Yes, but Pascal’s wager.
Comment on Fallacies of risk by willard (@nevaudit)
↧
↧
Comment on 20 tips for interpreting scientific claims by jim2
It kind of sounds like the effect of CO2 in a sea of water vapor, Doc. I mean, if you have to eliminate all of the natural hormone, how big can the effect of the mimics be?
I like that, CO2 vs Water Vapor – WV wins I’m thinking.
↧
Comment on Fallacies of risk by jim2
Would that be the teaching-your-grandmother-how-to-suck-eggs fallacy?
↧
Comment on Fallacies of risk by jim2
There are all kinds of uncertainties ahead. You seem to like to cherry pick your uncertainties. Why is that?
↧
Comment on 20 tips for interpreting scientific claims by blouis79
Good article. Does this mean that the mainstream sceince media is preparing for a change of previous pro-AGW reporting?
I like the 20 tips, and JC’s pick of the ten relevant. So maybe we need more perhaps 25? Some sugestions:
We don’t know everything (Science is never settled) – that’s why we keep investing in scientific research. We will know more in another hundred years, by which time a lot of what we think we know now will be proven to be nonsense.
Science funding supports a process not an outcome – well done science doesn’t pretend to know the outcome of research, diversity of research perspectives is a good thing.
Proper experiments produce the most robust scientific evidence – good experimental design can eliminate many of the problems mentioned in earlier tips. Observational studies and computer models are not a patch on proper experiments.
↧
↧
Comment on Interpretation of UK temperatures since 1956 by Greg Goodman
“Perhaps you only like peer-reviewed, consensus-supported thoughts that come from a team of your friends.”
Why do you suggest I’m consensus supporting just because I criticised the presentation ( not even the content ) of you article?
Careful Doug, someone may accuse you of harbouring a tendency towards conspirationalist ideationalisms. ;)
There maybe some sound finding in what you suggest, I just can’t be bothered to battle my way through the way you’ve presented it to find out.
Don’t degrade into name calling.
↧
Comment on 20 tips for interpreting scientific claims by Mike Jonas
mosomoso – In the context as described by JC, you are on the right track. A non-scientific politician has no chance of being able to work anything out from the science. Even a scientific one is likely to be out of their depth very quickly. Some issues may be testable against plain common sense, but in general what the politicians most need to rely on (apart from their advisers) is their knowledge of human nature. The first rule is Do No Harm. The first question is Cui Bono (who benefits). The next question is of the people putting a science-based case – are they behaving like dependable people, eg, are they prepared to discuss the issue openly with opponents and are they open to their theories being tested, or are they using bullying tactics, trying to silence opponents, using ad homs, etc? It isn’t easy, and it would be a mistake to portray it as being easy.
↧
Comment on Interpretation of UK temperatures since 1956 by Greg Goodman
” I wouldn’t say it is a loony idea”
Neither did I .
↧
Comment on Social cost of carbon by willard (@nevaudit)
Paul is wrong to make the sweeping claim that “everybody is going to pay more.”
http://www.factcheck.org/2013/09/factchecking-pernicious-obamacare-claims/
↧
↧
Comment on Social cost of carbon by willard (@nevaudit)
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., called Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid a “bully” who is breaking the rules of the Senate because he needs to do whatever he can to change the subject in the media, and protect Obamcare from the daily pounding it is getting.
http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/rand-paul-goes-nuclear-on-big-bully-reid/
↧
Comment on Social cost of carbon by DocMartyn
You are aware that the Bern Model is complete nonsense that fails on every level don’t you?
↧
Comment on Social cost of carbon by kim
AnthroCO2 can, at best, delay the next ice age, and may make us wealthy enough to survive it. Cost out that.
===============
↧
Comment on Social cost of carbon by Pat
So far I am very disappointed with this website.
Obviously a rational approach would be to list ALL the costs and benefits == both short term and long term of a proposal — and to list alternatives.
I was hoping to see more science — I just see a bunch of Know Nothing Ideologues telling me they ONLY care about a tax cut or low regulations.
Back to NewScientist for me.
↧
↧
Comment on Social cost of carbon by Pete Bonk
Perhaps, if they are so anti affordable energy, but I doubt if that will stop them from breeding.
↧
Comment on Social cost of carbon by jim2
The only things pernicious here are Obama and Obamacare.
↧
Comment on 20 tips for interpreting scientific claims by stefanthedenier
Herman Alexander Pope | November 21, 2013 at 10:20 am said:
The MWP and the LIA existed!!!!!!!
Herman MWP and LIA existed only on the northern hemisphere – when was warmer there – on the southern hemisphere was colder, to balance
Cannot get colder on both hemispheres simultaneously for more than a day – because oxygen & nitrogen (troposphere) shrinks and equalizes in a jiffy: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2012/08/25/skeptics-stinky-skeletons-from-their-closet/
↧
Comment on Social cost of carbon by Joshua
If I’m not mistaken, he’s also the first president in history who is the anti-Christ.
↧
↧
Comment on Social cost of carbon by jim2
In the home stretch of the 2012 presidential campaign, from August to September, the unemployment rate fell sharply — raising eyebrows from Wall Street to Washington.
The decline — from 8.1 percent in August to 7.8 percent in September — might not have been all it seemed. The numbers, according to a reliable source, were manipulated.
And the Census Bureau, which does the unemployment survey, knew it.
Just two years before the presidential election, the Census Bureau had caught an employee fabricating data that went into the unemployment report, which is one of the most closely watched measures of the economy.
And a knowledgeable source says the deception went beyond that one employee — that it escalated at the time President Obama was seeking reelection in 2012 and continues today.
http://nypost.com/2013/11/18/census-faked-2012-election-jobs-report/
↧
Comment on Social cost of carbon by jim2
Obama does not care one whit about the millions of people who are losing their medical insurance. Obungler(no)care.
↧
Comment on 20 tips for interpreting scientific claims by KevinK
Leonard,
“a large number of reading averaged from different thermometers will give greater accuracy”
NO, NO, NO;
Corrected text follows;
“a large number of reading averaged from different thermometers MIGHT (if all assumptions about statistical distributions agree with real world measurements, and errors are distributed as assumed a-priori) give greater accuracy”
MIGHT, if, and only if, all the statistical assumptions are correct.
When I fly on a plane I don’t give a darn about all the assumptions being correct. I want to know for sure that all the measurements used to build said plane are known to match “truth” (as defined by rigorous standards bodies).
I do not care that “by averaging” only 1 of 1000 planes is “likely to bee too weak to actually fly”. I want to know that every plane certified to fly is strong enough to do so.
This is the fundamental difference between engineering and climate “science”. And engineer looks for all the reasons some real object may fail, a climate “scientist” looks for all the reasons a theory “may” be correct.
I prefer planes that really can fly, instead of planes that “might possibly fly”, if all the statistical assumptions are just right, and the models “predict” it can fly.
Cheers, Kevin.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
