I’m having trouble finding Forster’s comments on that thread.
Comment on Proc. Roy. Soc. Special Issue on ‘Handling Uncertainty in Science’ by David Young
↧
↧
Comment on Proc. Roy. Soc. Special Issue on ‘Handling Uncertainty in Science’ by Oliver K. Manuel
Uncertainty is as unwelcome in postmodern science as
Flaws in new cars and appliances, and
Flatulence in closed elevators.
I know one of the participants, Dr. Philip Campbell (Editor of Nature) and requested his resignation from that position last year for:
a.) Failing to follow Nature’s own Mission Statement of 1869, and
b.) Promoting misinformation about the formation of the Solar System, the Sun’s origin, chemical composition, source of energy, and influence on changes in Earth’s climate.
He did not resign, continued to censor my comments, but I was not solicited to renew my subscription when the old one recently expired.
The last part of this quote from the abstract of Dr. Campbell’s paper illustrates why many scientists and ordinary citizens feel betrayed by leaders of the scientific community:
“Their approach to communicating uncertainty should depend on the context but,
except in some extreme emergencies, transparency is generally a virtue.”
Apparently AGW was considered an “extreme emergency.”
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
↧
Comment on Proc. Roy. Soc. Special Issue on ‘Handling Uncertainty in Science’ by chip
I think it is possible to state with certainty that something bad will happen. Somewhere, sometime, somehow. Do they think that by enumerating potential tragedies they can frighten us into action? Unexpected tragedies? How many other kinds are there? Bangladesh immersed – oh, no! The rainforest depleted – oh, no! Floods, droughts, plagues, more snow, less snow, more rain, less rain. To quote Bill Murray in Ghostbusters, “dogs and cats living together – mass hysteria!” There is some probability of any calamity you care to name. I guess they think that maybe if they just throw enough mud against the wall some will stick. I’ve heard so much at this point that I do not believe any of it, any time, from anyone. And that is the real problem for the ‘if only we communicated better’ crowd – the public has had it with their manipulative pleadings.
↧
Comment on Proc. Roy. Soc. Special Issue on ‘Handling Uncertainty in Science’ by Oliver K. Manuel
Manipulative pleadings or double talk:
“Their approach to communicating uncertainty should depend on the context but, except in some extreme emergencies, transparency is generally a virtue.”
Transparency is a requirement of the scientific method, not a virtue!
↧
Comment on Proc. Roy. Soc. Special Issue on ‘Handling Uncertainty in Science’ by David Young
Having reviewed the Lewis threads in more detail, I see no posting by Forster but a post by Lewis reporting what he was told by the IPCC lead author about Forster’s opinion. In any case, Fred, what I see is a disagreement between you and Lewis about the relative reliability of the 08 vs. 06 papers. You seem to feel that the 06 paper was an outlier. Lewis disagrees and cites data on ocean heat uptake etc.
↧
↧
Comment on Congressional Climate Briefing to Push “End of Climate Change Skepticism” by Sonicfrog
Temp… You’re changing the parameters of the question. Your original question didn’t factor in politics, just as my answer didn’t.
“Yet, if a radio astronomer claims the discovery of a new planet they don’t get lectured on the scientific method. If 98 astronomers think there is a planet and there are two who are sceptical, and say there isn’t, the majority don’t get told to do ‘experiments’ on this planet! Or they don’t get told that their claim for a new planet can’t possibly be true because they have done the right experiments (whatever they might be) on the planet…”.
They also shouldn’t be able to pressure the two scientists into exile and silence. And the 98 scientists should not be able to exaggerate and say this planet is definitely causing an increase in weather events here on Earth when there is no scientifically discernible measure to show there is a real increase in events (tornadoes, hurricanes, etc) or any real science to back those claims.
PS. Yes, I am one and the same.
↧
Comment on Proc. Roy. Soc. Special Issue on ‘Handling Uncertainty in Science’ by gbaikie
“By ‘unquestionably dangerous’, we could mean the complete loss of the Amazonian rainforest owing to shifting rain patterns, or of large parts of Bangladesh becoming uninhabitable owing to persistently intense monsoons, storm surges and substantial sea-level rise, or of permanent Sahelian drought of the type seen in the 1980s? How probable before taking mitigating action can be justified: 50, 10, 1 or 0.1 per cent?”
Is the best they can come up with?
The Amazonian rainforest is not threaten by drought, if threaten at all it’s threatened by logging. And such issues are the responsibility of the governments in involved.
“or of large parts of Bangladesh becoming uninhabitable owing to persistently intense monsoons, storm surges and substantial sea-level rise”
Has been a problem long before any measurable affect of human activity on global temperatures.
And Sahelian droughts have been long term problem.
It should be obvious, assuming the citizens involved desire it, to build a dam. A few dams and some irrigation could be good idea to mitigate drought problems.
↧
Comment on Proc. Roy. Soc. Special Issue on ‘Handling Uncertainty in Science’ by stefanthedenier
argon is a trace gas, completely relevant regarding temperature. God gave it for decreasing flammability of oxygen +. Edison used it in the light-devises. Bringing argon in the subject, says a lot about your knowledge. In the stratosphere is minus -90 centigrade (I don’t know Fahrenheit -sorry).
If you need references for proofs that oxygen + nitrogen expand when they warm up – ask some kids in your neighbourhood. You must be one of those climatologist, that need to start from basic.
