God is it not, nor are we in earlier centuries.
Imagination predicts progress. Universal material equilibrium is possible, Probably has happened before, in a fraction of a moment before the kenetic energy of that moment dissiptated into a different universal state of all the the universes matter.
Entropy, is it the driver of big bangs?
P.S. No offence intended to God.
Joshua,
I have no idea why I’ve confused simulation with imitation:
http://www.loebner.net/Prizef/TuringArticle.html
Sorry for the confusion,
w
“or deploying poorly evaluated, untested technologies at scale”
Like bird slaughtering, money wasting windmills that that need backup power plants that end up producing more CO2?
Defunding the Wilson International Center;
http://www.thedailybanter.com/tdb/2011/01/republicans-want-to-defund-usaid.html
It should be on the Jan 2013 list. Along with the UN/IPCC/Most Climate research/NPR/PBS. Why are tax dollars washed through hack background operative organizations of the left in the first place?
I am delighted to acknowledge that Joshua heeds my advice to not jump into the path of an oncoming speeding car, or at least, to stay on the sidewalk. There is hope my words have impact. Now, the next advice: watch for the little red hand on the crosswalk signal to change to a white figure walking. Signal response. Good. The important paradigm, signal! No signal, then things are iffy. No signal that CO2 is catastrophically driving us all to hell in a hand basket? Then my mentor’s admonition: put your hand in your pockets: look, listen, & think.
U cant be serious about scafetta.
It’s not a climate theory.
It’s a temperature “theory”
It says nothing about regional patterns
Says nothing about 99.9 % of what we call climate.
Nothing about ocean cycles, rain, glaciers, sea level,
It’s a temperature theory, not a climate theory. And not a very
good one. What’s it predict for tempaeratures at the troposphere?
stratosphere? hurricanes? blocking patterns? floods?
droughts? volcanoes effect?
curve fitting nonsense. Aphysical actually.
Certainly don’t hire those who hid information on the origin, composition and source of energy in the Earth-Sun system for the last four decades:
The Geophysics Section of the US National Academy of Sciences!
The ping pong analogy is for ding dongs.
It all sounds like SkyDragon talk.
David – There are multiple problems with the WUWT post on OA. I’ve discussed ocean acidification many times here previously and so I don’t want to go through it again in a thread devoted to something else (I’m also preparing an article to be posted on another website soon – not a blog though). Although I don’t want to divert this thread into an OA argument, you are welcome to email me. You can find out how via the denizens page. Others have emailed me on occasion and I’ve always responded.
Two other alternatives are (1) wait for my web article, which I can refer you to when it appears, or even better (2) read the Nature Climate Change article that Matt Ridley refers to, or if you can’t, find some other way to learn its content via a scientific source that gives a full overview of the data. If you find out what the article actually says and compare it with the impression Ridley tries to give, you’ll get a sense of how WUWT has misrepresented this topic.
“It seems to me that a sensible application of the precautionary principle is to develop and evaluate technologies that might be needed or otherwise proposed.”
“Debt crosses $14 trillion mark”
http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/20/news/economy/debt_record_high/index.htm
By all means, let’s borrow another couple billion to “research” geoengineering boondoggles to go along with our billions being invested in researching alternative energy boondoggles. What’s a couple billion here and there when we are about to crash the whole damn thing anyway?
■ Acknowledge that many geoengineering methods have significant uncertainties …, and support rigorous and fully transparent research efforts to reduce these uncertainties.
-> can we try this one first with the IPCC?
Also, why the discussion about the vulnerabilities of geo-engineering to terrorism and war? Are we really assuming that emissions standards wil be followed during war?
Finally, haven’t we been doing geo-engineering already? As we know, all the models have projected way too hot because those damn aerosols. If we could exert such influence that without even trying to, think what we could do with the specific end in mind. (If you reject the idea that anthro-aerosols can work, then you now have no way to reconcile the models, which leaves with an even weaker case that there is a problem in the first place)
Earth is a tiny piece of fly ash heated by the
nuclear furnace that made our elements and
spit out the ash five billion years (5 Gyr) ago.
