2012/02/09/100-renewable-electricity-for-australia-the-cost/ (and what an important and relevant post that example is too, eh?).
↧
↧
Comment on Climate Etc. at 2 by Robert I Ellison
‘All major weather phenomena are ultimately controlled by the solar energy that falls on the earth … The carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by industry’s burning of coal and oil — more than half of it during the last generation — may have changed the atmosphere’s composition sufficiently to account for a general warming of the world by about degree Fahrenheit…(p40)
Probably intervention in atmospheric and climatic matters will come in a few decades, and will unfold on a scale difficult to imagine at present. (p41) … Such actions would be more directly and truly worldwide than recent, or presumably, future wars, or the economy at any time… (p42)
All this will merge each nation’s affairs with those of every other, more thoroughly than the threat of a nuclear or any other war would have done.’ (p42)
There fixed the shameles cutting and pasting designed to take the quotes out of context and present as if connected in a cogent narrative about carbon dioxide. All so Fan of more BS can tell another of his nonsensical parables about the wise son and the foolish son – I would add the lying and dishonest son.
von Neumann clearly thought 15 degree F increase in temperature might be a desirable outcome might be desirable if we could predict the other consequences such as rising sea levels and altered hydrology. An ability that we might have by 2080.
↧
Comment on Climate Etc. at 2 by peterdavies252
Judith’s league tables tends to show that some people seem to have more time to spare than most others who need to work for a living.
Now, about this little question that I asked of her before: Is it possible for the recent comments module to be accumulated to another file so that less frequent visitors to CE may follow their favourite contributors?
The current format means that many postings come and go before the visitor can get to go on-line.
↧
Comment on Activate (?) your science by Peter Lang
Faustino @ September 2, 2012 at 9:18 pm
I think that Pekka is perhaps more cognisant of broader issues than you perceive. He is certainly amenable to the kind of views that we post.
I partly agree with that. Pekka and I have had some extensive debates/arguments in the past couple of months, so my impression is that Pekka is more supportive of what I would judge to be economically irrational climate policies than I believe is justified. For example he supports wind farm development and solar power (in medium to low latitude countries). He defends the renewable energy advocates positions, especially with regard to wind power. He does not support nuclear power (although he is not anti nuclear).
I agree Pekka is “amenable to the kind of views that we post.”
Pekka is not a zealot for any cause.
↧
Comment on Climate Etc. at 2 by David Wojick
Pete, I think it is working quite well. Keep in mind that the tree structure is there in the comments, no matter how they are displayed. (Historical note: I discovered this universal structure on October 14, 1973.) If it is confusing that is simply because human thought is not linear. Presenting a tree structure in a linear string cannot make it easier to grasp, it can only make it harder.
There is nothing theoretical about this, rather it is the practical reality. But following the nested tree structure takes effort. Perhaps that is the problem. If you are only interested in the individual comments, not the lines of thought, then nesting is indeed a pain. I personally am interested in the complex issues. Others may not be.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate Etc. at 2 by Tom Scharf
Keep up the good work. I think some posts could use some better data visualizations. Many of us learn quicker visually.
There are simply too many comments here for me to but only occasionally view. Not really a criticism, but a concession to my reality. Only about 10% of them are useful and interesting to me, and there aren’t any magic bullets for editing them in a useful general purpose way without restricting useful speech.
Possibly a trusted moderator who highlighted “useful or interesting posts” might cut through the clutter (say by leaving the text highlighted). While we certainly won’t agree on what the threshold for useful is, we could all pretty much agree on what 75% of the comments are “not useful”. Probably not workable in practice though…
↧
Comment on The ‘hard won’ consensus by JCH
i
↧
Comment on The ‘hard won’ consensus by Girma
Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually plot past 1960 because <b>these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures.</b>
↧
Comment on The ‘hard won’ consensus by Peter Lang
Chad,
Excellent comment well said.
↧
↧
Comment on The ‘hard won’ consensus by mike
Robert’s “Little Davy, you’re just too dumb to argue with.”
Also sprach our
Resident bot
That well-tracked troll
The “Idiot”
Robert, that is,
A greenshirt cog
Who maintains his
Own loser blog
But “Blogger Bob”
Comes here to rant
‘Cuz no one reads
His own site’s cant
But that aside,
Robert’s latest–
Does that jibe rank
With his greatest?
His last, I judge
A booger-flick
So-so for this
Pathetic prick
↧
Comment on The ‘hard won’ consensus by Agnostic
tempterrian and timg56 – you are both missing the point somewhat. Due Diligence in engineering terms is basically a super detailed audit. It is an examination of all the data, measurements, statistics, calculations and maths underlying the scientific conclusions. It’s never been done – or actually it has partially – the famous example of the hockey-stick.
If you are proposing that a problem exists on the scale of anthropogenic climate change, with attendent public investments in tackling it, then it is only reasonable that the work leading to those conclusions is thoroughly checked. Bear in mind that a great deal of science rests on the conclusions of science that went before it. If the supporting science has conclusions based on erroneous data or assumptions that have not been properly tested, then it weakens or invalidates the subsequent work.
Climate Science is not self-correcting. Normally when something goes wrong based on conclusions drawn from bad data or maths error, a bridge falls down, a plane drops out of the sky, or a rocket blows up. It gets found eventually. Academia doesn’t work in that way, but for climate science, it has to because its not acceptable to demand that the world economy and society restructure itself without the science being thoroughly checked.
↧
Comment on The ‘hard won’ consensus by peterdavies252
Thanks VP. Your take on CO2 seems to me to be quite rational and if it is the case that alternative (hopefully renewable) energy sources eventually replace fossil fuels as the prime source of energy, then this combined with slower economic growth rates (this is GOOD!), augers well for our descendants in 2200.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
