It’s very “intellectually curious” that people need Lewandowsky, Freud or Wiki to describe something so commonplace.
Source: me
Comment on Pasteur’s quadrant by mosomoso
↧
↧
Comment on Pasteur’s quadrant by AK
The vast majority of “warmists” are also in denial regarding the political, economic, and ultimately military risks of the drastic “solutions” they advocate.
↧
Comment on Pasteur’s quadrant by mosomoso
Actually it’s only bad news for fans of nukes in the wrong place. Us other nuke fans…we be cool.
↧
Comment on Pasteur’s quadrant by willard (@nevaudit)
Anyone who read Vonnegut Jr. can understand why managers would leave researchers of the military-industrial complex alone. As for other kind of researchers, it would be interesting to know if Google employees are doing basic research with the side projects they pursue with 1/5th of their time. In any case, being left alone does not entail doing basic research.
MiniMax only muddles Stokes' point, which is rather muddled already. Stokes does seem to ignore why what we call Research & Development is not called Finding & Application. Sometimes, mathematicians become quants by mere serendipity, but whatever the practical uses of their discoveries, there's always a <em>problem</em> to be solved.
If this <strong>model</strong> is supposed to revolutionize the way science is being practiced, we should look at a case base. A glance at grant application should suffice to see what "advancement of science" really means. Now, where can we see grant applications?
↧
Comment on Pasteur’s quadrant by David Wojick
The very wrong thing about this graphic is that almost all scientific work is in the lower left quadrant. Revolutions are rare, in science as in life, and that is a good thing.
↧
↧
Comment on Pasteur’s quadrant by David Springer
The linear model of science in the first figure in the OP is not representative of the real world.
It would be a manifold with 5 inlets and 6 outlets. Dollars would flow to all 5 inlets with valves to adjust the amount each gets. Politics to a large degree determines adjustments. Of the outlets 5 of them would empty into a sewer because that’s where many of the results end up. The 6th outlet would be practical applications that benefit society but there would also be a cross pipe back to the sewer to relieve subjective pressure about what’s beneficial and what isn’t. Not everyone agrees that, for instance, nuclear power which includes both good and evil uses is of net benefit. Another example would be GM crops which may or may not be viewed as beneficial.
As with many things the author over simplifies something very complex to the point where it has little value or insight left in it i.e. it belongs in The Wool Gatherer’s Quadrant.
↧
Comment on Lennart Bengtsson on global climate change by AK
@Chief Hydrologist…
In fact – the CO2 is superheated and cools to a local thermodynamic equilibrium.
I don’t understand how somebody could say this in a discussion of the greenhouse effect without proving he doesn’t have the faintest idea what he’s talking about. Perhaps you could explain?
↧
Comment on Lennart Bengtsson on global climate change by David Springer
AK | May 16, 2013 at 8:04 am |
@Chief Hydrologist…
“In fact – the CO2 is superheated and cools to a local thermodynamic equilibrium.”
I don’t understand how somebody could say this in a discussion of the greenhouse effect without proving he doesn’t have the faintest idea what he’s talking about. Perhaps you could explain?
——————————————————————————-
Well what with running computer models all day on his laptop whilst diving on the great barrier reef (gag me with a spoon) I’m thinking nitrogen narcosis might have explanatory power.
Symptoms of nitrogen narcosis include impairment of judgement, multi-tasking and coordination, loss of decision-making ability and focus, vertigo and visual or auditory disturbances, exhilaration, giddiness, extreme anxiety, depression, or paranoia, overconfidence, and tunnel vision.
Ostensibly nitrogen narcosis is reversible with no long term brain damage but the evidence here would argue against that.
↧
Comment on Lennart Bengtsson on global climate change by David Springer
WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | May 15, 2013 at 3:49 am |
Chief Hydrologist | May 15, 2013 at 3:35 am |
So what do you think the forcing from CO2 is in a year? Something like 0.04 W/m2. You are a simplistic buffoon.
”Just stop it. Get the heck away from here. You are a criminal manipulator of knowledge. CO2 forcing builds up year-after-year because it does not readily sequester out. Have you not learned anything in the waste that is your life?
This is the kind of bizarre double-talk that Chief subscribes to
“But the world is not warming for a decade to three more at least. This is because the so-called internal climate variability is a complex dynamical system that shifted mode again after 1998. This in itself creates fundamental uncertainty.”
Note how in the first sentence the Chief is certain that the world will not warm, but by the third sentence, he calls it “fundamental uncertainty”. That is the sign of someone that is either drunk or bereft of any reasoning skills. A prankster at best and maybe schizoid at the worst.
I am only happy that he resides on the other side of the planet.
Paul P. if you’re going to be a monumental asshat running down others in that manner I’m going to insist it isn’t done under the veil of anonimity? You either have the stones to let your colleagues at BAE know who you really are and what you really do with your time all day or you gain some manners and humility and you do it in a hurry.
