Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Letter to the dragon slayers by manacker

0
0

steven mosher

the mails merely provided the proof [of skulduggery] and some interesting personal color

As your book points out quite clearly…

Max


Comment on Slaying the Greenhouse Dragon. Part IV by Bryan

0
0

Continuation of previous post.
……pyrgeometer.

Very important and often overlooked the net flux or heat is going up from the instrument to the colder atmosphere.
Many assume (wrongly) that the 66W/m2 is going from atmosphere to instrument

Comment on Research ethics training by Latimer Alder

0
0

@andrew adams

‘it’s likely that if the data had been relating to a less controversial area of science then the existence of non-disclosure agreements would have been accepted as sufficient grounds for refusing the request’

Possibly so – if there was some sort of proof that those agreements had actually existed. But in the grown up world, imagination is not a sufficient standard of proof. You need something more concrete to stand up against what the law states you must do.

I may imagine that you have agreed to pay me all your income for the next ten years. But without something more substantial than my self-assertion, you would be quite within your rights to refuse to send me the cash.

This is not a difficult concept. Why is it so hard for academics to grasp? They are keen enough to take the public’s money for their grants and salaries. The quid pro quo of being publicky employed is that they are subject to the Freedom of Information Act. I seriously worry about their tenuous hold on reality if they really don’t get this point.

Comment on Letter to the dragon slayers by manacker

0
0

lolwot

As an outsider in this conversation, it seems to me that Jim Cripwell has made a very sensible statement of his views, as a scientist who is rationally skeptical of the premise that added atmospheric CO2 will lead to climate disaster.

You, on the other hand, have just resorted to an “ad hom” attack on Jim.

Max

Comment on Letter to the dragon slayers by Ken Coffman

0
0

Climate science is a “fuzzy” science with lots of chaotic data. It relies on things that are tough to conceive, measure and quantify like TOA Radiation Balance and positive feedback mechanisms. Many of the “consensus” conclusions depend on the output of computer models (ensembles) which can be manipulated to make any case you like. The conventional climate wisdom has the appearance of science, but often it is not. Mixed with good folks like our host Madam Curry and Dr. Petty, there is a certain type of person drawn to unrigorous fields like women’s studies and political science. So far, these people have enjoyed a happy home in climatology.

Comment on Emails by Labmunkey

0
0

Actually there is. The UK courts for one ruled there was evidence of FOI avoidance, which is illegal. They only escaped prosecution due to a ‘timing’ legal loop hole that was improperly applied.

Further, there is plenty of emails discussing the deletion of data and emails discussing said data, directly to avoid sharing said data and emails. This would constitute ‘proof’. This would need confirming by looking at the backup servers, but no one, including the enquiries, has done this.

As for the hack- zero proof. If you have some, then let the cambridgshire police know immdeiatley, as they, to date, have found none. zilch. nyada.

So in fact, the longer this goes on, the more it looks like an inside job.

Comment on Emails by Labmunkey

0
0

probably that the person using the term ‘denier’ is attempting to malign via association.

or something like that….

Comment on Emails by Latimer Alder

0
0

Billions. About $2.5 billion per annum just from the US Government


Comment on Research ethics training by kuhnkat

0
0

Well M. Carey,

You appear to NOT have responded to me on giving us the context of your assertion. I will have to ASSume that you are talking about the following:

Exo 21:7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
Exo 21:8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.
Exo 21:9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.
Exo 21:10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
Exo 21:11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

This kind of changes your blunt suggestion that God told them to sell their daughters into slavery. This was not an order, but, LAWS to control the selling if the individual decided to do it. You also need some more from that chapter:

Exo 21:2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.

So, although slavery was allowed, it was fairly tightly controlled and was NOT forever. Judaism had a similar law about loaned money. Debts were excused on a 7 year cycle also.

But back to your comment. you were WRONG. The Judaic God did NOT tell anyone to sell their daughters, unless you have a better reference we can discuss?.

Comment on Emails by Latimer Alder

0
0

As a founder of and contributor to a little-known or viewed website called ‘real climate’, Mann has appointed himself as a spokesman for the whole of climatology.

Reading between the lines of the CG2 mails, it is apparent that not everybody working with him is delighted by this development, nor by his combative and arrogant approach to the slightest criticism.

Sadly, he does not appear to have benefited at all from his early attendance at Charm School. But it may be too late to claim a refund…..

Comment on Emails by andrew adams

0
0

If that ever actually happens in the real world instead of in the fevered imaginations of conspiracy loons then maybe we will find out.

Comment on Emails by Andrew Dodds

0
0

What jumps in reasoning?

Theft is theft. Most people consider theft unethical. Furthermore, if there was a noble aim behind this theft, there is no way whatsoever it could be served by sitting on the results for years.

Comment on Emails by andrew adams

0
0

So Mann is a part of a group of scientists trying to educate and inform the public about climate science, good for him. That doesn’t make it true that billions of dollars have been spent on paleoclimatology.

As for his personal qualities, well I am in no position to judge but from what I have read of the history of science there is no particular correlation between being a good scientist and being and having an affable personality.

