The current rate times 86 years = perfect vacuum.
Comment on The art and science of effective science advice by JCH
↧
↧
Comment on The art and science of effective science advice by willard (@nevaudit)
> Nordy’s argument doesnt even follow.
Perhaps this is why Nordhaus’ conclusion is this:
I believe the opposite of what the sixteen claim to be true: dissident voices and new theories are encouraged because they are critical to sharpening our analysis.
Nordhaus showed reasons for his belief. It’s Nordhaus’ arguments against the Sweet Sixteen’s YesButLynsenko and Climategate and “look at this poor, young, abstract contrarian”.
***
> Non sequitor (#2). How is this related to #1.
It does not have to: it’s another premise. Another argument related to the conclusion.
Did Moshpit really teach that crap?
***
> The skeptics used the internet and the response was that only peer review matters.
Indeed, contrarians used the internet to create negative publicity. And yet contrarians get published in peerreviewedlichurchur. Fancy that.
***
> The issue is the silencing of voices of dissent in peer reviewed literature.
Yes, and Nordhaus claims that this runs against his experience.
The Sweet Sixteen should have mentioned YesButClimategate with more force. I have the book, now. Should I open the book myself?
***
How the hell do contrarians think institutions work? Do contrarians really think that everything should make in the peerreviewedlichurchur?
No wonder concern trolling is so easy. If nothing gets your way, play the Abstract Ref. If everything gets your way, play the Abstract Ref too. Mobilize a readership of concerned citizens, then play the Abstract Ref some more, meach and every freaking minute.
Anything goes.
***
This is pathetic.
Truly pathetic:
> Pathos (pron.: /ˈpeɪθɵs/; plural: patha or pathea; Greek: πάθος, for “suffering” or “experience;” adjectival form: ‘pathetic’ from παθητικός) represents an appeal to the audience’s emotions.[1] Pathos is a communication technique used most often in rhetoric (where it is considered one of the three modes of persuasion, alongside ethos and logos), and in literature, film and other narrative art.
↧
Comment on The art and science of effective science advice by Max_OK
Speaking like he’s a friend of Big Oil, someone here (I forgot his name) said:
” The developed nations ( EU and US ) have already spent hundreds of billions of dollars on windmills, solar pannels or electric cars, and these things are totally useless in acheiving any CO2 reduction. These are totally impractical and have no effect at all, except burning wealth.”
_______
What a crock! Our windmill on the farm didn’t burn our wealth, nor was it impractical.
Electric cars with batteries charged by electricity by gas-fired power plants are the best thing since sliced-bread.
Solar panel are cool.
↧
Comment on The art and science of effective science advice by DocMartyn
The UK has the House of lords as its second chamber. There are a number of scientists in the House of Lords.
↧
Comment on The art and science of effective science advice by Steven Mosher
Steven, you write “Dont tell Cripwell that Larnder used models, mathematical models to make his famous charts which Dowding used to great effect.”
It seems to me that you dont seem to realise that at the time of the Battle of Britain, all we had to help us with arithmetic were a slide rule and a set of log tables. Sometime around 1950, DRB bought some of the latest models of Marchand electric calculators, which could add, subtract, multiply and divide. They cost, in 1950 dollars, $850 each. I would like to see anyone create a model in those circumstances.
#######################
Jim, there is no difference between the calculations made by rooms of guys with slide rules ( been there done that ) and doing the same thing with a computer which entered into use around 1962 at RAND ( using simscript I believe )
.
Larnder used a MODEL of loss rates and replenishment rates to estimate that the british forces would be drawn down to nothing in two weeks. That wasnt an experiment. That was an estimate based on an equation, a model. you know what lanchester equations are right?
models. and you know in OR we use models and simulations all the time. What happens if we move our forces over here and attack with this firepower? nobody does an experiment, the guys in OR do simulations, war games, estimates, and people win or lose battles based on our math. You know about his work on the vulnerability of american bombers and the the placement of the Mid canada line. So, you understand the role that mathematical modelling played. And you know how “plan position filtering” was used in WWII so you understand how we can know things by estimating..
