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

Comment on The science and silence conundrum by John Carpenter

0
0

“The problem is to find good reasons to exclude the first while doing the second.”

In a perfect world where bias is accounted for and transparent for all to see, is agree. Since this is seldom the case, there may be good reason exclude the first until the second is achieved.

“So once you find good reasons to feel OK with INTEGRITY ™ advocacy, you might need to find other good reasons.”

You lost me.

“One does not simply promote libertarian social networks (e.g.) and pretend to merely advocate for INTEGRITY ™.”

So JC is promoting libertarian social networks? How is this the case and not liberal or conservative social networks? I find all political persuasions commenting here.


Comment on The science and silence conundrum by JCH

0
0

Bed sores are preventable and treatable. They claim if patients are turned every two hours, they are highly unlikely to get them. It costs a lot of money to turn a patient every two hours. A lot. The labor alone probably approaches $100,000 grand per patient year.

Who gets them?

Calling this a hospital error tells ordinary people a lie. The vast majority of people are not going to get a bed sore while a patient at a hospital. People are thinking 195,000 people are getting their heads amputated instead of getting their appendix removed.

Comment on The science and silence conundrum by kim

0
0

It’s a no brainer to find some hospitals worse than others. It is evidence of no brain to call the difference ‘preventable’.
=======

Comment on The science and silence conundrum by Schrodinger's Cat

0
0

Scientific integrity involves the measurement and analysis of data in an independent manner. That means free of influence whether financial, political, religious or to do with personal gain or prejudice.

Scientists have a responsibility to ensure the highest standards of integrity, not just for themselves and their subordinates, but for their colleagues. Scientific integrity is meaningless and worthless if it becomes optional.

Often, where science is difficult to understand by laymen and by politicians, scientific integrity is the foundation for credibility.

Climate science seems to have one group claiming total confidence in the models. Another less formal group, branded as deniers, claims that the models are flawed. The majority of scientists, many of whom have the ability to form judgements about some or all of the climate work seem to be silent.

The silent majority seems to bolster the acceptance of the science by authority and by government. “The science is settled, there is a strong consensus.”

Now, we know that that science is not proven by consensus, but it is true that public thinking is swayed by it. This is where the politics of the matter begin to enter the picture. Sound bites and cherry picking of data and statements go hand in hand with consensus science and are just as misleading. What has happened to integrity?

There are questions relating to the quality of data, natural variability, variables that are not understood or difficult to quantify, uncertainty, errors, unknowns and countless other factors that may reduce confidence in the results. If these are not made clear or excluded from the debate, then again the silent majority are guilty of turning a blind eye. Integrity requires that scientists address these issues.

If observation continues to shift the science in the favour of the deniers, climate science may at some point face a crisis of integrity and credibility and the silent majority will be in it up to their unseeing eyes.

Comment on The science and silence conundrum by Max_OK

0
0

Citizen scientists ? HA HA, what a joke !

I would label them “citizen windbags.”

Comment on The science and silence conundrum by kim

0
0

Heh, ‘far less’, he says. It’s the solution of an easy chemical equation to define ‘far less’. Can you do it, Max_OK?
===============

Comment on The science and silence conundrum by David Wojick

0
0

Sorry Andrew, but I do not see the point, especially since the second rendering is unintelligible. That global warming is happening (and real, which is the same thing) is certainly a scientific position, a quite common one in fact.

There are slight differences between a claim and a position. The former often concerns one’s own work. The latter often implies a controversy. But in general they are interchangeable. My claim is my position and Vivek versa.

Comment on The science and silence conundrum by Max_OK


Comment on Open thread by Bart R

0
0

kim | December 31, 2013 at 12:48 pm |

Was that “withdrawn prior to final publication where errors were found in the review process, corrected, and the paper reissued with corrections?”

http://retractionwatch.com/2012/06/11/paper-claiming-hottest-60-year-span-in-1000-years-put-on-hold-after-being-published-online/

Big whoop. Happens all the time. Why is it even worthy of special mention, that care is taken to correct mistakes?

