Yes, yes, Fan. It’s a given that any interaction with me is a pleasure for you.
Comment on Overconfidence(?) by David Springer
↧
↧
Comment on Overconfidence(?) by ordvic
Michael, when your ready to use a real argument (rather than ad hominem attack) I will gladly reply.
under confident?
Boo Hiss
↧
Comment on Overconfidence(?) by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
”
Tom Scharf | July 3, 2014 at 2:21 pm |wht: Finite reserves are finite.
In other news, the color black remains black, and scientists expect it to remain that way indefinitely.
“
Glad you understand that. Many people don’t. Either their job or their underlying agenda prevents them from believing that fact.
↧
Comment on Overconfidence(?) by David Springer
Tom Fuller | July 3, 2014 at 6:58 am |
“Actually, Mr. Springer, as a progressive liberal I like to harken back”
Let me rephrase. Is it too much to ask that your harkening involve less spinning of my mouse wheel to scroll past it?
↧
Comment on Overconfidence(?) by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
”
thomaswfuller2 | July 3, 2014 at 8:51 pm |Yes, I read Kevin Drum too. One thing that we can notice is that the warming considered dramatic during that period did not cause an increase in crime.
”
http://www.medicaldaily.com/some-it-hot-summer-crime-increase-linked-higher-temperatures-better-weather-288944
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jul/10/are-heatwaves-hotbed-for-crime
↧
↧
Comment on Overconfidence(?) by David Springer
Michael | July 3, 2014 at 8:50 am |
“I predict, with high confidence, that barely a day will go by without off-topic comments attacking other posters by David Springer”
The one attacking you wasn’t off topic. So you’re wrong there too. I must therefore ask again what have you been right about?
↧
Comment on Overconfidence(?) by Ed Barbar
isn’t the general problem that the consequences are high. it’s the oppenheimer thing. we have to react because it’s the end of civilization. oppenheimer was wrong in the large sense that putting the bottle on nuclear understanding could stop the catastrophic consequences. the understanding still emerged, and the world so far has managed them.
↧
Comment on Overconfidence(?) by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
If poker was actually like science, card-counting would definitely be allowed. The key to science, which none of you seem to understand, is that there are no rules when it comes to discovering the truth.
Fun to watch your indignation unfold.
↧
Comment on Overconfidence(?) by John Kennedy (@micefearboggis)
Boggis was my cat. She went by many names in her long life, but Boggis seemed to suit her best.
↧
↧
Comment on Overconfidence(?) by Alistair Riddoch
sorry PopesClimateTheory my comment accidently landed in the wrong spot. Hope webhub sees it here. :-)
↧
Comment on Overconfidence(?) by chris y
Chris Colose unwittingly(?) twits a canonical example of overconfidence-
“Yet not once has overconfidence by actual scientists been demonstrated.”
:-)
↧
Comment on Overconfidence(?) by Alistair Riddoch
Reposted, from where I accidentally put this under PopesCimateTheory.
……
Alistair Riddoch | July 5, 2014 at 12:28 am |
@WHUT
Hi WebHub. I read your list of climate clowns. But I didn’t show up at all. I often have theories my most recent and most serious being solar cycle related magnetic and gravitational fluctuations, and I believe I have compelling evidence that it is correct.
I found this GRACE mission data portal: http://geoid.colorado.edu/grace/dataportal.html
And looking at 2002, 2008, 2013, I see not only a relationship, but also a matching phase change. In those years, which are peak/lull/peak of solar cycles 23 and 24, the gravitational anomolies on Greenland reverse position. grey inside green, green inside grey. And I just cannot see houw CO2 can cause that, so I am thinking gravity MATTERs (see what I did there), more than we have been aware in the mainstream.
Plus in the past I have spouted off about radioactive decay variability, inconsistencies in the standard model, ranted about our acceptance of time dilation, and ignored the heliopause, it’s 38 billion km diameter donut shaped energy scoop, that travels at 26k/s and clears 39/40ths of the energy/matter in it’s path.
Does anything in there qualify me for your climate clown list??
I saw many names their of people here that I like and respect, and would be honoured to be included amongst them, or even listed as a second ranker, or perhaps, potential crank pending more information, or something.
PLEASE?
↧
Comment on Climate Smart Development by Tom Fuller
The climate consensus have ridiculed this approach for fifteen years, saying it was not enough and would give us a false sense of having addressed the problem. I suppose it’s encouraging to see signs of change.
But I expect to see downthread mutterings of ‘Breakthroughism’, ‘Pielkeism’ and (horrors) Lomborgian thought crime.
One of my favorites is removing restrictions on air traffic left over from the Cold War. It would allow shorter point to point flights that would save immense amounts of fuel.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate Smart Development by Tom Fuller
Well, there used to be 9 million bicycles in Beijing. That’s no longer a fact. It’s a thing you can deny…
↧
Comment on Overconfidence(?) by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
How else do you solve these problems? By imaging the solutions?
I worked out a set of equations that conserve the flow of energy.
Certainly more latent heat of evaporation occurs over the ocean and that gets dispersed to land.
↧
Comment on Climate Smart Development by Tom Fuller
Well, Mr. Buffett is getting rather richer by having Canadian oil transported by truck and train rather than pipeline. People don’t always choose the most efficient option unless either rewarded for good behavior or penalized for bad. But, then that’s government so for many here it’s off the table.
↧
Comment on Overconfidence(?) by Tanglewood
“institutionalization of overconfidence”.
Sums it up nicely.
But misses WHY this is happening – which is of course because it is all politically supplied funding being applied to make political correctness trump scientific correctness.
↧
↧
Comment on Overconfidence(?) by R. Gates
So, going back to Skippy’s nice bit of theory:
“The system is in equlibrium when:
d(W&H)/dt = energy in (J/s) – energy out (J/s) = 0″
___
Again, the problem is the system is never (or exceptionally rarely) in equilibrium and energy in therefore rarely equals energy out. More interesting therefore is the great majority of the time when one can add or sum all the forcings and find our exactly which way the system is moving– to accumulate or lose energy.
Additionally, yes, eventually all solar energy will go back into space, even though the time frame may be anywhere from seconds to millions of years, as eventually this universe will go into inevitable maximum entropy or heat death. So what?
↧
Comment on Climate Smart Development by Tom Fuller
Hi Andrew! How are you? It’s been ages.
I’m curious to know if anyone has done the math. If best efforts were undertaken to improve energy efficiency, remove black carbon from the Arctic and Greenland, remove restrictions on air space from the Cold War, etc., etc.,what would be the total effect?
What if we continue our modest subsides of renewable energy and remove restrictions in the developed world on the use of nuclear and hydroelectric power? What would that add up to?
On another thread I was pointed to a company that makes cement without CO2–wish I had the link. Cement contributes 5% of emissions. If we reforest rather than deforest, that would go towards the 17% of emissions from deforestation. (Remember when it was 25% of a lower total? We are making progress.)
Has anyone done the math?
↧
Comment on Overconfidence(?) by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
That equation by itself does not allow one to solve any problems. It functions only as a security blanket to someone not qualified to dig any deeper.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
