Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148687 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on The horsemeat argument by Kip Hansen

$
0
0

Mosher — (and anyone else interested in this aspect of the BEST decision to publish in GIGS)

Your statement: “I will suggest that you check your facts. no fees were paid. no fees were waved. no fees were ever discussed.”

The fact is, of course, I did check. I personally called SciTechnol’s office in Henderson, Nevada. They are the publishers of GIGS. I spoke with their representative. He explained to me carefully that ALL of SciTechnol’s journals are published on an “author-pays” basis. He carefully explained that sometimes, at the discretion of the editors, fees can be waived in their entirety, partially waived, or charged in full. He kindly offered to waive any fees for students from UVI (the University of the Virgin Islands) based on our lower standard of living.

I am surprised that you don’t know this, since you have seemed to indicate that you arranged the publishing of the BEST results paper personally. Perhaps you should have investigated more carefully. Everyone else seems to know how OMICS/SciTechnol operates.

The BEST web site FAQ has only this confused sentence “Manuscripts accepted by GIGS are not subject to any page/color charges, or article processing charges, so nor can it be considered a “author-pays” journal.”

We have to guess at the meaning, but the statement that GIGS is not an “author-pays” journal is simply false.

Anyone wishing to check this for themselves, including Mr. Mosher and others on the BEST team, can call or write:

SciTechnol
2360 Corporate Circle, Suite 400
Henderson, NV 89074-7722, USA
Ph: +1-888-843-8169
Fax: +1-650-618-1414

Why in the world anyone would contest such an easily check-able fact is beyond me.

.


Comment on The horsemeat argument by pokerguy

$
0
0

JOshua,

I’m starting to wonder if you and Steve Mosher are the same person. You and he and the inimitable lolwot jump all over this “what is a skeptic” nit as if it were actual proof that co2 does anything at all that we have to be worried about.

However you want to define a skeptic, the real issue is Muller was never in doubt that co2 is connected to very likely dangerous warming. He’s portrayed in the media…seemingly with his full support and approval…as someone who doubted that.

Comment on Sensitivity about sensitivity by manacker

$
0
0

tempterrain

What?

We realize that our climate is never in equilibrium, that there have been changes in recent times (prior to significant human GHG emissions) that show warming rates that are statistically indistinguishable from those of the late 20thC, which are being used by IPCC as the model for its CAGW premise?

And yet we should worry about the model-projected rapid changes of future temperature?

Especially when these models projected warming of 0.225C per decade (TAR) or 0.2C per decade (AR4) for the initial decades of the 21stC, which has NOT occurred?

Get serious, TT. THAT’s nothing to worry about, because it’s not real.

Max

Comment on The horsemeat argument by GaryM

$
0
0

Yeah, the cost of inspecting meat for to determine whether it’s Mr. Ed is almost identical to the cost of decarbonizing the economy. Therefore the amount of proof required to adopt either policy should be the same.

This is why we conservatives try so hard to keep progressives from gaining control of the economy.

Comment on The horsemeat argument by kim

$
0
0

Well, this grunt regrets that you trivialize Muller’s conflict of interest re: his daughter.
==============

Comment on Sensitivity about sensitivity by docrichard

$
0
0

Max,

Your hypothesis is that CO2 will not have a serious effect on global climate, agreed?
Q1: do you agree that a doubling of CO2 levels will cause a global temperature increase of ~1.2C?
Q2: does the value you posit for ECS arising from this initial increase include 2C within its 90% probability?
Q3: if not, what evidence do you have for that value?
Q4: if yes, we can debate the seriousness of climatic impact of a 2C rise to test your hypothesis.

Thanks for answering these qq.

Comment on The horsemeat argument by kim

$
0
0

A horse is a horse, of course, of course,
And no one should lie to a horse, of course.
========================

Comment on The horsemeat argument by kim

$
0
0

Joshua, you’re beginning to get the joke. Litch har har.
======================


Comment on The horsemeat argument by lolwot

$
0
0

“Even more amusing is the amount of arguing that takes place over something so completely insignificant as whether or not Muller fits some contrived (and selective) determination of who is or isn’t a “skeptic.””

It’s important to them Joshua. They can’t accept Muller’s apostasy so they must pretend he was never a climate skeptic.

To do that they must define climate skeptic to exclude Muller. Amusingly some of them don’t think it through and end up defining climate skeptic to exclude skeptics like Lindzen, Roy Spencer, etc etc.

Comment on The horsemeat argument by lolwot

$
0
0

“Muller might have been better described as cynical rather than skeptical, wrt Mann’s results.”

