Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Laframboise’s new book on the IPCC by Joshua

0
0

ChuckL -

Fan and Joshua, if you are not concerned with national debt and massive unfunded government liabilities at a time when interest rates are at historical lows, then you are clueless about finance.

I can’t speak for fan, but I am concerned with the debt and unfunded liabilities. And my concern is not conditional on the prospects of rising interest rates, either.

So the interesting question is why would you think that I am unconcerned about those issues? Merely because I pointed out that tony was being alarmist, and not taking consideration of uncertainty?

Why would you be speculating about a possibility (my lack of concern) for which you have no direct evidence? Is it because you are taking a binary approach to the issue, and you allow for no possibility that someone could comment on tony’s alarmism and lack of respect for uncertainty, and still be concerned about the country’s debt, unfunded liabilities, etc.?

And are you related to Chuck D?


Comment on Laframboise’s new book on the IPCC by Matthew R Marler

0
0
Joshua: <i>Everyone does it – a point I make frequently. </i> So it was worth pointing out how the IPCC had done it in this instance.

Comment on Laframboise’s new book on the IPCC by DocMartyn

0
0

My, my Josh. Firstly:

OPPORTUNITY COST

In microeconomic theory, the opportunity cost of a choice is the value of the best alternative forgone, in a situation in which a choice needs to be made between several mutually exclusive alternatives given limited resources. Assuming the best choice is made, it is the “cost” incurred by not enjoying the benefit that would be had by taking the second best choice available. The New Oxford American Dictionary defines it as “the loss of potential gain from other alternatives when one alternative is chosen”. Opportunity cost is a key concept in economics, and has been described as expressing “the basic relationship between scarcity and choice”. The notion of opportunity cost plays a crucial part in ensuring that scarce resources are used efficiently. Thus, opportunity costs are not restricted to monetary or financial costs: the real cost of output forgone, lost time, pleasure or any other benefit that provides utility should also be considered opportunity costs.

Secondly, my wife is a 5 foot tall French Jew who has lived in the Anglo-sphere for the two decades, teaching French and Spanish language to high schoolers and is as tough as nails. I am not in the habit of hitting her or any other woman for that matter.

Thirdly, I was originally answering one of FOAD’s stupid posts not giving you an opportunity to go all morally offended.

Finally, if you actually gave a damn about preventing the rise in atmospheric CO2 you would actually be doing something about it, like getting the more brain dead members of your cult to endorse electrical power from natural gas and nuclear energy, but you wont, because you don’t want to be challenged on your stratospheric levels of smugness.

Comment on Laframboise’s new book on the IPCC by kim

0
0

That’s All, Folks!
=======

Comment on Laframboise’s new book on the IPCC by Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)

0
0

Even though Willard is not exactly a big picture guy, let’s not lose sight of the fact that it’s not only Pachauri who has propagated this “all peer reviewed” myth. The MSM and other organizations (who should know better) have taken this previously unexamined claim on faith, as well. See:

http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/not-as-advertised.php

Comment on Laframboise’s new book on the IPCC by stefanthedenier

0
0
manacker | September 10, 2013 at 7:44 am said: '' It’s too much fun in the sandbox'' manacker, their problem is not to prevent global warming, but to produce one

Comment on Laframboise’s new book on the IPCC by Harold

Comment on Laframboise’s new book on the IPCC by Chuck L

0
0

My apologies, Joshua (really). I am not Chuck D or related to him.


Comment on Laframboise’s new book on the IPCC by willard (@nevaudit)

0
0

But not conservatives, GaryM?
No, not the true Scottish ones.
Just the ordinary conservatives.

Comment on Responsible Conduct in the Global Research Enterprise by Stephen Rasey

0
0
<i>Researchers are accountable to other researchers, to the broader society, and to nature.</i> Researchers are accountable to people that pay the bills. Their <b>reputation</b> however is an asset they can preserve or sell to the devil as they please. That the Devil has Advocates in high places is another problem entirely. On this point, Steven Mosher is right. Trying to make any official accountability board will be captured by special interests and trample Freedom of Speech. No Thanks.

Comment on Responsible Conduct in the Global Research Enterprise by Wagathon

0
0

“The Earth, after receiving and storing over the twentieth century an anomalously large amount of heat energy, from the 1990′s began to return it gradually. The upper layers of the world ocean, completely unexpectedly to climatologists, began to cool in 2003. The heat accumulated by them unfortunately now is running out.