O, O2, O3,.O4 are altogether about 21% of the atmosphere (the quantity of individual isotope changes regularly + is irrelevant) nitrogen is about 78%. IF YOU CAN FIND ANY DRIVEL ON MY WEBSITE – YOU WOULD HAVE POINTED IT. Instead, with your drivel, you are trying to silence real proofs. Any other person visiting this blog doesn’t know that O+N expand when they warm up? Or, that is much colder in the stratosphere than on the ground? I hope bob droedge is the only one that needs to start from the basic for 6-7 years old… Bob, people like you are scared from truth / real proofs as the devil from the cross – start getting use to it!
↧
Comment on Public engagement on climate change by Peter Davies
Steven professes to be disturbed by how human nature works – from schoolyard groupthink behaviour to anyone who dares not to conform through to the lofty portals of academia where the same groupthink behaviour toward dissidents seems also to prevail.
I consider it to be perfectly normal behaviour and the great benefit of obtacles to the advancement of science and human progress generally is that they generally ensure that only the stronger ideas will persist and ultimately become the basis of the next paradigm.
Without resistance no force can ever survive for long.
↧
↧
Comment on Public engagement on climate change by Richard S.J. Tol
Rob: The carbon tax does reduce emissions, by an amount that is commensurate with EU climate policy. Ireland can reduce its emissions to zero without an appreciable effect on climate change.
MattStat: The responsible colleague apologized on national radio. It will probably take 20 years to correct the error, as it is not in our models but rather in economic theory.
↧
Comment on The wrong(?) conversation by TomRude
Even Pierre Morel, founder of the Laboratoire de Meteorologie Dynamique said so two years ago in his conference…
↧
Comment on Ludecke et al. respond: Part II by Fred Moolten
Anteros – My apologies for addressing my comment above to you. It was intended as a response to Agnostic.
↧
Comment on Ludecke et al. respond: Part II by WebHubTelescope
I found a great quote from Bertrand Russell criticizing Henri Bergson, who was a prototype scientific skeptic/wacko known for his alternate space-time theories challenging Einstein:
<blockquote>One of the bad effects of an anti-intellectual philosophy such as that of Bergson, is that it thrives upon the errors and confusions of the intellect. Hence it is led to prefer bad thinking to good, to declare every momentary difficulty insoluble, and to regard every foolish mistake as revealing the bankruptcy of intellect and the triumph of intuition. There are in Bergson's work many allusions to mathematics and science, and to a careless reader these allusions may seem to strengthen his philosophy greatly.</blockquote>
from Russell's <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=Ey94E3sOMA0C&pg=PA720&lpg=PA720&dq=%22here+are+in+Bergson%27s+work+many+allusions+to+mathematics+and+science%22&source=bl&ots=Ei39AE19HR&sig=lMnhgNzvCDy1cIM7arp2vegJiB4&hl=en&ei=RJLCTvTUN8L00gHK3cCZDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false" rel="nofollow">History of Western Philosophy</a>
Fill in a different name for Bergson and I couldn't phrase it better today.
↧
↧
Comment on Ludecke et al. respond: Part II by Anteros
Thanks Fred – I didn’t mean to give the impression that I thought the papers weren’t flawed, far from it. I simply thought Prof.Tol’s criticism – that they didn’t mention climate sensitivity in the paper – was pretty much beside the point – was there any necessity for them to do so? I accept he didn’t need to go over all the same points as the first time round but this just seemed like a lazy dismissal. Perhaps it was indeed pedantic of me.
↧
Comment on Congressional Climate Briefing to Push “End of Climate Change Skepticism” by S. Basinger
JJ,
The only irretrievably stupid thing written here is your comment above.
It was entirely reasonable to have skeptical eye towards Richard Muller’s integrity after the WSJ article and political spin machine was sent into overdrive. His integrity has shone through this temporary period of doubt and now there’s a certain amount of reconciliation based upon his public comments which are fairly consistent with what he’s stated he meant vs how they were spun in the press.
If anything this whole affair has reinforced my deep disappointment with MSM ‘science’ ‘journalism’.
↧
Comment on Letter to the dragon slayers by Ken Coffman
Andrew, I think you could make better progress with your therapy if you would print these exchanges and share them with your mental health professional.
↧
Comment on Letter to the dragon slayers by Andrew Skolnick
So may I take that as a yes?
Great. I’ve always wanted a doctorate in theology. And maybe one in marine biology.
↧
↧
Comment on Ludecke et al. respond: Part II by Anteros
Not a problem – it gave me pause to think about my comment!
↧
Comment on Letter to the dragon slayers by Ken Coffman
No, you may not take my helpful suggestion as a ‘yes’ to your question. Honestly, Andrew, it’s clear your medication is not balanced properly. Seriously. Get some help with the cocktail.
↧
Comment on Public engagement on climate change by DocMartyn
Sometimes comparisons are apt.
Schrödingers wave equation is a description of everything, rather like Douglas Adams answer to life the universe and everything; 42. It is possible to generate answers that are true, but do not provide useful information.
Are individual model runs an hypothesis or are they one solution to a complex problem? They must be one thing or another.
Any analysis of history shows that allowing organizations to make medical judgments on behalf of others has very poor outcomes.
The ‘scientifically’ based eugenics movement was responsible of the compulsory sterilization and murder of millions. Most people are more familiar with the Nazi period, but are less likely to know the zeal with which states like California embraced eugenics.
When people defend the ability of a small group of enlightened individuals to make far reaching decisions for the rest, ‘for the greater good’, you are on the none stop elevator to Hell.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
