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

Comment on The Goldilocks Principle by manacker

0
0

Steven Mosher

You state that “1000 ppmv is a low estimate”

This is false, Steven.

It is based on a rather optimistic estimate of the WEC of all the inferred possible fossil fuel resources on our planet.

This estimate tells us that 85% of the original fossil fuel resources are still in place (IOW we have “used up” 15% to date).

I have seen many lower estimates of remaining fossil fuels (Hubbert, etc.) but no estimates that were higher.

So this is not a “low estimate”, but rather a “high estimate”.

And it tells us that 1,000 ppmv is a most likely upper limit of atmospheric CO2 caused by human GHG emissions, not a “low estimate”.

As far as the latest Lewis/Schlesinger estimates of 2xCO2 ECS (based largely on physical observations) are concerned, I also have no reason whatsoever to believe that these are “low estimates”, just because they are at the lower end of earlier (model-derived) estimates. Science moves on and error ranges get narrowed down.

Any future projection is based on estimates, Steven.

But it is false to say that these are “low” estimates, just because you think they should be higher, without presenting any real data to back up your reasoning.

Max


Comment on How might intellectual humility lead to scientific insight? by tallbloke

0
0

Hi Willis.
A heuristic formula give results which approximate to observation, but which are not in themselves compounded of terms which relate in any idetic way to the underlying reality. Case in point, Newton’s (and everyone else’s since) tidal equations.

They kinda sorta nearly work for Earth’s oceans, at Earth’s distances from Moon and Sun, but applying them to other astronomical bodies is risky, because we don’t know how much further wrong they’ll be compared to how wrong they are for Earth.

Newton himself knew that his equations of motion only apply well to hard, elastic point like bodies. These qualities do not characterise the highly mobile, plasticly deformng plasma in the surface layers of the Sun. Nonetheless Leif insist on applying them there as a way of discounting the possibilty of planet-Sun interaction.

Leif shows little humility in the face of a tremendous lack of human knowledge, and applys ‘laws’ which work OK on Earth in situations we can’t accurately define. Consequently, he has failed to appreciate the insights of those others who are humbly approaching the study of planet-Sun interactions with an open mind and a better suited toolkit.

His bombastic dismissal of other peoples research puts me in mind of another person with similar traits. You.

Comment on How might intellectual humility lead to scientific insight? by Joshua

0
0

steven -

1. I respond to your posts because I hold out hope that you might correct your ways.

I disagree with your perspective. I don’t agree that there is something for me to “correct.” I think that the argument that you present to me on this, that you have presented over and over, is wrong.

You think that repeating that argument to me, along with insulting me (as you have done consistently and from the very start), is the way to convince me of something? You are wrong. And your approach is highly illogical.

A) are proud of your scientific ignorance
B) always attack the host, REGARDLESS of the topic (see keith and roger)

I disagree with quite a few of Judith’s arguments. I don’t engage with her arguments about the science. I engage her with arguments about her reasoning, and usually with respect to her reasoning about issues not directly related to the science. As was the case in this post. Her logic about a topic basically unrelated to the science, IMO, was weak. It is not a personal attack on her. It never has been. There have been times with her, as with Keith, and as with Roger, where I have expressed agreement with or applauded her personally. I have never attacked any of them personally.

is that clear enough. you are a bore and a nag.

Yes, it is clear to me that is your opinion, and that for some reason (the logic of which I can’t figure out), you seem to think there is some benefit in repeating that to me.

I don’t care about your opinion about me personally, steven, because you don’t know me personally. You have never met me. For you to offer an opinion about me personally is meaningless, and only an expression that like our friend Peter Lang, your opinion of your own importance is inflated. You have taken an approach to insulting me personally from when I first appeared in these pages. I am quite confident that even you know that your personal judgements are not based in any valid assessment of who I am, but because you disagree with my perspective on Judith’s reasoning.

IMO, you feel some need to reflexively defend Judith’s reasoning even when it is weak. I have seen you do that over and over. This thread is a good example. It is a curious phenomenon.

Comment on How might intellectual humility lead to scientific insight? by willard (@nevaudit)

0
0

If we were looking for entailments, Mosh, we’d use quantifiers. This is not impossible. For instance, Japanese subways systems make use of fuzzy logic to adjust the speed of its trains. There already exists control agents that can be humble enough to recognize that less precision entails more prudence.

And no, Mosh, talking about humility is never humble, if only as a matter of courtesy. Not that it should concern you, as you already told Eli.

Moralism stinks.

Comment on How might intellectual humility lead to scientific insight? by climatereason

0
0

Hi joshua

Sorry you are being given a hard time. You seem to be an endless source of fascination to Mosh. Have a happy new year
tonyb

Comment on How might intellectual humility lead to scientific insight? by Joshua

0
0

If i want to see flash in SF, I dont go to the capitalist parts of town ( the marina and pacific heights ) there I see no style, homonegnized white bread crap.

“Flash,” or as you seem to be defining it as a lack of style, is in the eye of the beholder. Certainly, the elaborate aesthetic of Pacific Heights is considered by many to be style. The residents of that area spend a great deal of money to create that style. Consider the expensive yachts in the Marina, the fancy houses with a view of the bay, the elaborate costumes of the roller-bladers, or the flash of the kite-surfers and their equipment. Any particular part of town you choose (the Mission? Balboa Park? Bernal Heights? Cole Valley? The Haight? The Castro? Telegraph Hill?), and some will see a predominance of flash over substance. Now you might think any of those neighborhoods to represent substance over style, so then how do we reconcile this difference of views?