Most hilarious attempt yet!

Comment on The horsemeat argument by GaryM

$
0
0

That is, of course,
unless the horse,
thinks CAGW is dead.

Comment on The horsemeat argument by kim

$
0
0

Pekka, a shocking blind spot for the content, the ethics. Are you content to tout an adulterated product?
==================

Comment on IEA Facts and Fictions by Brandon Shollenberger

$
0
0

ianl8888:

Sorry, but you failed dismally to address any single one of my points

Perhaps he has, but you have failed to address the very simple question I addressed to you. Given the severity of the issue the question is about, this seems peculiar.

Comment on The horsemeat argument by kim

$
0
0

Now, Barney, it’s stinkin’ up the stall, but it’s much too spastic to be dead.
=====================

Comment on The horsemeat argument by RiHo08

$
0
0

Judith Curry,

The same thing wrong with the mouse proxies is what is wrong with climate scientists relying upon Bayesian Probability. Both are dependent upon “expert judgement”. And therein lies the self-reinforcing errors. Those who say and repeat ad nauseum that Bayesian Probability is useful, at least in the climate world, seem to be those who believe in modeling, particularly the part where model assemblages are used to provide probability projections. The selection of plausible models and model runs are through “expert judgement.”

Is the whole infrastructure of FDA or NIH going to alter their behavior just because of new information upon which they evaluate other research projects has changed? Not likely. Government inertia. The same experts as before will be hauled out to say why mice are better than men for experiments, so we’ll keep with mice. Never mind there are plenty of lawyers available as experimental subjects and lab personal don’t get so attached to them as to other primates.

There is currently Government bureaucracy funding and directing climate science research; allocating money and resources, such as the new super computers, away from weather research and directed to climate research. More likely than not, this climate advocacy and funding will continue in place as the same climate scientists who sit on “expert panels” that judge the merit or not of proposals, who conjure the next Request For Proposals, will downstream be the recipients of awards which another group of colleagues and experts will kindly guide funding their way.

Have you ever heard the saying: “vice is nice, but incest is best”?


Comment on IEA Facts and Fictions by kim

$
0
0

Heh, there’s no dividing them, they are both products of the human mind.
============

Comment on Condensation-driven winds: An update by Chief Hydrologist

$
0
0

To be immodest Vaughan – my words are often both true and beautiful.

Plants in Australia can close stomata to reduce water loss. Groundwater is very deep across much of the country and so not easily available to the poor little tree. Not always the case of course. I am working on an inland site with groundwater only metres deep. It may have something to do eith the nearby impoundment.

What was the question? Oh yes – you are still thinking that the tree is water limited – but the 18m roots access the groundwater table.

Comment on Condensation-driven winds: An update by Vaughan Pratt

$
0
0

@maksimovich: Mrs Pratt seems to have changed vocation from a botanist to and ecologist

Had you been either one you’d have known that they’re not mutually exclusive. Her work under Peter Raven was on the ecology of fritillaria. In 1970-72 we would drive around California in our beaten-up 1963 Volvo looking for the very rare stands of fritillaria that could be found on serpentine scree slopes that we’d have to scramble up. We’d put little bags around them to keep pollinating insects out and come back a year later to see if the plants had managed to pollinate themselves, as Peter had conjectured they would based on their pistil geometry. Unfortunately they hadn’t. Lot of work for nothing.

Comment on Condensation-driven winds: An update by Jim D

$
0
0

Mathematics doesn’t give any sense of what warmth or weight really are, and it has no meaningful units. It is a useful tool to enable physics to be done, however. A mathematician would have no concept that links an equation to the real world, and nor do they care if their equations have a practical application. This is where physics comes in. It puts relevant parts of mathematics to use, and finds parts of the vast field of mathematics that are useful, such as Riemann geometries that Einstein used for general relativity, or eigenvalues and matrix operators used by various other physicists for quantum mechanics.

Comment on Condensation-driven winds: An update by Chief Hydrologist

$
0
0

Projecting is a trifle derivative – lost any of the novelty that is the key to humour. You should try to be witty and original – failing that verbose and eccentric will keep the punters confused.

Simply place various shapes of objects in the liquid in question (water, honey, whatever), variously oriented, and observed that the resulting level of liquid always rises in direct proportion to the object’s weight.

I have nothing against Arcimeded, although it seems that your original proposition is not strictly true if the density of the object is greater than water.

Vaughan old buddy – I am devestated that you think I don’t like you.

Viewing all 148687 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images