Comment on Italian seismologists: guilty(?) by manacker
↧
↧
Comment on Italian seismologists: guilty(?) by kim
Highly sophisticated law firm, highly unsophisticated judge. No appeal to federal court.
H/t IANAL
=======
↧
Comment on Sunday Mail . . . again by Girma
Most of the warming at the end of the 20th century occurred within two years as shown.
This warming was a whopping 0.36 deg C in two years.
↧
Comment on Italian seismologists: guilty(?) by Wagathon
Gawd really?… what I am describing actually happened too, around the time of Pancho Villa, and the ‘scientist’ in that story was run out of town on a rail and for the same reason the Italian scientists were railroaded.
See, http://www.sandiegohistory.org/journal/70winter/hatfield.htm
↧
Comment on Italian seismologists: guilty(?) by manacker
Steven Mosher
Thanks for response.
Actually, it was our friend, Joshua, who used the term “alarmist” in describing me, and I have no idea what he was getting at, because I consider myself anything but an “alarmist”..
For me, an “alarmist” is one who makes “alarming” predictions, whether or not he/she really believes the prediction, packages it as a “projection”, has any sound empirical data to back basis for the prediction, etc.
“Predictions” of any kind are suspect, especially if they cover a longer time period (as the climate predictions of IPCC do). Nassim Taleb has covered this pretty well.
“Alarming” predictions are even more suspect, since truly “alarming” events are the exception rather than the rule. (The media love “alarming” events, as they sell copy or ratings – so “not-so-alarming” events are often up-graded to “alarming” events.)
When there is no robust empirical scientific evidence supporting the “alarming” prediction, it becomes even more suspect.
And “alarming” predictions calling for drastic and costly actions now to (maybe) avoid something that might occur some time in the distant future, which may be good or bad for humanity (or have no net impact at all), are the most suspect of all.
That’s what the “alarming” CAGW prediction is all about.
So, nope, I’m not an “alarmist”, Steven. “Skeptic”, yes.
Max
↧
↧
Comment on Sunday Mail . . . again by Girma
sorry about 0.72 deg C in two years
↧
Comment on Italian seismologists: guilty(?) by manacker
steven
Yes, I agree.
Also a good example of an “alarming” prediction, which turned out to be false.
HOW and WHY this happened is a matter for historians to debate.
The specter of a murderous maniac with WMD, who had already demonstrated his will to invade neighboring countries or even use these types of weapons on his own people, was an “alarming” situation, indeed – calling for urgent (drastic and costly) action.
The “alarm” was bogus, the “no regrets” solution turned out to lead to many “regrets”
Max
↧
Comment on Italian seismologists: guilty(?) by manacker
Left out this sentence:
The “precautionary principle” supported acting now – because the result of “not acting” could be so horrible even though the uncertainty of the occurrence of the “alarming” prediction was great.
↧
Comment on Italian seismologists: guilty(?) by manacker
Roger L.
A true Italian story.
A few years ago, my wife and I were having dinner in an Italian restaurant near San Francisco run by an Italian who liked to mingle with the customers.
Our server was a young kid, who was new on the job and a bit nervous. He did his best to describe the choices to us and pronounce the Italian words authentically. At the end he added proudly, “I’m part Italian.”
To which a Scottish lady at the next table, who overheard the remark, asked, “Oh yeah. What part?”
The owner, who had been talking to her, quipped, “Well, if he’s lucky, it’s the right part”.
The poor kid turned bright red as everyone laughed.
Max
↧
↧
Comment on Italian seismologists: guilty(?) by Beth Cooper
I don’t think, Doug Proctor, that the Italian trial was about freedom of opinion or Joan of Arc sacrifice, more about failure to warn the public of legitimate uncertainties and of compliant experts creating false confidence that a potentially dangerous situation was ok. People slept in their houses who might otherwise have taken the more tradional precautions of staying outdoors (Roger l’s citation indicates this happened.)
Sure there’s individual responsibility fer yer actions, as Max points out, take no man’s word, ) but experts have responsibility too. Jest sayin’ and I’ll leave it there.
↧
Comment on Sunday Mail . . . again by John Whitman
willard (@nevaudit) said (October 24, 2012 at 7:21 pm )
- – - – - -
willard (@nevaudit),
No problem about your declining to participate in my proposed case study on Mann’s hockey stick papers versus the IAC’s “Responsible Conduct in the Global Research Enterprise” report. Your time is not mine to command.
I will find another candidate for doing a case study of Mann’s hockey stick papers versus the IAC’s “Responsible Conduct in the Global Research Enterprise” report. It might be enlightening.
John
* * *
willard (@nevaudit),
My response wrt your other points:
Overall, rhetorically, I suggest we agree not play the climate science blog equivalent of ‘rope a dope’ (boxing term).
The ongoing MWP controversial and critical dialog wrt MM hockey stick papers is legend. We can acknowledge openly that am open dialog on it exists. Likewise the ongoing ~>16 non-warming controversial critical dialog wrt AWG/CO2 is legend. We can acknowledge openly, like Rose and Curry and many others that the open dialog exists. Do you have problem with saying the open dialog on it exists? My position is that it is a most excellent thing. Do you agree the open dialog is an excellent thing? Thus the MWP (and hiding late 20th century paleo-data/temps) are relevant on the Dave Rose non-warming thread to show a pattern in the climate science history. : )
The existence of commenters and sites that mimic IPCC assessments in the blogosphere is legend. We can acknowledge openly that they exist as well as acknowledge the existence of more open independent critical commenters and sites, which are also legend. Do you disagree that they exist? My position is that a situation like that is a most excellent thing. Do you agree the existence of both those kinds of commenters and sites may have net benefits in the context of a comprehensive balance dialog on climate science?