So now you start to discuss the merits of Judith’s assessment, and whether it is scientific. That’s good, steven. You are learning. You are starting to engage in a definition of terms, to unpack whether there is actually any meaning in Judith’s post other than to basically say, “I don’t like the scientists in the IPCC, nah, nah, nah.”

Comment on How might intellectual humility lead to scientific insight? by phatboy

0
0

It’s kinda easy to be humble when your job’s on the line ;-)

Comment on How might intellectual humility lead to scientific insight? by Joshua

0
0

Hey tony -

Thanks for the sentiment. It’s curious about steven. Not quite sure what it’s about. I think it’s the sense of loyalty he has to Judith. Admirable is a way, I guess, even if it manifests illogically and ineffectively.


Comment on How might intellectual humility lead to scientific insight? by kim

0
0

He’s busy now, sticking pins in a Konrad doll.
==========

Comment on How might intellectual humility lead to scientific insight? by willard (@nevaudit)

0
0

Having to defend Judy’s a small price to pay to have the word “traceability” placed in a Congressional testimony, Joshua.

In my opinion, you should stop asking the same questions over and over again. Unless they’re asking for evidence (e.g. “citation needed”), they become rhetorical and lose their edge. Your observation basis is wide enough for you to start declaring and describing.

***

And please stop responding to personal commentaries. The discussion becomes about you and that’s a trick to put you in the role of the troll. Strategically speaking, a good rule of thumb is that if the last word does not compromise your position, you keep the upper hand by remaining silent. As Mosh already observed, it sometimes takes courage to refrain from doing something.

Nobody’s that interesting anyway, and I believe you can tell when these comments are sincere or not.

Comment on How might intellectual humility lead to scientific insight? by kim

0
0

Oh, it’s a good deal more visceral than that. He objects to the glorification, nay reification, by narrative of the shadows on the wall.
=============

Comment on How might intellectual humility lead to scientific insight? by kim

0
0

OK, Bright Ones, figure out where this was supposed to go.
==========

Comment on How might intellectual humility lead to scientific insight? by jim2

0
0

Michael – Actually, all scientists should be forced to read all the works of Ludwig Heinrich Edler von Mises, Friedrich August Hayek, and Milton Friedman. Only then should they be allowed to speak to a politician.

Comment on How might intellectual humility lead to scientific insight? by willard (@nevaudit)

0
0

Joshua,

Mosh’s right about the questions.

Compare:

> Is there anything resembling a logical argument in her selective attribution? Has she stated any sort of objective criteria by which she establishes her attribution? Has she even bothered to conceptualize one? Is there any attempt to actually measure the “reward[ing]” of “flash” in those segments of our society relative to any others?

and contrast:

> Judy’s mainly throwing red meat.

Omit needless questions, Joshua: concision, concision!

;-)

Comment on Can we avoid fooling ourselves? by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

0
0

Willard, “Something was said elsewhere on the thread about lame excuses.”

Are they lame? The IPCC is an international panel that is supposed to represent science and the interest of all nations. It is a political organization. When the “individual” from India mentioned that the exaggerated Himalayan glacial melt was allowed, even though incorrect, because it would be more likely to inspire action, that was a political decision. I think it is called over selling or sexing up the issues.

So having concerns about scientists approving or ignoring “overselling” is a “lame” excuse? That food industry video you posted, you think some of the companies might be over selling? Is all over selling wrong or just what happens to offend you?


Comment on Can we avoid fooling ourselves? by manacker

0
0

RiHo08

Following your good advice, I just put myself into James E. Hansen’s shoes.

Ouch! They pinch!

No wonder he is so negative about the future!

Max

Comment on Can we avoid fooling ourselves? by tempterrain

0
0

“Good ’nuff for ya?”

It will be when it’s submitted, peer reviewed and accepted, but not before.

What else have you got? There’s supposed to be “several peer-reviewed pieces”

Comment on Can we avoid fooling ourselves? by David Springer

0
0

Peter Lang | December 28, 2012 at 6:47 pm | Reply

“doomed to failure as has been shown by 20 years of climate conferences, during which time GHG emissions have increased 46%”

Nah. They can claim success by saying that emissions would have gone up by 92% had they not had the conferences. When you’re in the business of inventing narratives you’re free to invent whatever alternative histories you need to make the actual record look good in comparison.

Comment on Can we avoid fooling ourselves? by manacker

0
0

How can the IPCC “ignore” and “misconstrue” if it’s not a sentient being?

Without getting into the fine points of semantics, it is quite possible that a body, which publishes voluminous summary reports (promoting its “consensus position” on anthropogenic influences on our climate) can “ignore” dissenting scientific studies in these reports or even “misconstrue” certain aspects, in order to more effectively get its points across.

We have seen specific examples of this in the AR4 report.

Max

Comment on Can we avoid fooling ourselves? by David Springer

0
0

A common enough tactic refined and demonstrably workable in the much older mud-to-man evolution controversy. Lump all the evolution skeptics into the evangelical bible thumping Southern Baptist church. Call them Creationists with a capital C at every opportunity and there you go.

We see this tactic all over all the time. Got a problem with Darwin? You’re a Creationist. Got a problem with Obama? You’re a Racist. Got a problem with climate science? You’re a tool of Big Oil. And the beat goes on.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images