Thank you for the clarification, GaryM. Was just checking why you said:
> Crony capitalism is practiced by both capitalists and progressives alike.
You do have to admit that the word “capitalism” sounds like a lapsus.
***
Here’s something you will appreciate:
Anyway.
It’s been fun.
Good night.
Chief Hydro-Fabricator said:
“The global energy inputs – as I have discussed endlessly – peaked in 1998.”
______
Oh, is this a little switch-a-roo you’d like to pull? First you say “ocean heat content peaked” in 1998, and mentioned Loeb’s research for your proof, but when a quote from Loeb in the very research you linked to said that ocean heat content continues to rise, now you try to slip your way out of it by saying “global energy inputs peaked in 1998″.
So, how can global energy inputs have peaked in 1998 and ocean heat content continue to rise? Quite illogical Chief Nutter.
So for those who are actually not aware of what a true nutter you are Chief, the truth is that actual energy input to the total system did fall off a bit in the past 10 years to 2 reasons:
1) Less intense solar cycle
2) Slighly increased aerosols mainly from a series of moderate volcanoes
However, there has also been a reduced energy flux from ocean to atmosphere during this period and ocean heat content has continued to rise as Loeb has stated correctly. Thus, the system has continued to gain energy, not because of getting more incoming (quite the opposite), but because of keeping more in the system, primarily in the oceans.
Her dad is a hero of mine, but the cow jumped over the moon.
=============
You don’t have to be good, just lucky.
===========
A good reason to cry, may think the Amazonian turtle, is that butterflies can drink:
http://www.livescience.com/39558-butterflies-drink-turtle-tears.html
Rejoice, Chief, for the north is not a dead cold place:
” Honesty, Fairness, Objectivity, Reliability, Skepticism, Accountability, Openness”
I think this is pretty silly. Telling a dishonest person to be honest, an unfair person to be fair, a nonobjective person to be objective, will only yield small results. Sorry to bring up political names, but Janet Reno was accountable as was Hilary Clinton. So what.
It’s nice to think our profession is full of the most moral folks in the world, but the actual measure of an institution is its ability to survive with bad actors (and what a bad actor is may change over time). Isn’t that the purpose of the scientific method? It is designed so that others can replicate the results of your experiments. This should be the rallying cry for science, not our early 21st Century notion of Morality.
As an example, I think Climate Science is currently adversarial, and reminds me often of a courtroom drama. Adversity has merits. Get the old competition thing going. Keep the neurons firing. Force perfection because someone wants to eat your lunch.
I’m not saying these traits aren’t good traits, but you can’t control it, and if you could, it could be stifling and counter-productive. Codes should be developed only from the first principle of the scientific method. Everything else will flow from that, and human nature.
If there was any honesty and professionalism – wouldn’t be any GLOBAL warming scandal: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/global-temperature/
Howard,
Excellent. But FOMD is stubbornly in denial.
Or pick one of these:
bullheaded, dogged, hardheaded, hard-nosed, headstrong, immovable, implacable, inconvincible, inflexible, intransigent, mulish, obdurate, opinionated, ossified, pat, pertinacious, perverse, pigheaded, self-opinionated, self-willed, stiff-necked, obstinate, unbending, uncompromising, unrelenting, unyielding, willful
The problem with any external auditing process is to find the right person or team to do it. The depth of understanding of the research audited has to be of similar quality as the researcher. If people of that quality exist, what are they doing auditing other people when they could be doing the research themselves? That question exposes the difficulty of finding a suitable auditor, irrespective of his or her terms of reference,
Even the best research laboratories have had some bad apples in their past so the quality of ttheir people is jealously guarded.. Their quality deoends not on bricks and mortar but on their culture. and that gets back yo their leadership.
That is why I say the UN should have called tenders for its research.
Broken link converted to tinyurl
http://tinyurl.com/qhebu9d
WHT-Oh then there is the argument that fossil fuel combustion, BY ITSELF, causes global warming.
CH & manacker, etc. have been a little slow to see it, but, hey, they’ll come around.
BTW, I think this started when someone plugged annual heat into a HVAC equation which actually requires hourly heat. I discovered that HVAC people commonly use BTU instead of BTU/hr to represent power. So there you go, an easy mistake to make, but apparently hard to undo.
I’m kind of used to FOMD avoiding the issue, but here he walks up to it and waves at it and looks like he’s about to touch it, but then he goes back into his defensive crouch.
1. Maybe Hansen wins the generational battle a la Polanyi and Hull, but there is no way you could extrapolate that from the short-term data we have, even if one accepted FOMD’s data selection, etc. It’s like trying to unravel long-term climate with this month’s Arctic ice data–don’t like that sort of thing, do you Fan?
2. The policy being proposed–Urgent Mitigation–is “urgent” and not based on waiting the generations to see who wins out scientifically. This is precisely an example of how we have departed from the Republic of Science model. Policy concerns and the desire to promote a particular policy answer has pushed the normal process of scientific development into a “managed” or “mercantilist” direction that bears no resemblance to the invisible hand. NASA wants climate-danger research, they call for it in their proposals, and that’s what they get. No waiting! It’s Jiffy-Pop science.