I am non-responsive to: “righteous hindsight”; “whipping boy”; “overegg the ad superbiam”; using the name “David Rose” like it is an ‘a priori’ pejorative term; your curious (to me) concern over me adding a word (auditability) to my own original thoughts as they take on an evolving context in a polite (well, up till a little while ago polite) conversation with you; your presumptive omniscient self-serving claim of knowledge of my “due diligence”; implying there is a problem endorsing parts of the IAC report but not others; etc, etc, etc . . .
I do not know why you do not know about the ongoing discussions about the in process auditability, openness and transparency in the: IPCC assessment processes; processes of publically funded climate research; and research processes in public funded universities. The topic is often discussed on IPCC mimic sites, middle of the road sites and sites of more open, independent and critical views. Try Google.
John
↧
Comment on Sunday Mail . . . again by manacker
R. Gates
The past winters have been harsh across much of the Northern Hemisphere. Winter 2011/2012 was known in the USA as “Snowmageddon” – don’t know how this one will work out in Colorado, for example, but Switzerland expects plenty of snow for skiing this season (as we’ve had the past few years).
All the many erudite rationalizations why these recent harsh winters were caused, in some cases even trying to tie the cold winters to global warming and thus to human GHG emissions, do not really impress me, as they are based on conjecture, rather than empirical evidence.
But thanks for trying.
Max
↧
Comment on Italian seismologists: guilty(?) by Steven Mosher
I know it was joshua. hes tfying to redefine alarmism.
↧
↧
Comment on Italian seismologists: guilty(?) by Jim D
An Italian flag analysis would have been apropos here.
Clearly these scientists were selected by particular politicians because of their willingness to say a specific thing. This is where the science-policy interface is broken. A similar thing happens in the press where journalists select particular scientists to make a specific point that is really their own view. Good politicians or journalists would “take the temperature” of opinions in the field in general and present a balanced view with both sides when disputes exist, but this seems rare in politically relevant science.
↧
Comment on Playing God by Chief Hydrologist
‘Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) techniques, which remove CO2 from the atmosphere. As they address the root cause of climate change, rising CO2 concentrations, they have relatively low uncertainties and risks. However, these techniques work slowly to reduce global temperatures.
The best way to take carbon from the atmosphere is with conservation farming.
‘The development of agriculture during past centuries and particularly in last decades has entailed depletion of substantive soil carbon stocks created through long-term evolution. Agricultural soils are among the planet’s largest reservoirs of carbon and hold potential for expanded carbon sequestration (CS), and thus provide a prospective way of mitigating the increasing atmospheric concentration of CO2. It is estimated that soils can sequester around 20 Pg C in 25 years, more than 10 % of the anthropogenic emissions. ‘ http://www.fao.org/nr/land/sustainable-land-management/soil-carbon-sequestration/en/
If you look at the other benefits – it is a no brainer. It could be done much faster and to greater effect than the FAO suggest. In combination with other paths – black carbon and tropospheric ozone reduction, development and education, safe water and sanitation, conserving and restoring ecosystems – it provides an immediate and significant opportunity for mitigation.
It is of course relatively easy to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Here is a shortlist – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Earth_Challenge
This one is intriguing – http://www.carbonengineering.com/
Join it with this one – http://www.ga.com/nuclear-energy/energy-multiplier-module – to produce an endless supply of liquid fuel.
↧
Comment on Sunday Mail . . . again by willard (@nevaudit)
Executives can emulate the Can’t Get No Satisfaction algorithm quite well, BBD.
↧
Comment on Playing God by David Springer
Kim every time I hear the phrase “Let us pray” this rant from Coach Rig during half time in the movie “Necessary Roughness” comes to mind.
Coach Rig: Now, let’s analyze what’s been working for us.
[Long pause]
Coach Rig: NOT A G0D D@MN THING’S been working for us. Like this godd@mn suit doesn’t work for me… and this stinking tie… and this godd@mned shirt. IT DOESN’T WORK FOR ME. YOU KNOW HOW TO PLAY WINNING HARD-NOSED FOOTBALL? YOU PLAY FOOTBALL LIKE ED GENERRO PLAYED FOOTBALL. A guy who gave his life for this football team. He was a 140-pound halfback, and HE PLAYED LIKE A GODD@MN WILDMAN! NO! LIKE A GODD@MN RAMPAGING BEAST! And that’s the way you got to do it! YOU GO OUT THERE! YOU TEAR THEIR FVCKING HEADS OFF, AND YOU SHlT DOWN THEIR NECKS! Let us pray.
↧
↧
Comment on Sunday Mail . . . again by willard (@nevaudit)
Chief,
I believe you’re right: the bad hominem you’re using looks a lot like a cognitive squirrel.
↧
Comment on Sunday Mail . . . again by Latimer Alder
@bbd
Not me. WordPress does strange things occasionally – as has been frequently commented on here and on other wordpress blogs.
I am absolutely content that my remarks are seen in their correct context. There is no point n making a comment that is not going to be read. If I see that a comment has been misplaced , I try to put a link there so that the story can be continued.
Since I also try to always start them with a correct header (e,g ‘@bbd’, see above) you can use the handy find feature of your browser (CTRL +F) to quickly locate them in case of misplacement.
But the more you try to find nits to pick in the mechanics of the discussion, the more it seems that you are avoiding the substance.
↧
Comment on Playing God by climatereason
judith
whilst not aware of the 1912 suggestion to modify the gulf stream there was an American suggestion to do that in 1936 , much to the consternatio f us Brits, as this Pathe news reel demonstrates
http://www.britishpathe.com/video/gambling-with-gulf-stream-aka-gambling-on-the-gulf/query/Labrador
tonyb
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
