Bart, your right to free speech does not obligate me to listen to it or provide a platform for it.
Comment on In defense of free speech by curryja
↧
↧
Comment on In defense of free speech by Tony Duncan (@tonydunc)
Jim,
I have not seen any instance where Spencer’s speech has been infringed upon legally. I also do not see that valid science is being systematically refused publication. If that is the case, history shows that very quickly the inconsistencies in the “orthodox” science will become so egregious that, it ail fall apart very quickly. Are you aware of areas of research that are being refused to be examined, because they would lead to undermining ACC?
Of course this would be a conspiracy of unprecedented proportions, as you point out the internet very very quickly would expose the fraud and the vast majority of qualified honest scientists would immediately demolish attempts to corrupt valid research, by posting unimpeachable analysis and research that could not be effectively argued against by the “orthodoxy”.
I would guess it would take less than a year to expose any real systematic corruption in a field as politicized as ACC. Of course conspiracy theorist can maintain models for it for decades.
↧
Comment on Climate change: what we don’t know by Don Monfort
barty, barty
You obviously did not read the Frank Lansner post for which I graciously provided a link. You have not addressed the issues that were the subject of my comment. And BEST could not even get published in a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. So forgive me, if I don’t take your word that BEST clearly validated all the adjustments made on the same incomplete, unoriginal stepped on data that was produced by the consensus crowd. READ Frank Lansner’s post, before you continue to make a fool of yourself, barty.
↧
Comment on In defense of free speech by phatboy
Same with divorce
↧
Comment on In defense of free speech by Roger Clague
↧
↧
Comment on In defense of free speech by David Young
Monkton is a fringe figure who most don’t take seriously. Those who threaten free speech used to equally fringe. The problem is they are gaining more and more power to enforce their views.
↧
Comment on In defense of free speech by Roger Sowell
In the US, speech is not entirely free. There are many laws restricting speech, including at least 15 categories.
1. Defamation
2. Obscenity
3. Child Pornograhy
4. Heckler’s Veto
5. Commercial Speech
6. Fighting Words
7. Clear and Present Danger – Incitement
8. Death Threats
9. Hate Speech
10. Copyright, e.g. speech owned by others
11. False light
12. Innuendo
13. Infliction of Emotional Distress (Intentional or Negligent)
14. Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions on Lawful Speech (or expressive conduct)
15. Campaign contributions
16. False statements not defamatory, e.g. lies, deceit, fraudulent statements
↧
Comment on Worst case scenario versus fat tail by mwgrant
Oh? That is a curious point of view.
↧
Comment on Worst case scenario versus fat tail by phatboy
Jim D, yes there are ways out, as you put it.
But something’s got to cause a 2-million sq kilometre, 2-mile thick slab of ice to make for the nearest exit.
And I can’t see that being influenced significantly by an extra bit of summer surface melt.
If you have some good evidence that this is in fact being exacerbated to a significant degree, anything more than conjecture, then by all means bring it to the table.
↧
↧
Comment on Worst case scenario versus fat tail by phatboy
Jim D, yes, we might have 1000, but then again, we might not.
The two big melt years, 2010 and 2012, which were statistical outliers, coincided with Icelandic volcanic eruptions, North American wildfires and shifts in the jet stream.
We may have similar conditions this summer, in which case we might have another big melt, or we may not – time will tell.
↧
Comment on In defense of free speech by Eric
Bad Andrew, it is not a matter of belief but I think I get the gist of your question. The answer is no. Do you believe censoring the teaching about the Earths climate will change physics?
↧
Comment on In defense of free speech by jim2
From the article:
…
Joined by execs from Apple, Oracle, and Facebook, the Google Chairman asserted in a March letter to Secretary of State John Kerry that the proposed Keystone XL pipeline is not in the economic interests of the U.S.; the Obama administration on Friday extended the review period on the pipeline, perhaps until after the Nov. 4 congressional elections. And as a ‘Major Contributor’ to Mark Zuckerberg’s FWD.us PAC, Schmidt is also helping to shape public opinion on the White House’s call for immigration reform; FWD.us just launched new attack ads (videos) and a petition aimed at immigration reform opponent Rep. Steve King. In Dave Eggers’ The Circle, politicians who impede the company execs’ agenda are immediately brought down. But that’s fiction, right?”