Geo-engineering cannot change that reality.
It’s part of the plan Bruce. Bird’s exhale CO2. See where I am going? The height of the windmills will be progressively (no pun intended) lowered, and they will be installed in our cities. Pedestrians exhale a lot more CO2 than birds do. Follow me, Bruce.
This post brings up a lot of very important ethical questions. Science is becoming advanced enough for mankind to actually modify physical and biological systems in fundamental ways that challenge current ideas about the nature of the world and the nature of mankind. This is in some ways an unknown future and will call into question our notions of what is ethical and moral. I don’t view it with as much trepedation as the post does. We have little reason to view the current climate or the current nature of man as optimal. I am, however, a lot more comfortable with climate engineering than with human engineering. I guess for me its a moral issue. Are we sure that by modifying human nature we aren’t creating some fatal flaw that will result in disaster? How do we distinguish the genius of mankind from the evil lurking in every human soul, and is there a connection? That’s my ultimate fear, namely, that its impossible to elimate only the bad parts of human nature without eliminating the genius. It’s a challenging topic and I don’t have the answers, but its interesting to debate it.
Yes, well said. There are far fewer bricks than that metaphor suggests; put differently there are too many crappy bricks and the peer-reviewed literature doesn’t help you tell strong bricks from crap bricks.
Some areas of quantitative inquiry are, at their core, observational rather than experimental: Epidemiology, Economics, Climate Science and large precincts of Genetics come to mind. This is not to say experiments don’t contribute to these: They do. I am an experimental economist so I don’t want to make a case for my own total irrelevance. But in the end, the thing to be explained is the field observations.
In his article “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False,” Ioannides writes from the perspective of epidemiology and genetics, but many of his points apply equally to all of the ‘sciences’ that are stuck with a fundamentally observational empiricism. This is a great, sobering statistical argument of poverty:
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
This always goes on my syllabus for statistics and experimental design.
Fred, I didn’t say that you have expressed those sentiments. But it is obvious that you avoid interacting with little josh. Everyone can see that. If you want to disprove my observation, then pay some attention to josh. Get involved in his thread hijacking. Show him some love. (Don’t take everything so seriously, Fred. And please try to inject a little humor into your dour droning.)
Everybody knew that DocMartyn was out in left field, junior. You just piled on at the end. Is that how you usually roll? Anyway, if you are not too tired, give yourself another pat on the back from me. And grow up.
I don’t suffer fools and I don’t take prisoners.
Fool tool…
I can hardly believe that EFS-Junior has shown his face here again. Why am I not surprised that EFS-Jr. is a master of hyper-energetic, flamboyant credentials-flashing ?–and I also checked out this weirdo on some other blogs and, sure enough, EFS-Jr. is also a world-class name-dropper.
So where do the greenshirts come up you doom-butt leg-humpers, EFS-Junior? I mean, like, they seem to have an inexhaustible supply of you booger-eaters. Maybe there’s a whole hive of your creep-outs in Vermont. Maybe that’s it.
So EFS-Junior, now that you’ve wowed us with your well-practiced “I’m a smarty-pants” attention-gainer, why don’t you continue on and explain how it is that a really-important-and-smart-dude like you has such a problem with: acting your age, showing some dignity worthy of your supposed big-deal achievements and connections, and offering something half-way intelligent as a contribution to this blog?
And, oh by the way, you don’t have a twin-brother named Robert, do you?
Don -
I think the best explanation is a mental breakdown leading to irrevesible age-regression and multiple delusions.
Viz – “My best climate science denier take downs to date?”
And we got a link to the blog Realclimate, where there was a thread based on an excerpt of a someone else’s reply to a third person’s paper…. Buried in the 192 comments on that thread was some tendentious garbage from the ‘infant’, well, agreeing with S Rahmstorf!
So, we have someone whose self-confessed claim to fame is getting a comment accepted on an alarmist blog!!
I suppose it is true that reasonable comments often get deleted there, but still – with a bit of practice – most five-year-olds should be able to manage it.