3. Latimer Adler puts it a bit too crudely, if one interprets “payment” as purely monetary. In the Hull and Polanyi models, researchers are mostly competing for stature or significance (and perhaps enjoying the beauty of nature and the thrill of understanding along the way). Remember that the earliest versions of this pure-science model in 17th century England mostly involved landed men of leisure (e.g. Boyle) who really didn’t have to worry too much about a salary. (Guys like Hooke needed patronage but mostly got it by being seen as good discoverers by their peers, so that mostly worked out, although Hooke showed the dangers of not knowing how to play the game in the way he treated Huygens.) Of course, as the cost of research rose, getting access to funding already became an issue, but most of the early funders also got glory from discoveries made by those they patronized, so again, incentives were pretty well aligned.
4. FOMD neatly avoids every specific example I cite to show that when policy or funding issues get into play, the “invisible hand” gets slapped out of the way in favor of a very visible regulatory hand. It has to be that way. (I should point out that as a policy matter I am not necessarily thrilled with how policy is carried out in the examples I used.)
The modern radical has a worldview that endorses transition of societies to a new order involving reduction in economic activity. This necessarily involves fear, uncertainty and doubt – created by cult of AGW groupthink space cadet science – and accompanied by hopes of natural disasters in which to engineer a transformative moment. Fortunately or unfortunately – space cadet science bears little resemblance to real science.
There is no rapprochement with these people. The Borg analogy is apt – assimilate to the cult or die – at lest in their own fetid imaginations. The best we can do is to ensure to the best of our abilities that this cult is contained politically. They have an overwhelming political weakness. They need to deny limits to growth and affirm it at the same time.
Again and again we see the worst of the worst expressions of neo-radicals. Pachauri I quoted yesterday on engineering a great depression. This has implications globally for already marginal billions. There will be winners and losers Pachauri says.
Little Joshua has an agenda to confuse and misdirect. I don’t wonder why – I already think the worst.
Gary, “OK, I now am an atheist, and will concoct my own set of ethics.” I stopped believing in God in 1955, when I was 13. But I’d had a strong commitment to honesty and integrity as far back as I can remember, and found ongoing value in the strong moral values of my Christian mother. I had, and have, a concern for others and avoiding harming or exploiting them. I’ve commented once before that I was very trusting, and it was only at age 25 that I realised that the perception of the world that I’d received from society was deeply flawed, that I needed to work things out for myself.
The panca-sila (five-fold morality) taught by the Buddha, which I came across via Goenka in 1972, was consistent with much of how I already behaved although I had to deal with sexual promiscuity and drug use. In doing so, I at first was motivated by conforming to an externally-derived morality, as are many people of religious faith. But I knew that such conformity was not sufficient, to be truly moral you need to develop your own understanding and wisdom – to “know thyself,” as many saints and sages have advised – so that the morality is embedded, is intrinsic, is how you are. The reason that we’ve been having these discussions at CE is that many people in positions of authority and influence do not have this embedded morality, whatever morality they might profess is belied by their actions, hence the loss of trust in what they say.
It doesn’t matter what external ethical standards might be promoted, the change must be within each individual. Whether or not there is a gods or gods is secondary, each of us is responsible for our own volition and behaviour, we have to resolve issues of morality within ourselves. If there is a god or gods as posited by Christianity and other religions, I’m sure that he/she/they would be happy with my approach and life. Most major religions have similar views on core morality, most/all also have various rites, rituals and practices which have nothing whatsoever to do with living a harmonious life, good for you and good for others. The latter become a barrier to stripping away accreted nonsense and living a truly moral life.
I lead a moral life not because of any external teaching, not from fear of retribution, not because someone else thinks I should, but because I worked hard at a practice which develops understanding and wisdom, which breaks down past conditionings and reduces or eliminates the forming of new ones, and which makes you inherently moral.
No one ever argued that any factor in the global energy budget was independent. That’s simply a misrepresentation.
And you blue ice in your typically simplisitic understanding repeat it.
CO2 doesn’t warm in the atmosphere – it cools. If you are idiotic enough not to understand that it is utterly useless to bother further.
Go, Nige!
If you haven’t already, you might want to look at Lakatos’s Methodology of Scientific Research Programs, which tried to modify Kuhn’s ideas along lines similar to what you suggest. He sees competing SRPs each with its own Hard Core (not to be questioned) and then a Protective Belt (sort of auxiliary hypotheses), etc. Then he says you can assess SRPs by whether they are “progressing” (closing old questions and finding new ones) or “degenerating”.
Like most such attempts, I think the philosophical verdict here was “nice try, but you haven’t really cracked it.” Still kind of interesting, though.
Ronald Reagan’s wise “fluorocarbon pause” (of the Montreal Protocol) and Ronald Reagan’s wise “H-bomb pause” (of the START accords) embody the wise “carbon pause” of today’s science-respecting Republican conservatives.
Ain’t that plain-as-day, science-respectin’, planet-preservin’, Reagan-style & Hanson-compatible, popular-with-the-people, 21st century progressively conservative wisdom, stevepostrel?
![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=ffffcc&fg=0055ff&s=2 "\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}")
