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

Comment on Open thread weekend by Jim D

0
0

The related question, of course, is why the “skeptics” haven’t produced their own journal yet. Surely an online journal without a printing cost, can’t be hard to produce. I think, if they had anything worth saying on climate science that they thought was being blocked by peer review, they would have made sure there was an outlet for it with friendly reviewers, but so far they’ve got nothing. Organize better, people! Make your best case. I am looking forwards to reading these things. Perhaps it is because the “skeptics” don’t like each other’s ideas either, so they wouldn’t even pass “friendly” peer review. Just guessing.


Comment on Open thread weekend by mwgrant

0
0

Nah. Doesn’t make sense. Nothing’s happened to California.

Comment on Open thread weekend by Jim D

0
0

They could even allow the authors to remain anonymous if that helps people who don’t want to publicly come out as “skeptics”. How about that for a deal?

Comment on Open thread weekend by mwgrant

0
0

Hmmm…makes sense.

Comment on Open thread weekend by mwgrant

0
0

I just care about the quatloos.

Comment on Rep. Lamar Smith on climate change by Peter Lang

0
0

Rud Istvan,

Thank you for the beckground. I’ve add your book tio my “must read” list BTW I hope you realise I was quoting you when I said “EEStor (nonsense)”, so wasn’t intending to be dismissive.

At one stage of m y career I was program manager managing over 70 RD&D projects and the the cost benefit analysis and selection of projects for government support. Many others were the CNG buses and cars, LNG long haul transport systems, energy saving systems for agriculture and wide variety of other end use energy programs. One of the projects was development of fuel cells. All the same hype and excessive enthusiasm was aroung back then as is the case now. That is why I am slow to take seriously the many “new solutions” such as EEstor, synethetic biofuels, thorium reactors, nuclear fusion, and piping hydrogen from the Sun :)

Comment on Open thread weekend by manacker

0
0

Jim D and Herman Alexander Pope

OK.

Let’s play the silly “97%” numbers game.

The John Cook blurb does not claim that 97% of climate scientists agreed with the IPCC CAGW premise, only that 97% of the papers on climate included the general conclusion that humans are changing our climate due to AGW.

It would be absurd to twist this to meaning that “97% of climate scientists agreed with the IPCC CAGW premise”, and here’s why.

A couple of years ago, Eli Rabett put together a list on his blog of individuals supposedly on Senator Inhofe’s list of skeptics of the IPCC premise.

After removing some sociologists and others who are not “qualified” to have a relevant opinion on CAGW, plus adding some others who are qualified but were not on the original list, there is now a list of 333 qualified climate-related scientists and meteorologists who have gone on record that they do not support the IPCC position.

So if 97% of all qualified individuals agree with the IPCC premise, this means that

333*0.97 / 0.03 = 10,767 qualified individuals have gone on record in support of the IPCC CAGW premise.

Not very likely.

Max

Comment on Open thread weekend by Alexej Buergin

0
0

“GaryM | June 1, 2013 at 1:15 pm |
First, we can’t really measure global average temperature to within tenths of a degree anyway in my opinion.”

Spencer agrees.
But the changes of temperature can be measured quite precise.


Comment on Open thread weekend by Jim D

0
0

manacker, the Anderegg/Schneider PNAS study was more like that. It looked at the top thousand or so people publishing in climate science and checked how many of them were on Inhofe’s list or various anti-AGW petitions, and found – wait for it – 97% were not. The list is still online somewhere and now up to 3000, and I think I counted 95% on that a few months back.

Comment on Open thread weekend by Peter Lang

0
0

Davide Springer,

So, according to your own standards (see some quotes below from yesterday) you lied, eh?

Note Lang’s first response to my question was to just make something up out of whole cloth. Don’t trust a f*cking thing this jagoff says.

Followed by:

What’s that make him an honest liar? He lied. He knew he was lying. To add insult to injury if he really didn’t know what happens when a spent fuel containment pool loses its water he an imbecile as well as a liar. Everyone with a modicum of interest in nuclear power safety and a triple digit IQ knows what happens. About a zillion people watched “The China Syndrome” after 3-mile island. It’s common knowledge.

Then by:

Some of us, unlike Lang who suddenly found an honest bone in his body and admitted he knew nothing about radiological terrorism, know it will render areas the size of large states uninhabitable.

What a nut case!

By the way, what would be the effect of a cruise missile strike on the 15 dry storage concrete canisters holding the high level waste from Yankee Rowe?
http://www.yankeerowe.com/
http://www.nukeworker.com/pictures/displayimage-94-5205.html
http://www.storenuclearfuel.com/current-sites/yankee-rowe/

Mine is a genuine question for anyone who would like to answer it.

Comment on Open thread weekend by manacker

0
0

Jim D

the last decade is 0.15 degrees warmer than the previous decade

Sure.

