Maybe I’m being a bit naive here ! I think it does have the same meaning after all!
Comment on Communicating uncertainties in natural hazards research by tempterrain
↧
↧
Comment on Communicating uncertainties in natural hazards research by Faustino aka Genghis Cunn
Fan, this is the all-too-prevalent “government failure.” At the time, I could not believe that (a) the army was disbanded, with no capacity to disarm them; and (b) the public service was disbanded, leaving no one to run the country. It seemed inconceivable to me that the US did not have a detailed and sensible plan for running the country after its military victory; the victory was so certain that I assumed that great thought would have been put into dealing with the post-victory situation. The 6subsequent years of deprivation, fighting and death rose directly from this appalling government sin of omission.
I’m a pro-market economist and former government adviser. The US failure here is one of the worst by a democratic Western nation. I’m guessing they didn’t consult pro-market economists, or anyone else.
↧
Comment on Communicating uncertainties in natural hazards research by Faustino aka Genghis Cunn
Fan, OT, a few days ago you spruiked the Fleurbaey-Zuber on negative discount rates for long-term environmental issues. Did you read it? I thought I’d critique it, but it was too appalling to take seriously, the worst of academic posturing with no real-world relevance, I didn’t waste my time. Making an allegedly ethical argument on the basis of (a) wild and completely unsupportable estimates of what might occur in 500 years time and (b) basing the discount rate on the hypothetical position of the most-disadvantaged person in 2500 without regard to the welfare of the remaining 9 billion or so is not even fantasy-land (no pun intended), it’s padded-room asylum territory.
↧
Comment on Why communicate science? by Wagathon
…the rest is politics !!
…and dogma.
↧
Comment on Communicating uncertainties in natural hazards research by Faustino
Beth, my predictions are always correct. They are that the future will not be what we expected.
↧
↧
Comment on Communicating uncertainties in natural hazards research by Faustino
I can’t resist drawing to R. Gates’ attention a recent exchange on the Daily Telegraph site:
Poster: pharmas make trillions of pounds on many drugs !
Faustino: Rather than taking drugs, you can just go to bed. I call this “Pharmas in Pyjamas.” (Thank you, thank you!)
↧
Comment on Communicating uncertainties in natural hazards research by Faustino
Norwegian Elkhound, if it does warm rapidly, be glad that you are not a supremely-cold-adapted Norwegian Musk-ox.
↧
Comment on Communicating uncertainties in natural hazards research by Wagathon
But no pink slime in hamburgers, right. That would be just the worst thing that could ever happen to Western civilization–probably worse than lead in paint. Thank gawd the Leftists and libs were all over that one…
↧
Comment on Communicating uncertainties in natural hazards research by Faustino
When crying “Wolf!’, make sure that your error margins include the possibility that it might be a kitten.
↧
↧
Comment on Communicating uncertainties in natural hazards research by dalyplanet
Gates from the abstract,
“Buehler, along with his student and co-author of the paper, Zhao Qin, used a series of atomistic-level computer simulations to analyse the dynamics of molecules to investigate the role of CO2 molecules in ice fracturing, and found that CO2 exposure causes ice to break more easily.”
There seems to be a method to test this “simulation” to prove this, why don’t they get some real data.
↧
Comment on What’s the best climate question to debate? by Tomcat
willard (@nevaudit) | October 10, 2012 at 11:35 am |
More waffle and obfuscation designed to back up your and Joshua's earlier aggressive silliness. Either Joshua knows what he talking about and has an answer to Latimer, or he doesn't. The idea that he has one but <i>won't</i> answer for fear of rabbit holes etc etc is lame in the extreme. It indicates Joshua has no answer but lacks the honesty to face up to that, and is trying slink away to cover that up. Being a commenter on a blog is <i>nothing but</i> going down rabbit holes ffs! As is science.
↧
Comment on What’s the best climate question to debate? by Tomcat
Myrrh | October 10, 2012 at 8:38 pm | Reply
“Shortwave in longwave out” – in the real world visible light from the Sun cannot heat land and oceans, which is the AGW claim.
I don’t believe “visible” comes into it. Are you disputing that the earth gets any heat from the sun at all?? (which is anyway not a claim peculiar to AGW)
↧
Comment on What’s the best climate question to debate? by Memphis
Bart
So you have no answer then. OK.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review 10/5/12 by Tomcat
If light isn’t absorbed by the ocean, why is the bottom of the ocean dark?
Myrrh : [Non-responsive reply, very long].
↧
Comment on Why communicate science? by steven
Perturbations at the ice-sea interface can only produce a limited effect on the GIS. It would reverse once the susceptible ice had flowed. You would get an acceleration followed by a deceleration of ice flow. That is why the higher estimates from ice flow were not included in the AR4 estimations. There was not a consensus that basal lubrication was as large a problem as some believed and so far the evidence has supported those that didn’t support the inclusion of those estimates. The fact is that basal lubrication was the worse of the hypotheses presented and to term it just a facilitator is ludicrous. As far as the bogeyman in the paper goes, perhaps there is a reason why they termed it bogeyman. It may be as likely as the monster being under your bed. I didn’t link the paper as support for a particular model, just for the explanation of why basal lubrication was important.
Carlos Santana Feat. Everlast – Put Your Lights On – YouTube
↧
Comment on Why communicate science? by steven
I can’t pass up linking it again.It was too difficult to work into the conversation to not play
↧
Comment on What exactly is critical thinking? by Bart R
quondam | October 12, 2012 at 5:34 am |
Migratory animals travel far enough that they must take the curvature of the Earth into account to complete their circuits. Insects that build geometric structures – like honey bees, ants, termites – all show the ability to process the arc of the Sun’s transit about the globe.
Apparently these brainless creatures all understand that the Earth is not flat, a realization humans have shared since at least 300 BCE.
By pure mathematics, Galileo reasoned that Aristotle was wrong about two objects of different mass falling at different speed; Galileo then afterwards proved his mathematical proposition by experiment on ramps with rolling cylinders.
Read Newton’s Principia and think about these errors of assertion.
↧
↧
Comment on What exactly is critical thinking? by Bart R
David L. Hagen | October 11, 2012 at 6:31 pm |
<i>"The scientific method is founded on objective evidence, formulating hypotheses, and testing those against the evidence."</i>
Since you're such a fan of argument from authority, could you cite your authority for this premise?
Because Newton's <i>Principia</i> disputes your authority's view.
Exodus:20-12
↧
Comment on What exactly is critical thinking? by Stephen Rasey
If Mr. Wyckoff lived and breathed Point 5, The ability to understand one’s own biases he would have rewritten the examples he used in Points 1 through 4.
Here is a hint. Point 5 goes first. Without the ability to understand one’s own biases and the recognition that it is most difficult to be self-aware of the magnitude of one’s own biases, none of the other points matter.
Point 4 should be rewritten altogether. Wyckoff sets up a false dichotomy by with the pegorative terms “fox” and “hedgehog”, themselves loaded with bias. It is a false dichotomy because we do not live in a binary world.
Not only is the world not a binary black and white, nor even shades of gray, but one of color, saturation, lightness, luster and sparkle.
Critical thinking is imporant. So Doctor, heal thy self.
↧
Comment on Why communicate science? by Latimer Alder
@bbd
Not me. Just one of those things that WordPress seems to do of its own accord.
I’m extremely happy to have my comments observed by all. Which was why when I noticed the wordpress error I immediately placed a link so that it would not be overlooked.
In case you missed it, you can see it here.
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/09/why-communicate-science/#comment-252888
But leaving aside the idiosyncrasies of WordPress, do you have any remarks in reply?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
