When you use the same data set, one usually gets the same results.
Your logic is missing.
Comment on Climate change: what we don’t know by philjourdan
↧
↧
Comment on Climate change: what we don’t know by Steven Mosher
Don
“Judges very reasonable.” note I said “not unreasonable”
↧
Comment on The case of the missing heat by travailler a domicile
First off I want to say great blog! I had a quick question that I’d like to ask if you do
not mind. I was curious to know how you center yourself and clear your mind before writing.
I’ve had difficulty clearing my thoughts in getting my ideas out.
I truly do enjoy writing but it just seems like the first 10 to 15 minutes are wasted
simply just trying to figure out how to begin.
Any ideas or tips? Appreciate it!
↧
Comment on Worst case scenario versus fat tail by phatboy
Let’s see now. How long would it take 3.8W/m2 to melt through a 2-mile thick slab of ice?
↧
Comment on Climate change: what we don’t know by Steven Mosher
manaker.
so ironic that you make an appeal to authority.
Listen to feyman, he’s an expert.
What did feynman say? he said, dont believe in experts.
even feynman accepted that burden of proof was socially determined.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate change: what we don’t know by Bart R
AK | April 18, 2014 at 11:46 am |
Again, your claims are not very accurate in general. Failure to allow understory wildfire to clear debris can contribute in old growth conifer forests to more destructive upper story and complex fires spreading; that is true, but it also represents next to none of the brush fires in unforested grasslands, scrublands and new growth, which are also on the rise.
Your claims simply do not bear inspection when compared to facts, but merely cherry pick out the part of the far larger and more intricate wildfire situation. You minimize climate impacts by exaggerating a real, but much smaller, problem. Sure, _that_ smaller problem needs to be dealt with; indeed, in many places it has been dealt with by experts, and for many years.
↧
Comment on Worst case scenario versus fat tail by Wagathon
Chaotic distributions have fat tails.
↧
Comment on Worst case scenario versus fat tail by Black Swans And Dragon Kings | Transterrestrial Musings
[…] Curry disagrees with Kerry Emanuel on now to evaluate climate […]
↧
Comment on In defense of free speech by JCH
In the United States of America somebody can make up any horrible lie they want about you, repeat it to thousands of people, write down the leis in emails, and there virtually nothing that can be done about.
Nothing. It’s a disgusting situation.
And if some moron says “you can sue”, you really need to sit down with a lawyer and listen to how freaking expensive it will be and how a jury would probably allow damages of a few dollars because juries in general do not like to see people get rich through court action. You have to be able to afford justice.
Erosion of free speech my ass.
Try being the victim of malicious slander and libel. Nothing. Absolutely nothing can be done.
↧
↧
Comment on In defense of free speech by Theo Goodwin
Excellent post, Saint Judith. The idea that “hate speech” should be illegal, which was embodied in law during the administration of Bush the father, was a terrible mistake for the simple reason that there is no uninterested way to identify “hate speech.” Some of us opposed that act vigorously and continue to oppose its offspring.
↧
Comment on In defense of free speech by Bart R
A man who likens himself to Voltaire will invariably suffer from the comparison.
If you want to defend free speech, defend it here.
No more JC SNIP. No more timeouts. No more moderation. No more knuckling under when some neanderthal bully threatens legal action.
If you can’t do those things, then perhaps your actions and omissions have more bearing than the words you _do_ choose.
↧
Comment on Climate change: what we don’t know by Don Monfort
You are engaging in semantic quibbling, Andrew. Climate always happens. Otherwise simply means what would happen without human influences. If we returned to the old days of unfettered burning of coal. fuel oil and gasoline on a massive scale and it started getting really cold, you would probably be concerned.
↧
Comment on In defense of free speech by Jim Cripwell
Tony, you write “I don’t see where Steyn’s freedom of expression is being limited in any constitutional way.”
It is not just Steyn. Talk to Roy Spencer. He had a discussion with Andy Dessler on how to interpret CERES and ERBE data. He wrote a peer reviewed paper for Remote Sensing, and the outcry was so loud, that the editor resigned; though the paper was not retracted. Now Roy knows that it is a waste of time trying to get any of his ideas published in the scientific periodicals. But, luckily, he has his blog. And, of course, this is but one example. Think of Livingston and Penn.
Thank heaven for the internet, as the scientific establishment tries to close down all discussion on CAGW. And an enormous thank you to Judith Curry, and Climate Etc.
↧
↧
Comment on In defense of free speech by Ken Coffman
Tony, there is no scientific justification for taking a mush of proxy data, “hiding the decline” and appending the instrumental temperature record. I think fraud is a fair description of using a mess like that for propaganda purposes. For climatology to survive as a respected science, climatologists need to condemn the worst abuses of cherry picking data, pal review, demonizing legitimate critics, fear-mongering extrapolations, noble cause corruptions and artificial certainties. It’s amazing to watch the contortions of the AGW defenders–they cling to contrived talking points no matter how odious or absurd they are.
↧
Comment on In defense of free speech by Paul Matthews
On this subject, spiked online has recently launched a free speech campaign.
↧
Comment on In defense of free speech by Hank Zentgraf
Seven years ago, I was taking a Chinese history class discussing the end of the Ming dynasty. Before the class started, the professor spotted a young student reading a book by Dinesh D’Souza. With great dispatch the professor wadded through two rows of desk/chairs to confront the student. Looming over her he said “Don’t you realize D’Souza is a conservative?”
I was struck by both his scolding tone and the assumption that reading a conservative author is taboo. The fact that his behavior needed no explanation told me much about university intellectual diversity.
↧
Comment on In defense of free speech by Tony Duncan (@tonydunc)
Bad Andrew,
what gave you that impression? what I am saying is that courts determine constitutionality of speech. they have to look at facts and assertions and make judgements about their validity related the the relevance to the case
↧
↧
Comment on Climate change: what we don’t know by Bart R
Don Monfort | April 18, 2014 at 10:35 pm |
*sigh*
READ HARDER.
The alternative to adjusted data doesn’t need to be not using adjusted data, where one cleverly validates the adjusted data or makes such use of the data available as to demonstrate the adjustments have no net effect on the outputs one does use.
Hence, BEST showed in its early releases much about the land-only record as a whole, but almost nothing that could help out the Iceland poser. We’ll never know what the ‘valid’ temperature for a single station ought to be. That question is a non-ender, can never be finally answered, and we know that going into it. So why start it?
The questions BEST did answer obviously are answerable.
If someone were to solve the little proprietary intellectual property rights issue of the people holding out on weather station data, then the quality of the BEST figures would improve marginally. *shrug* Not economically worth it to pay that price financially, nor worth the delay of negotiating it, so why make a big deal out of something impractical?
You’re not going to shift the answers very much, and certainly not by enough to overthrow how Physics works. You can’t even get enough data to settle the least of the actually meaningful questions of Science with such an outraged approach toward people who won’t give away what they regard as theirs to you for free. So you feel entitled to it? What a surprise.
Pay for what you get, or do without. It’s called Capitalism, comrade.
↧
Comment on In defense of free speech by curryja
link?
↧
Comment on In defense of free speech by Jim D
The skeptics need consistency on this issue. Apparently it is OK when Monckton threatens to sue Abraham when he accuses Monckton of a fraudulent presentation, but not when Mann sues Steyn. Monckton often threatens suit. Is he trying to suppress of freedom of speech? Thoughts?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