The amount of warming over the previous decade was greater than the slight cooling of the last decade, so, by definition, the absolute values of the current decade are higher – even though we are in a slight cooling trend.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1993/to:2002/trend/plot/uah/from:2003/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1993/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2003/trend/plot/rss-land/from:1993/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:2003/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1993/to:2002/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2003/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1993/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2003/trend

Plain old arithmetic at work, Jim.

Max

Comment on Open thread weekend by Brandon Shollenberger

0
0

Max_OK, that’s the second time this week you responded to one thing I said while asking for evidence for something I didn’t say. Without addressing what I actually said. It isn’t going to work out any better for you this time.

Acknowledge you’re changing the subject, and we can discuss a new one. Don’t, and you’re just creating a straw man. Again.

Comment on Open thread weekend by Brandon Shollenberger

Comment on Open thread weekend by Peter Lang

0
0

We need a “Resilience Tax”

Then we might need a tax on the ‘fabulously wealthy’ Elites for excessive “Resiliance”.

For those who don’t know Australia’s Federal Treasurer (Labor and a life long unionist), Wayne Swan’ has conducted class ware against those he has dubbed the ‘Fabulously Wealthy’. It included miners, investors, business owners (all varieties from small to large) and people with just 1/5 as much superannuation as his fully inflation indexed, defined benefit, taxpayer funded, Parliamentarians’ pension scheme will provide him and his family for life from the time he is (hopefully) kicked out of Parliament in 100 days from now. Cant wait!!

Comment on Rep. Lamar Smith on climate change by Rud Istvan

0
0

Beth, I am not so much into your sort of stuff. I am just a business guy who plans to make a buck (times some large exponent) off a small contribution to energy storage materials that might make a small contribution to AGW (no) or peak oil economics (yes).
But what you said was (so far as I know) historically correct, brilliant, and spot on from a larger, more humanistic, and ultimately more important perspective.
Haven’t read Popper, only read others summaries. Darn it, now have placed him on the long to-do list.
Regards


Comment on Open thread weekend by mwgrant

0
0

Figure 8, p.14. What a hellish presentation. When the caption gets that big and convoluted one need to revise the accompanying text–can anyone but anyone make a cogent presentation in climate science!

Figure 10F. Why report R (which) and p value? Issues with residuals distribution; and reporting the numbers without regression diagnostics (and discussion) may be misleading. Giving R (which?) and giving p-val* one really is inviting inference–you want inference? conditions have to be met. As a group, ‘scientists’ really stink at statistics, and that is ashamed because modelling physical data should not be the domain solely of statistics.

Still interesting physics…

Note regarding some earlier observations by others: Lu does address the 9 year lag (whether one agrees or not with approach); Same forCO2 saturation.

Enough.

* At least Lu does present the p-val–more than seen in most presentations.

Comment on Open thread weekend by GaryM

0
0

AK,

This is the problem with semantic debates. They lead to ever increasing issues.

Resilience, properly used, is an attribute, not a policy, which is one of the problems I have with the primary post on the issue earlier here.

“Sustainability” seems to be used as a proxy for mitigation, and “resilience” for adaptation. So why change? Why not leave the poor words alone?

CAGWers adopted “sustainability” because..well..they just keep thinking if they just reframe their policies with a nifty new word, voters will suddenly endorse wholesale global economic suicide.

If you want to talk about insurance, talk about insurance. If you want to talk about insurance as a policy of adapting to globalclimatewarmingchange, then do so. But why enslave yet another innocent word as a foot soldier in the never ending semantics of the climate debate?

“’Sustainability’ has been overused to death. Resilience is clearer, easier to define.”

No, they were both easily and clearly defined. Sustainability has indeed been overused to death. I am just trying to stop the semantic Kervorkians of the climate debate from doing the same thing to poor resilience.

Comment on What exactly are we debating? by GaryM

0
0

Peter Lang,

Thanks. But I’ll settle for coherent and reasonably insightful. :-)

But if I could get for someone to pay my way to visit the awesome land down under…

Comment on What exactly are we debating? by Beth Cooper

0
0

+1000
A cow cirl from Oz

Comment on What exactly are we debating? by Steven Mosher

0
0

Some quick notes on how one could actually handle the issue of standards in science n a debate.

1. The most important scientific standard we can talk about tonight is the standard of proof.
We do not answer questions in science by having debates. This entire
enterprise of debating should show you that the people asking for a debate
are uninformed about how science works.

2. Science is not changed by emails. deleting or saving emails doesn’t
change a single thing in science. People who think science questions
are answered by looking at FOIA violations are not informed about
how science works.

3. Questions about funding are important. Every scientist speaking for the
RS discloses where they get their funding from. We challenge the GWPF
to live up to that standard tonight by disclosing their funding.

Or you can refuse to debate and lose the opportunity to frame the issues properly.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images