“Over the past decade, global temperature on the Earth has not increased; global warming has ceased, and already there are signs of the future deep temperature drop.” (Dr. H. Abdussamatov)

Obviously, when and if the Earth does experience an extended period of global cooling — and, perhaps another ice age (which many scientists believe is overdue) — such an event will seriously challenge the world community. I think we also realize that the Leftists-libs’ hatred of Americanism has turned industrialization into a paralyzing Tower of Babel.

Depriving humanity of the possibility of being more able than our ancestors to face such challenges is the legacy of an ever bigger the secular, socialist government and education industrial complex. Roasting skeptics of global warming alarmism or George Bush or Gov. Palin or whoever may be next on the Leftist-lib ad hom hit-list will not heat homes and run the factories that provide jobs.

Comment on Laframboise’s new book on the IPCC by Steven Mosher

0
0

max,

willard has a point. several good ones in fact.

nobody whose mind you want to change is going to listen to a hatchet job..( hehe i know make the joke).. personally I can’t bear to open her books because the titles are so bad. Im shallow sorry.

Comment on Laframboise’s new book on the IPCC by WebHubTelescope (@whut)

0
0

Three degrees C warming for a doubling of CO2, if you haven’t forgotten Chef Waterboy.

PDO will oscillate and the 3C warming will not.

Comment on Laframboise’s new book on the IPCC by GaryM

0
0

willard,

Oh real conservatives lie, they cheat, they steal. Being human they do the things humans generally do. What they do not do is try to paint their weaknesses as strengths., ala Alinsky, Schneider, Gleick, Mann et al.

I know this is hard for you sophisticated secularists to grasp, but there is much less lying among those who actually think it is wrong. You all think you can sh*t can morality, that developed over thousands of years of hard trial and error. Then adopt some new fangled “ethics” off the cuff, carefully tailored to the result you want. Then you actually expect the people who agree with you that there is no such thing as objective morality to obey your rules. It hasn’t worked out very well for y’all so far.

And do conservatives do bad things? Yep. But we don’t ignore it when our leaders get caught doing them. If Bill Clinton were a Republican, he would have been forced to resign. He is still a star among all you progressives, moderates and independents. Not to mention what he did to Juanita Broderick and scores of other helpless women.

We expect to pay a price for our sins. Not just go on Oprah, cry, and then sidle back up to the public trough.

Comment on Laframboise’s new book on the IPCC by willard (@nevaudit)

0
0

OK. Just found back this subthread. Damn I miss G Reader. Anyway.

***

The second link by GaryM has already been provided by Skiphil:

> Given that it is all on the basis of peer-reviewed literature. I’m not sure there is any better process that anyone could have followed.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10514468&pnum=0

Not unlike the first link. In fact, compare that quote from Patchy with the quote from the first link provided both by GaryM and Skiphil before him:

> We only develop our assessments on the basis of peer-reviewed literature. [...] I can’t think of a better process.

Perhaps Patchy lacks imagination, but I could certainly think of a better process. In fact, it would be quite something if Patchy himself could not think of a better process. He’s a pulp fiction writer, after all.

Perhaps Patchy did not meant it that way.

***

In any case, we can see that both quotes carry similar ideas:

- The IPCC reports are based on peer-reviewed literature.
- The IPCC reports result from a very good process.

Both quotes implement these ideas differently.

In the second, only the assessment is developed on the basis of peer-reviewed literature. Since this way of selling the IPCC does not prevent non-peer-reviewed literature to be considered during the deliberative process, as long as it’s not the basis for the assessments, this claim would be immune from Donna’s falsification efforts.

But in the first quote, the it does seem to refer to the process itself, which does not square well with the first interpretation. It is quite clear that the process leaves room to grey litterature, as was made clear in april 2009:

The key points discussed were the need to involve governments early enough in the scoping process, to guarantee a good coverage of relevant cross-cutting issues, to ensure a good balance of expertise and regional sensitivities in the Venice scoping meeting, to refine the treatment of regional issues, to ensure an efficient iterative process in the preparation of the Synthesis Report (SYR), to enable a good participation of developing country participants and authors during the
whole AR5 process. The scoping process and its various stages were discussed in some detail, including the possible need for an additional scoping meeting. It was suggested that contact groups be formed to deal with regional issues and SYR topics. It was also requested that a special effort be made with the help of focal points to identify and make use of grey literature and publications in all languages.

http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/bureau-sessions/bureau39rep.pdf

Patchy should certainly work on getting his story straight from one interview to the next.

