Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148372 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on More scientific mavericks needed by A fan of *MORE* discourse

$
0
0

JOKE  An economist returns to visit her old school. She’s interested in the current exam questions and asks her old professor to show her some.

To her surprise, they are exactly the same ones that she had answered 10 years ago! When she asked the professor about this, the professor answered, “The questions are always the same. Only the answers change!”

Conclusion  It’s time to lift the old dead libertarian hands of Ayn Rand and Robert Heinlein from the climate-change debate.

`Cuz their juvenile economic shibboleths just plain don’t work, eh Climate Etc readers?

\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}


Comment on More scientific mavericks needed by Matthew R Marler

$
0
0

AlainCo:Cold fusion is getting industrial, and soon you will see big names (if National Instruments, Toyota, STMicro,Mitsubishi,Baoding HIDZ, Cherokee fund, Sunrise securities, Nasa, Navy, SRI, ENEA, Elforsk, are not enough)…
http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/

Can you give us a hint on “soon”? Commercial working devices were promised by 1990. There was another of those famous bets where a backer promised a working go-cart motor by year’s end. (The letter announcing that the bet had been lost by the promoter was written by Richard Garwin and published in Science Magazine.) They have been promised “soon” annually since then. The devices touted at lenrnews over the last few years are cheap to build and test, and yet they still do not accomplish even one useful task in public.

So, …, how about 2020 for “soon”? Is that too soon for you? Would you get behind 2030? That’s only 16 years from now.

Comment on More scientific mavericks needed by AK

$
0
0

I started a comment earlier, then stopped. But I guess I’ll mention it, although I’m sure anybody who follows my comments knows what I’m going to say.

Why not modify the tax laws so that any business can devote a portion of its tax bill to specified forms of research, instead of the government? Offer them limited IP, more than nothing but less than patent rights they’d get from research funded by their own money.

Now, there’d certainly be a modicum of cheating, putting the money to “research” simply intended to siphon some of it back. But there’s already cheating on taxes, and this would be just one more type.

Many businesses and wealthy individuals, however, would probably look to research that they thought had some chance of paying off. They’d do it in all sorts of different ways, depending on the idiosyncrasies of decision makers.

Research intended to contribute to solving the “fossil carbon problem” could well be included as eligible. So could research intended to address any perceived problem, both those facing our current civilization, and those of scientific theory. So could “blue-sky” research.

I’m not saying it would be any sort of “magic bullet”, but allowing such large amounts of money to be allocated at the whims of thousands (or even millions) of people would work as a sort of “scatter-shot”, evading the restrictions of “by-the-book” scientific mainstreamers.

Comment on More scientific mavericks needed by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)

$
0
0

Lewis — low-balled TCR by 50%, letter grade = F
McIntyre — he’s just an auditor, N/A as a real scientist
Istvan — he writes books on topics, where is the research?
Brown — a historian, not a real scientist
Tisdale — WTF is that all about ? He claims that global temperature is the result of integrating the PDO. That is so clearly wrong.

The acid test of good research is whether one can build from their work. No way that I can see.

Comment on More scientific mavericks needed by Matthew R Marler

$
0
0

WebHubTelescope: The first 5 are clowns.

The one I have read extensively is Steve McIntyre. He has published in the peer-reviewed literature. His critiques of Mann et al are well worth careful reading. Bob Tisdale writes a lot of statistical/graphical summaries of important data time series.

Could you document that any of them writes more junk than you do? I don’t think they do worse than make an occasional mistake or excessive claim. your csalt model is ok, but the claims you make for it, other than that it fits well, are absurd

Comment on More scientific mavericks needed by GL Remote

$
0
0

Congratulations Judith on being appointed to the APS review commitee.

Comment on More scientific mavericks needed by Matthew R Marler

$
0
0
webhubtelescope: <i>McIntyre — he’s just an auditor, N/A as a real scientist </i> He has, I repeat, published in the peer-reviewed literature. He has found serious contradictions in the writings of Mann. And he published an important corrective to a paper by Eric Steig about temperatures in Antarctica.

Comment on More scientific mavericks needed by A fan of *MORE* discourse


Comment on More scientific mavericks needed by kim

$
0
0

Dispersion of heat.
Lithium batteries boil?
Rosenthal research.
================

Comment on Growth versus sustainability by timg56

$
0
0

lolwot,

Where do you get the numbers to support your claim?

My grandfather and uncles worked far more than 8 hours a day mining coal. 6 days a week.

Comment on More scientific mavericks needed by kim

$
0
0

Will the antibody arrive in time to save the children? It depends on the snow, more than the dogs.
========

Comment on Growth versus sustainability by timg56

$
0
0

Bart,

While recent “studies” might indicate that, real world agricultural data is not. The world keeps setting record crop outputs, and doing so on a continually decreasing amount of land.

But you go on believing in studies that are little more than expensive computer gaming.

PS – with more than half of the world’s food lost to spoilage, the opportunity is there to more than make up for any 25% decrease from climate issues.

Comment on Growth versus sustainability by Diag

$
0
0

Is there a Miss Universe utopian galaxy I don’t know about?

Put it this way — ALL progress (economic growth if you will) is due to technology. We started in some warm place, Africa I’m told. To live in any colder place than that, we had to invent fire, clothing, shelter, agriculture, and a few other things. Not even going back so far, think of how your ancestors lived a century ago compared to how you live now. Maybe they had horses and now you have cars. What enabled that? Lots of little and big ideas which make the production of steel and everything cheaper and better. Or higher productivity if you will. I will leave to someone else to support a claim that religion and politics helped too. If you want to discuss unequal distribution of wealth and justice, you might start there.

Comment on More scientific mavericks needed by lolwot

$
0
0

any climate wiki or answer site run by climate skeptics is doomed from the start.

Skeptics simply wouldn’t agree on anything and they wouldn’t be able to seek out a consensus on matters without fragmenting. For example under the topic of “Global Temperature” a good number of skeptics would argue that the whole concept of global temperature is false and doesn’t exist, whereas yet others would claim it does exist but it can’t be measured while other skeptics would say it does exist and has been measured and here is what it shows. A hopeless mess.

Comment on More scientific mavericks needed by aaron


Comment on More scientific mavericks needed by pokerguy (aka al neipris)

$
0
0

“Normal folks apologize for mistakes and learn from them.”

Hey there Fan, just for fun would you care to list some of the mistakes you’ve made and which you’ve apologized for, here on Cilmate Etc?

Also, as I’m certain there must be a bunch of them given that you’re human after all….and normal certainly….what you’ve learned from them?

Comment on Growth versus sustainability by timg56

$
0
0

Ouch.

You know how to hurt those poor little old well educated liberals. Some of my best friends are in that category.

Comment on More scientific mavericks needed by David Springer

$
0
0

A score is 20 so it’s not even that long ago.

Comment on More scientific mavericks needed by lolwot

$
0
0

probably there was something in your comment that looked like sql and their server mistook it for an attack

Comment on Growth versus sustainability by timg56

$
0
0

David Appell,

Yes.

In exchange for a flat tax.

Viewing all 148372 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images