↧
↧
Comment on Pasteur’s quadrant by David L. Hagen
Re: "basic research is the pacemaker of technological improvement."
Vishal Mangalwadi shows the opposite - that Christian monks led the technological revolution in the middle ages BEFORE the Christians led the scientific revolution. See: <a href="http://www.revelationmovement.com/store/products/show/27#tableofcontents" rel="nofollow">The Book that Made Your World</a>
Ch 7 Technology: Why did the monks develop it?
Ch 13 Science: What is its source?
ISBN: 1595555455
↧
Comment on No ideologues: Part III by web hosting
My spouse and i don’t comprehend what to declare with each other with the exception that i have appreciated studying your web website.
↧
Comment on Pasteur’s quadrant by Bill
I believe this includes all R&D, basic, applied, technology, etc. So it is surprising on first hearing that the government basic and applied research is not the majority. But upon reflection, think of the thousands of private foundations (Lung Society, Cancer Society, etc.) plus all of the thousands of businesses large and small that put money into R&D for their new processes and engineering. As Bastiat said: “look not only at what is immediately obvious, but also at what is first unseen” (paraphrased)
↧
Comment on Pasteur’s quadrant by Bill
SInce he did not name any names, I think he did stay classy.
↧
↧
Comment on Making Scotland the Green Energy Capital of Europe by web hosting
Usually I don’t discover post on blogs, however I’d like to say that this write-up very forced me to try and do it! Your creating style has been surprised me. Thank you, quite fantastic article.
↧
Comment on Pasteur’s quadrant by bob droege
How about calling it the William Proxmire Golden Fleece quadrant?
↧
Comment on Pasteur’s quadrant by GaryM
Most government funded research, like climate research, is not “pure” research at all. It is agenda driven. Designed to help increase the power, scope, and tax revenues of government.
Government funded research is just as results oriented as that of private industry. It’s just that the intended beneficiaries of private research is ultimately the general public.
(And by the way, “government funded” is a bit of an oxymoron. It just means that the people were forced to pay for it by the government through taxes.)
↧
Comment on Lennart Bengtsson on global climate change by philjourdan
Small Business IS the competition. Big Business is the status quo.
Microsoft was not microsoft when it took on IBM. And it had a lot of problems getting its foot in the door (it did so through the back door – accounting).
↧
↧
Comment on DocMartyn’s estimate of climate sensitivity and forecast of future global temperatures by AlainCo (@alain_co)
Dear Mrs Curry, or other experts.
I have a practical forecast demand.
Let us take that that paper is giving a robust phenomenological model.
It look simple enough to be the least stupid and fragile model I’ve heard of, yet as any model it is fragile (please read “antifragile” of Taleb to know what I feel). The worst possible error is that it assume that all warming is due to CO2, yet
Now, let us assume that :
- starting in 2020 all the planet population will catchup western world economic development, even Africa, at the usual 8%/year, thus experiencing accelerated demographic transition.
- in 2030 no oil, coal, gas, solar energy, wind energy, bio-fuel, will be used. and all energy will be produced via clean, dense, without any energy demanding fuel, nor any unusually energy-demanding installation. Only anthropic GHG production would be natural agricultural gas (not the machinery, just the cows, the rice fields, the fertilizers…). no CO2 because of solar panel… less CO2 for power plant and furnace building… Forget soot also.
- agrarian efficiency follow the economic catchup of newly emerging zones. reaching western efficiency.
What will be the evolution of climate ?
If it is manageable, I will forget about climate problem.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by AK
<blockquote>Yes, Explaining several planets with a macro theory trumps explaining one planet with an idiosyncratic heuristic.</blockquote> As I've pointed out before, you can't generalize Venus and Earth together, because Venus lacks any significant planetary spin. Therefore no geostrophic wind. <blockquote>Where is the equivalent of the Eastern Jet Stream on Venus?</blockquote> Superrotation? Since Venus lacks any significant spin, there's no reason to expect any close coupling of "geologic" features to the atmosphere. But the fact that the upper atmosphere is "spinning" with a 4-(earth)day rotation is interesting. And basically unexplained. <blockquote>What you did might explain certain spatio-temporal aspects of the Earth.</blockquote> It isn't intended to <b>explain</b> anything! I'm simply pointing out that you've made an unwarranted assumption: that geological features have no role in determining the <b>average</b> lapse rate. Relative to GHG's, we can say with virtual certainty that their effect ranges somewhere from 0-100%. You're assuming it's zero, I'm just saying that assumption is unwarranted.
↧
Comment on DocMartyn’s estimate of climate sensitivity and forecast of future global temperatures by R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist
The paleoclimate data need to be taken from multiple sources. Combined, it can paint a pretty accurate picture of what the past climate was like. The latest data we have from Lake E in Siberia is an incredible source of Pliocene data. So too when combining all this with model dynamics. We need to use multiple models and when doing so along with the paleoclimate data we get a picture of past climate and related forcings that is far from “highly unreliable”.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