***

The Hark citation can also be found at Donna’s, who used it to show that Patchy was wrong to say that the IPCC does not use newspaper clippings because (check this) the IPCC cited three newspaper articles.

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2010/02/03/yes-virginia-the-climate-bible-relies-on-newspaper-clippings/

Some eminent scientists smell a whiff of literalism in that op-ed, which might explain Donna’s biblical ringtone.

***

All in all, Donna’s audit does seem to rest on the assumption that one citation is worth as much as the next.

This appears in her crisp interpretation of a “100% claim” which she puts into Patchy’s mouth. This also appears in the way she counts her percentages of grey literature. This finally appears even more starkly in the way she constructs her Virginia op-ed.

I find this presumption problematic. Patchy’s point does seem to be better understood by the claim that the IPCC assessments are based on peer-reviewed literature. This does not imply that every citation shares an equal part in the assessment.

Anyway.

***

TL:DR — it’s divide-and-conquer all over again.


Comment on Laframboise’s new book on the IPCC by Chief Hydrologist

0
0

You’re an utter twit with imaginary numbers. At most it is 0.1 degrees C/decade.

e.g. http://deepeco.ucsd.edu/~george/publications/09_long-term_variability.pdf

It is quite likely mostly cloud in recent times.

e.g. http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/cloud_palleandlaken2013_zps3c92a9fc.png.html?sort=3&o=23

And the PDV is not just the PDO.

e.g. http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/pub/seager/PredictingPacific.pdf

And it varies over millennia.

http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/ENSO11000.gif.html?sort=3&o=137

If you actually knew anything real someone might pay attention.

Comment on Responsible Conduct in the Global Research Enterprise by Steve Fitzpatrick

0
0

Pekka,
“We have concrete reasons to be wary of the influence of other motives on the scientific publications, but it’s difficult to tell, how widely that happens.”

Yes, I agree.

There are two dangers: 1) we are not cautious enough and accept the conclusions of climate science without sufficient skepticism, and 2) we are too critical and conclude that most climate scientists are not being completely honest in their public statements, based only on the known/verified behavior of a few.

There are no easy answers. What I try to do is look at published papers, public statements, and public actions, and use those things to evaluate if a climate scientist is consistent and credible. For example, Andy Dessler wrote a paper a couple of years ago about cloud feedbacks being positive. The paper itself was reasonably cautious about uncertainty, even plainly stating that with such noisy data it was impossible to exclude (at 95% confidence) that the true cloud feedback is in fact negative rather than positive. I then saw a video interview of Dessler talking about cloud feedbacks: all scientific uncertainty was gone, and Dessler clearly stated in the video that cloud feedbacks are strongly positive… no comment on uncertainty at all.

This is a case where a climate scientist makes public claims (for advocacy purposes) which are absolutely NOT supported by ‘the science’. For me, this means that Dessler is simply not a reliable source for information on climate science….. he has let his advocacy dominate his science. A later paper by Troy Masters showed that Dessler’s results… likely positive cloud feedbacks …. were dependent on the chosen data set, and that other data sets, applying Dessler’s analysis methods, indicated negative or near-neutral cloud feedbacks are more likely than positive feedbacks. This further reduces Dessler’s credibility for me: why would Dessler select the one data set which shows the greatest probability of positive cloud feedback?

Comment on Laframboise’s new book on the IPCC by willard (@nevaudit)

0
0

Thank you for your clarification, John R T, and for the Procrustean game you invite me to play:

- whine about quaint qualifiers;
- when offered crisp ones, try to find counterexamples.

I bet you don’t lose often at this kind of game, John.

Comment on Laframboise’s new book on the IPCC by kim

0
0

I don’t read much of her stuff because I hate the way it improves my opinion of the IPCC.
===============

Comment on Laframboise’s new book on the IPCC by WebHubTelescope (@whut)

0
0

Get this — Chef Waterboy can not predict random ENSO because it is random, but can predict random Pacific Decadal Variations because it is … random.

How is that for pretzel logic?

And to top it off, we will get the 3C global warming on land when CO2 reaches a doubling, and we could have another variation on top of it due to the positive PDO signal that Chef claims will be there.

Chef, will that make it 3.5 C warmer? You tell me, since you claim to have a handle on the long term outlook.
Chef is in a trick box once again.

Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images