…
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/14/04/20/1334231/google-and-facebook-unelected-superpowers
↧
Comment on In defense of free speech by jim2
Eric – catestrophic global warming and climate science aren’t the same thing.
↧
↧
Comment on In defense of free speech by Eric
jim2, by your definition everything is faith. Makes the word meaningless which makes your comment the same
↧
Comment on In defense of free speech by jeremyp99
In the UK it is now an offence to offend anyone. Similarly, a racist actg is any act that somebody perceives to be racist. Portmanteau legislation that can be applied as and when needed, and all working to shut free speech down.
Just say no.
↧
Comment on Forest climate and condensation by Dan Hughes
Douglas,
Here’s a recent paper in which formulation of the interfacial exchange / transfer terms are discussed. https://www.sintef.no/project/CO2%20Dynamics/publications/ergaccept.pdf
I’m not saying it’s the best or that the references cited are the best available. There are hundreds of papers like this and this one is as good starting point as any. You can work backward from the citations here, if you’re interested. The use of the entropy inequality has proven to be especially useful in the continuum mechanics approaches to the issue. And, that approach was one of the reasons that it took some time to sort out development of the fundamental continuum equations for materials with significant internal structure and responses. Even the mechanicians struggled with this. Questions about material frame indifference, even for simple materials, arose off and on for a while.
In particular, the lack of hyperbolicity, which is one of the focuses of the paper, was first identified ca 1973 and we finally got the paper published in 1978; Characteristics and Stability Analyses of Transient One-Dimensional Two-Phase Flow Equations and Their Finite Difference Approximations ( paywalled ) It was an extremely controversial, and very divisive, issue at the time, but is now well accepted.
Accepted on a theoretical basis, but exactly what it means relative to, especially, numerical solutions of the model equations continues to be investigated to this day. G. L. Browning and H. O. Kreiss have investigated the issue relative to some GCM model equations. And it seems to be somewhat controversial in this arena, too. All kinds of fixes have been proposed over the decades, and these investigations also continue to this day. Any kind of diffusion ( PDE or FDE ) will change the problem.
The multi-phase, multi-physics, multi-scale thermal sciences are fun :-)
↧
Comment on In defense of free speech by jim2
The Free Speech issue and censorship apply only to the government, including the courts. Individuals can listen to, or not, whomever they choose. Dr. Curry can deep six any comment she likes for any reason she likes.
↧
↧
Comment on In defense of free speech by George Turner
They’re probably fed up with inane attempts to stop a pipeline by talking about rainbows and polar bears.
The pipeline will eliminate emissions from the locomotives that currently haul the oil. Even if there wasn’t an alternate delivery method, and all the pipeline’s 830,000 bbl a day would otherwise not exist (in a World consuming 93.25 million barrels of oil a day), it still would represent a 0.3% reduction in CO2 emissions, which would reduce temperatures by approximately 0.006 degrees C, going by the EU goals of 2C by Lord knows when. But since the oil is going to be shipped with or without the pipeline, you don’t even get that much reduction. So of all the environmental considerations in building a pipeline, and there are many, that would not be one of them.
↧
Comment on In defense of free speech by Bad Andrew
I want to wish (Warmers included) all the contributors and readers of Climate Etc a Happy Easter. We have good reason to be joyful. He has made all things new.
Andrew
↧
Comment on In defense of free speech by Bad Andrew
“Do you believe censoring the teaching about the Earths climate will change physics?”
No. The climate is complex. I’m not sure why you think kids will understand something adults don’t understand. I’m not sure what scientific value you think there is in discussing climate with kids.
Andrew
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