Comment on Research ethics training by kuhnkat

0
0

gbalkie,

while it does not disprove your example for oil, the gubmint is who sets the official reserve amounts in the US and most other countries. We could speculate that the gubmint would overstate the reserves to get more bidding when letting the leases, but, that apparently has never happened. if anything, everything I read complains that the gubmint underestimates the reserves making it more difficult to get funding for the smaller firms to support their development operations. This complaint would tie in to the situation you suggest. That the smaller official figure would NOT be as good for the stock price. Of course, with the record volumes and profits in the last 10 years I wouldn’t think the stock price would be as big a deal as in the past except for the smaller companies who do NOT control very much of the supply.

For sovereign nations who own their own fields it would be an advantage in negotiating with the oil companies to do their drilling if the company thought the field was really large as they might give a better break. Of course, with countries that have mostly or completely nationalized their oil companies like Russia, Venezuela, and China this would be a meaningless game. In any case the oil companies themselves usually do their own evaluations so they are betting on their own experts more than trusting each other.

We still are back to the question as to whether these COUNTRIES are overestimating their reserves and why they might do that. Webby has still to offer a rational scenario that would be a long term plus for doing so. I would offer that IF the country needed loans their oil reserves would help keep interest rates down. This would be something I would see Venezuela possibly doing. Again, we would have independent estimates of the actual oil in the ground at this level of finance.

Basically Webby has been conspiracy theorist on this mythology of the oil Countries and Businesses apparently collaborating on overstating the reserves by substantial amounts. I am simply asking for a rational explanation for why there would be such a large conspiracy with no one ratting them out and no apparent big payoff!!! WHY WOULD THEY ALL ENGAGE IN THIS ACTIVITY when it would seem the OPPOSITE would make them more money if successfuly done!?!??!

Comment on Emails by tallbloke

0
0

Bart:

The problem is that the period of tenure as head of *insert name of August Institution here* is such that ambitious characters like Michael Mann with a strong self belief think short cuts to stardom are necessary and reasonable. Add in the top down agenda of the funding entity (government) and you have a recipe for a ‘movement’ which inevitably departs from the straight and narrow of adherence to what the scientific method should be.

As the people who stump up the cash for this game, we should take on the role of executive director and sack the management.


Comment on Emails by Andrew Dodds

0
0

There is excellent agreement between the tree ring proxies and direct temperature measurements up to the 1960s, and a divergence thereafter. Now, we are pretty sure that the thermometers are not wrong; but we do know that the 1960s onwards was a time of industrialization in the Soviet union and Eastern Europe, with all the medium range pollution – acid rain,etc – that this implies. So there is a perfectly plausible explanation for why the series should diverge.

Comment on Research ethics training by kuhnkat

0
0

No Bart R,

You try and start your own Monty Python skit yet again. As usual you make up your own interpretation with little reference to facts. A sceptic attempts to arrive at an honest evaluation bnased on all the available data. You, on the other hand, simply select what you wish to believe and exclude anything that would interfere. You sure you aren’t a Climate Scientist or Evolutionist?

Comment on Emails by andrew adams

0
0

The problem with that email is there is not a shred of evidence it ever existed

Comment on Emails by Andrew Dodds

0
0

The chance of a major earthquake in San Francisco is near 100% given sufficient time. It’s an interesting illustration of how bad people are at judging how to react to this kind of threat; high impact events that will strike at an unknown time in the future.

Another classic illustration is the threat of a major metorite impact – very low probability, extremely high chance of killing you if it happens. In comparison to the risk, the cost of mitigation – perhaps 10 to 20 billion dollars a year for the world for good detection systems and asteroid-steering rockets – is trivial, but we still won’t do it.

Likewise, on a worldwide scale the R&D required to get 4th generation nuclear reactors made into a commodity would have been lost in the noise if started when the threat of global warming became apparent 25 years ago; this being the only realistic way of slashing emissions without noticeable economic impacts.

We have to accept that people are capable of living in denial about this kind of threat even when (as in the case of Earthquakes) they have happened in living memory – there are people who will disregard building codes in earthquake zones. This is where governments have to act.

Comment on Emails by Latimer Alder

0
0

Sorry Andrew, Mann doesn’t so easily get the pass that you are trying to give him.

One of the main reasons that climatology has had such a firehose of money thrown at it is because of his notorious/infamous hockey stick. It is safe to guess assert that there would have been a lot less cash if he had not published that particular effort at that particular time.

It has also given him something approaching ‘guru’ status (at leas in his own mind) among those who benefit by the grants, jobs and freebies that come as a direct consequence of such funding. You may wish to recall the outrageous assertion from Pennsylvania State university that Mann produces a lot of grant income therefore his science must be above board.

I have no doubt that gullible investors left Bernie Madoff’s office saying to themselves that this guy has sharp suits and swanky premises in NYC therefore he must be the real deal. Like Penn State they failed to see the logical hoe in that argument.

And we must thank Steve McIntyre for his tireless investigation that showed Mann’s hockey stick paper to be built nothing other than a lot of wonky statistics and shedloads of wishful thinking (I am casting the most benign interpretation I can on this affair). It is interesting also to note that it took an outsider to point out the errors. The insiders who benefited so much from its existence had no interest in checking the work. Any more than the True Believers did when jesus apparently rose again from the dead. Unquestioning belief in the narrative and complete suspension of common sense or curiosity. They too are complicit in their failure as scientists to retain any shred of scepticism when faced with loads and loads of money

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images