Model do deserve a place in climate science. But the input of the models, loosely speaking, should be the output of the Yin-Yang Empirical-Theoretical core.
Comment on Anatomy of dissent by jim2
↧
↧
Comment on The New Republic on the ‘pause’ by RiHo08
Judith Curry
“I don’t see how you can argue against it,” Solomon observed after declaring that “carbon dioxide will be king over the long run.”
“Cotton is King” said Jefferson Davis “and Great Britain will come into the War on the side of the Confederacy.”
Cue the Public.
↧
Comment on Anatomy of dissent by Max_OK
So, AK, as today’s young men age they, like their grandfathers, are more likely to be racists and homophobes.
↧
Comment on Anatomy of dissent by GaryM
“JC comment: Ironic that political motivations and espousement of Mode 1 research values seem to go together on the ‘conservative’ political side.”
There is absolutely nothing ironic about it at all. It only seems ironic because your understanding of what makes one “conservative” was formed for you by those who are not.
Conservatism, properly understood, is the embrace of principles. Principles that have developed, and been tried and proven valuable over time. It is not ironic, or coincidental, that those of a conservative political mien would hold a traditional view of science that led to the greatest and most rapid technological advances in the history of mankind.
It is also not ironic or a coincidence that progressives embrace whole heartedly “Mode 2″ style “science.” Progressivism, properly understood, is the belief that an elite has the ability, and therefore should have the power, and the right to make decisions for others.
“He [Schneider] unequivocally defended seeking answers to pressing social problems by any means necessary including imprecise science.” This is classic progressive thought, even though I doubt Schneider knew it. It is just what he learned throughout his education and what everyone around him believed. But those who taught it to him knew what it meant.
“…in action, one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one’s individual conscience and the good of mankind. The choice must always be for the latter. Action is for mass salvation and not for the individual’s personal salvation.” And ““[D]o what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral arguments.”
Saul Alinsky.
And it is, of course, for the progressive himself to define what is best for mankind, so the end justifies any means.
Mode 1 vs. Mode 2 science is just another example of the divergence between conservatives who put principle first, and progressives who believe the end justifies the means.
There is nothing new in the climate debate. Even when you frame it as social science.
↧
Comment on Anatomy of dissent by GaryM
“Science is truth.”
Not according to Stephen Schneider.
↧
↧
Comment on Anatomy of dissent by Max_OK
“More total life and more diversity of life,” says kim. Sure, but who wants more and greater varieties of bugs, weeds, mold, mildew, pond scum and the like?
Will rising sea levels sustain more total marine life and more diversity of marine life?
↧
Comment on Anatomy of dissent by Jim Cripwell
Maybe this is an opportunity to state my position. I am an empiricist. When someone has measured climate sensitivity with a proper error +/- value, we will know whether CAGW is a problem, and there need be no more discussion. Until someone has measured climate sensitivity, any numeric values associated with CAGW are nothing more than wild-a**ed guesses. Since physics and technology cannot presently measure climate sensitivity, CAGW is a viable hypothesis, but that is all it is.
This is just simple basic Physics 101. It has nothing to do with climate science. If this is obvious to me, then it must have been obvious to the people who originally suggested CAGW was real. Why they did this is not clear, but the only logical explanation I can come up with is that they intended CAGW to be a hoax.
Where this all puts me in some sort of category as a contrarian, I have no idea
↧
Comment on The New Republic on the ‘pause’ by climatereason
kim
There is a statue to William of Orange in the next town to mine, where he landed. There is a note he left found in an attic there
‘its jolly cold, what a change in the climate these last years…’
Definitive proof I think…Or maybe I’m thinking of something else…
tonyb
↧
Comment on Anatomy of dissent by jbmckim
Max_OK: You left out libraries, little old ladies and in this case, weather people. C’mon enough of the the ridiculous oversimplification/ either-or fallacies.
↧
↧
Comment on Anatomy of dissent by kim
Perusal of paleontology probably’ll provoke progress.
============
↧
Comment on Anatomy of dissent by kim
Very nice. And look at the power the politicians and climate scientists have seized. It’s the power of the Sorcerer’s Apprentice.
==================
↧
Comment on Anatomy of dissent by kim
You keep using this word ‘So’. I don’t think it means what you think it means.
=============
↧
Comment on Anatomy of dissent by Pissant Progressive
ignorant i don’t think. the definitions are confusing because you might ask “what other kind of scientists are there besides empiricists and theoreticians” but apparently modelers don’t count as either.
↧
↧
Comment on Anatomy of dissent by GaryM
Everyone who disagrees with Max_OK is a racist homophobe. He knows because MSBNC and the Huffington Post told him so.
↧
Comment on The New Republic on the ‘pause’ by sunshinehours1
Land Southern Hemisphere is flat from 1995.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem4vsh/from:1990/plot/crutem4vsh/from:1995/trend
↧
Comment on Anatomy of dissent by RickA
Jim:
I am with you.
However, after long debates with various people over at the blackboard, I have been taught that we can never properly measure climate sensitivity – at least as it is currently defined.
If you define climate sensitivity as the change in temperature caused by doubling CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm – then I used to think we could wait until we hit 560 ppm and actually measure CS.
However, it was point out to me that all of the other variables (land use, carbon black, clouds, cosmic rays, solar input, methane, etc.) would not have been held constant, and therefore fights would still happen over what the proper value of CS really is.
What are your thoughts on this issue?
↧
Comment on Anatomy of dissent by J Martin
JC said “we need an infusion of expertise from mathematics and physics conducting research in nonlinear science and complex systems”
I would professional statisticians to that mix.
↧
↧
Comment on Ocean heat content discussion thread by captdallas 0.8 or less
Webster, it has always been about the accounting.
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2013/06/carnot-efficiency-ohc-and-commander.html
↧
Comment on Anatomy of dissent by GaryM
Translation: Progressive Democrats have agreed to pretend they will bolster border security and progressive Republicans have agreed to pretend to believe them. “Immigration reform” has about as much to do with immigration as “consensus climate science” has to do with climate.
↧
Comment on The New Republic on the ‘pause’ by sunshinehours1
Decadal trends are an artificial construct used to hide what natural variability is capable of in the pre-CO2 era.
.7C over 12 years. in the 30s/40s.
1.1C from 1875 to 1878.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