Figuring out sensitivity is just an OR problem. You should know that
↧
↧
Comment on The art and science of effective science advice by stevepostrel
Good article about point 1) above from a guy who is pretty much comfortable with the FDA status quo (unlike me):
http://www.medicalprogresstoday.com/spotlight/spotlight_indarchive.php?id=1039
↧
Comment on The art and science of effective science advice by Max_OK
Chas said: I am not implying that there is anything wrong with scientists, farmers or the clergy; embeded vermin exterminaters or undertakers would be just as like to become corrupt; weaving imminent doom scenarios which feeble minded politicans would lap up.
______
The GOP’s Tom DeLay was one of those vermin exterminators. Tom got himself into some trouble and is appealing his conviction. Unless his appeal is successful, he may do time.
↧
Comment on The art and science of effective science advice by Steven Mosher
“(2) I can speak personally for the lively debate about climate change policy. There are controversies about many details of climate science and economics.”
Willard this say nothing about what the 16 are claiming and it doesnt even support what Nordy claims in 4
1. Nordy can speak for a lively debate
2. There are controversies.
Therefore
“dissident voices and new theories are encouraged because they are critical to sharpening our analysis.”
Wrong, it does not follow from the fact that Nordy can speak for a lively debate and from the fact that there are controversies to the conclusion
that new theories are ENCOURAGED.
#2 argues about the EXISTENCE of the controversy and the existence of a lively debate.
#4 make a claim about the new theories being ENCOURAGED.
Look. I can attest to the existence of a lively debate about a young earth. Its sure is lively. And I can attest to the existence of a controversy. Those premises in NO WAY support the conclusion that new theories are encouraged.
Nordy is arguing by assertion. there isnt a logical connection between any one of his steps.
↧
Comment on The art and science of effective science advice by willard (@nevaudit)
> Cliché is French for moron.
↧
↧
Comment on The art and science of effective science advice by Max_OK
Regardless of what proponents of nuclear power may think, Fukushima’s continuing problems are making nuclear a hard thing to sell.
↧
Comment on The art and science of effective science advice by Alexander Biggs
Max, you, are right. you normally have to do something pretty heinous, like stealing the petty cash to get the sack. But there are other ways like transferring your scientists to other groups and leaving you with no staff. In the event my invention earned a billion dollars but that was long after I left.
↧
Comment on The art and science of effective science advice by Chief Hydrologist
Most global systems are inherently complex, consisting of multiple interacting sub-units. Scientists frequently attempt to model these complex systems in isolation often along distinct disciplinary lines, producing internally stable and predictable behaviour. However, real-world coupling between sub-systems can cause the set of interacting systems to exhibit new collective behaviours — called “emergent properties” – that are not clearly demonstrable by models that do not also include such coupling.
Furthermore, responses of the coupled systems to external forcing can become quite complicated. For example, one emergent property increasingly evident in climate and biological systems, is that of irreversibility or hysteresis — changes that persist in the new post-disturbance state even when the original forcing is restored. This irreversibility can be a consequence of multiple stable equilibria in the coupled system — that is, the same forcing might produce different responses depending on the pathway followed by the system. http://www.oecd.org/env/cc/2482280.pdf
The Earth’s climate system is highly nonlinear: inputs and outputs are not proportional, change is often episodic and abrupt, rather than slow and gradual, and multiple equilibria are the norm. While this is widely accepted, there is a relatively poor understanding of the different types of nonlinearities, how they manifest under various conditions, and whether they reflect a climate system driven by astronomical forcings, by internal feedbacks, or by a combination of both. In this paper, after a brief tutorial on the basics of climate nonlinearity, we provide a number of illustrative examples and highlight key mechanisms that give rise to nonlinear behavior, address scale and methodological issues, suggest a robust alternative to prediction that is based on using integrated assessments within the framework of vulnerability studies and, lastly, recommend a number of research priorities and the establishment of education programs in Earth Systems Science. It is imperative that the Earth’s climate system research community embraces this nonlinear paradigm if we are to move forward in the assessment of the human influence on climate. http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/global/pdf/pep/Rial2004.NonlinearitiesCC.pdf
Where there are competing paradigms it is impossible for science to provide an unambiguous message. At this stage of the game both sides of the climate war are arguing from competing versions of climate linearity. Sensitivity is high or it is low. This factor or that mechanism within the complex and dynamic system. CO2 is rising and the world is not warming – the CO2 radiative imbalance continues and the oceans are warming. Both sides are entrenched but horrendously wrong headed.