It’s one of the few things scientific publications do right more often than not, and in sharp contrast with the Wegman plagiarism fiasco, the sole other withdrawn paper in climatology that Retraction Watch has listed.

Dr. Joelle Gergis has over three dozen publications to her name, and this the only one that even raises an eyebrow about an issue uncovered by the authors themselves before SteveMac’s chest-thumped ‘discovery’. Senior author David Karoly’s citation count (http://scholar.google.ca/citations?user=dvEJT1wAAAAJ&hl=en) itself is mindbogglingly admirable. Turney’s name doesn’t show up on the list of co-authors for the paper so far as I can find; perhaps you mean he was a peer reviewer, thereby part of the process that caught and corrected the mistake?

Comment on Blame game by Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

0
0

ordvic, I’m certain enough to act. If I weren’t certain enough to act, I would never do anything.

Dwelling on uncertainty, obsessing over it, can be paralyzing, and failure to act is not free of consequences.

Comment on Antarctic sea ice saga by lolwot

0
0

newsbusters is hardly a credible source of factual information

“In fact, rather than point out the mission was to find evidence of climate change”

That’s BS.

Comment on Blame game by Wagathon

0
0

Not so — whoever those people may be you can be sure they all believe that no one should be denied the freedom to choose their attitude.

Comment on Blame game by lolwot

0
0

Why not? Human activity is having unique influences on the climate. If unusual things are happening they are indeed candidates for being effects of human activity.

Comment on JC on NPR by Phillipp

0
0

My spouse and I stumbled over here coming from a different
website and thought I might check things out. I like what I see so now i’m following you.
Look forward to going over your web page for a second time.

Comment on Antarctic sea ice saga by ordvic

0
0

Surely you gest:

The Science Case

The Australasian Antarctic Expedition of 1911-1914 resulted in the first complete study of the vast region which lies south of Australia and New Zealand. The three years’ worth of observations gleaned by Mawson and his men provide a unique dataset against which we can compare the changes seen today. Policy documents highlight numerous science questions that need to be urgently addressed across the region. And yet, despite of a century of research, major questions remain about whether the changes seen today are exceptional. The combination of extreme conditions and vast distances involved make the Australasian sector of the Antarctic one of the most problematic to study.

The scale of Antarctica and the Southern Ocean is staggering. Over 98% of the continent is submerged by three large ice sheets that drown the underlying topography. The Australasian sector is dominated by the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, the largest of three ice sheets that contains enough freshwater to raise the world’s sea level by some 52 metres. Until recently it was thought this ice sheet was stable, sitting on the continental crust above today’s sea level. However there is an increasing body of evidence, including by the AAE members, that have identified parts of the East Antarctic which are highly susceptible to melting and collapse from ocean warming.

you did notice that:

….”that have identified parts of the East Antarctic which are highly susceptible to melting and collapse from ocean warming.”


Comment on Antarctic sea ice saga by Tim

0
0

While I agree about Newsbusters, there is still the stopped clock, twice a day factor. Are you suggesting that the cruise was not largely about publicizing “climate change”? Which is it? Was it a “scientific expedition” or a pleasure cruise?

Comment on Antarctic sea ice saga by ordvic

0
0

I believe they invited the public to help pay for it.

Comment on Antarctic sea ice saga by ordvic

0
0

meant: Surely you JEST

Comment on Blame game by Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

0
0

Waggy, those petition signers have the freedom to lie by saying they are THE people of the USA, and I have the freedom to point out they are liars. The truth is they are only Some of the people of the USA. Furthermore, I have the freedom to say I believe America would be a better place without them.

Comment on Blame game by lemiere jacques

0
0

What if compare to historical data observe less distasters than before “climate change” are observed ?
Poor countries will give money to rich ones?

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images