In a nonlinear world the climate can not warm for 20 to 40 years (at least) and yet there can still exist a risk of abrupt and nonlinear change whenever the climate shifts as a result of relatively small changes in forcings. In a decade or so hence? The clock is always ticking.
There is a definitive scientific position with an inevitable mathematical corollary. But it is a threshold concept.
↧
Comment on The art and science of effective science advice by willard (@nevaudit)
Yet another untruth:
> [2] this say nothing about what the 16 are claiming and it doesnt even support what Nordy claims in 4.
Here’s (2):
> (2) I can speak personally for the lively debate about climate change policy. There are controversies about many details of climate science and economics.
This supports Nordhaus’ conclusion: the Sweet Sixteen’s claim is implausible to him.
SUPPORT, for heaven’s sake.
That doesn’t mean you need to deduce (4) from (2) alone.
That doesn’t mean you need to deduce anything.
This is an op-ed, not a deduction contest.
Pathetic.
Anything goes.
***
Suppose you want to make that a deduction. What would be the operative premise? An implicit operative premise would be this:
(2a) The existence of lively debates and controversies entails a freedom that the Sweet Sixteen are refusing to admit with their claim people get SILENCED in a way that runs against their to-be-defined conception of science.
How do the Sweet Sixteen thinks science works?
Not like Lysenkoism, that’s for sure.
Anything goes.
Pathetic.
***
The Sweet Sixteen are talking about SILENCING people and viewpoints. Isn’t it a bit over the top? No wonder we get this parsomatic episode over ENCOURAGE.
Oh, and where was Anastassia’s revolutionary paper got published, again?
***
This is pathetic.
More emails, please.
↧
↧
Comment on The art and science of effective science advice by Steven Mosher
mato has a wonderful collection of tutorials,a compelling life story, and a quirky sense of humor that I love.
His collection and commentary on Tal is fantastic and his Fischer stuff is pretty good as well.
I highly recommend him when the internet starts to make your blood pressure boil.. that and gwiyomi keep me at a semblance of peace
↧
Comment on The art and science of effective science advice by Chief Hydrologist
I truly think you are 15 with a negligible background to anything much – a function of age – and an active fantasy life.
↧
Comment on The art and science of effective science advice by WebHubTelescope (@whut)
Yes, Lauri has rewound skepticism back to the stone age.
Lauri’s premise is that excess atmospheric CO2 is not caused by man.
That is the showstopper and anything Lauri says beyond that is irrelevant.
It’s like if we elect a president and in his acceptance speech the first thing he says is that squirrels know how to talk in Latin.
At this point, everyone listening would check out.
Unfortunately, this is the state of WUWT-styled skepticism. Sane people ignore it, but those intrigued by Latin-talking squirrels will continue to listen.
↧
Comment on The art and science of effective science advice by Max_OK
Investors also need advice.
Carbon bubble makes Australia’s coal industry ripe ‘for financial implosion’ says an article in the UK’s Guardian.
The following excerpts are from the article:
“Australia’s huge coal industry is a speculative bubble ripe for financial implosion if the world’s governments fulfil their agreement to act on climate change, according to a new report.The warning that much of the nation’s coal reserves will become worthless as the world hits carbon emission limits comes after banking giant Citi also warned Australian investors that fossil fuel companies could do little to avoid the future loss of value.”
“Earlier in April, Citi banking group issued a warning to investors in fossil fuel companies. “We see limited potential for engagement to alter the outcome in this case,” concluded its report. “If the unburnable carbon [scenario] does occur – even with carbon capture and storage technology – it is difficult to see how the value of fossil fuel reserves can be maintained.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/apr/28/carbon-bubble-australia-coal-industry
↧
↧
Comment on Congressional hearing rescheduled by Joshua
I have to say – this may be the single longest handbag fight sub-thread in the history of Climate Etc.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by pokerguy
lolwot,
As ever, much gratitude for your service to the skeptical cause.
Sincerely,
pg, aspiring serf
↧
Comment on The art and science of effective science advice by Max_OK
What a CROCK ! I’ve never been arrested for doing anything mundane.
Oh, excuse me, you said Max_Ch being arrested for what HE thinks is mundane. God knows what he thinks is mundane. Maybe, robbing a bank.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
