Image of harried author busily hammering at the keyboard: <em>Dear GOOGLE, was it 200 solar energy companies went bankrupt over the last two years or was it a large number that went bankrupt during the last two quarters?</em>
Comment on The raw politics of science by Wagathon
↧
↧
Comment on The raw politics of science by skiphil
Hugh,
alas, since Fan’s output here is nearly indistinguishable from The Onion (except that Fan is rarely funny), it will not be possible to determine whether or not Fan was taken in by that parody from The Onion.
For even if FOMT should claim he was not taken in, such a claim from him should not be regarded as credible.
↧
Comment on Are the deep oceans cooling? by Curious George
“This shows that the ocean heat content responds not only to current trends in forcing, but also to those centuries ago.”
Very likely. How do models represent it?
↧
Comment on The raw politics of science by Hugh Whalen
Skiphil,
True.
↧
Comment on Are the deep oceans cooling? by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
R. Gates, “Speaks to this long memory and is especially important when thinking about what may be going on in the deeper ocean.”
Ah, but there is a rub. From the roughly 1225 AD mega-volcano with plenty of extra volcanic activity to the depths of the LIA around 1700 AD would produce a “long memory” that could last to the present and beyond. That recovery would be called a long term persistence that is categorically denied by the pohbahcy.
↧
↧
Comment on The raw politics of science by markx
FOMD, Ha ha! It reminds me of the cartoon chart of the rise of the use of the word “sustainable” in modern language.
…… it showed that by the year 2100 all sentences would consist only of repetitions of the word “sustainable”.
↧
Comment on Are the deep oceans cooling? by AJ
Doc, I’m thinking that a relatively small change in velocity can have a large impact on the rate of energy transfer. Say the “heat highway” in the Southern Pacific is 2000km wide x 1km deep, runs 1C warmer than surrounding waters and had a baseline velocity of 5cm/sec. It probably wouldn’t take much of a change in velocity to produce a 1 Hiroshima/sec increase in energy uptake. All I’m suggesting is that there might be a mechanism by which heat could be transferred from surface to the deep without being noticed in the mid-layer. Would we notice a small change in velocity?
If you allow me to speculate further, this could also help explain the apparent 60yr cycle. Assuming that the rate of uptake is an underdamped system, this would be seen in cyclical SST behavior. If this were the case, then I would guess that the case for CAGW is diminished. We would still have AGW, but it would be more in line with the ~60yr average from say 1950 to today than the 30yr average between say 1975-2005.
I haven’t thought about how this would relate to co2 uptake. Interesting subject I’m sure.
↧
Comment on The raw politics of science by jim2
So let me get this straight. If you accumulate some scientists in one place for an extended period, they tend to form a social hierarchy. The ones at the top of the hierarchy attempt by various, even nefarious, means to maintain their position because there are more perks for those at the top.
Wait a minute! Are you saying … no! it can’t be … that scientists are HUMAN???
Get outta here!
↧
Comment on Are the deep oceans cooling? by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
AJ, ” to produce a 1 Hiroshima/sec increase in energy uptake.”
Hiroshima is so 20th century we should try Solandra/sec
↧
↧
Comment on The raw politics of science by Cosmic Ray
” I’ve lost my top dog status in certain circles.”
FWIW, you have “top dog status” in my circle. Why? Because I believe you’re a genuine honest scientist. (Don’t expect any awards or perks…)
Pielke Sr. is another one I trust and feel the same way about.
↧
Comment on Towards a pragmatic ethics of climate change by Mike Jonas
Understood, but they are an important part of the debate – particularly Wells’ thoughtful comment. Many people actually get their ideas and/or their arguments from these (yes, I do too – some(!)). In any DIalogue, third parties are often the most important (passive) participants.
↧
Comment on The raw politics of science by Fernando leanme
My blog uses images and it seems to help. But I’m a very visual person. And I think most of my readers are college students with a weird sense of humour. They seem to like the ones with funny photos. I would encourage Dr Curry to use them as well. Meanwhile I’ll see if I can write something just for you.
↧
Comment on Towards a pragmatic ethics of climate change by David Wojick
Mosher, can you at least give us an example of treating the world like garbage?
↧
↧
Comment on Towards a pragmatic ethics of climate change by Curious George
Dangers ahead: We drove up from Southern California, and did not have a Northern California DeLorme atlas. I told my fair lady, a mathematician, Simply extrapolate the Southern California atlas.
Isn’t it what Climate Changers are doing?
↧
Comment on Towards a pragmatic ethics of climate change by mosomoso
“…the pragmatic approach naturally pushes the greatest obligations and costs onto those (rich countries) most able to act.”
Buried right in the centre of this cake of apparent good sense…that little poison pill of warmism. The author has the tactical shrewdness not to specify much what “acting” is for or why those designated as “rich” should “act”. Perhaps because we are so conditioned to associate climate with “acting” and “tackling”? The confounding of CO2 with actual pollution seems to have been achieved after a couple of decades of solid propaganda…so why make oneself needlessly unpopular with those skeptics?
That little warmism pill is kept deliberately tiny here, and you might miss it, but the cost of swallowing that pill is more massive white elephants to trample economies. It is no comfort that the white elephants are imposed on “the rich”. If the waste and economic deterioration go on, it matters not if they are afflicting the rich or the poor. All people everywhere are entitled to reduce actual pollution and reduce it now. Conservation (as opposed the mass neurosis called “being green”) is for everyone and it’s for the here-and-now. Nobody should waste resources on phantom pollution and its phantom consequences. Or has the “climate debate” been about something else?
And if you are in any doubt that this is, at base, a heavily moderated warmist tract flavoured to appeal to skeptics:
“We need a broader ethical debate about what the consequences of climate change will be for what we humans have reason to value so that we can take really credible actions to protect them.”
“For example low-lying places such as Bangladesh or the Maldives are at particular risk from rising sea-levels…”
Bangladesh has been at particular risk since God made deltas, but someone needs to tell the author that the Maldives are out of the climate refugee business and into the business of air-freighted caviar for zillionaires.
Got us again, warmies!
↧
Comment on The raw politics of science by cwon14
It changed because the funding and cultural domination of academia and thereby “research” became more part of the Keynesian central planning design. The “blue state” economic model;
http://www.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/01/28/american-challenges-the-blue-model-breaks-down/
While it’s commonly and ignorantly (Fanboy being a perfect illustrator of the delusion) claimed superior education leads to a more progressive (left-wing) outlook how does this explain the democratic party’s domination of prison populations, methadone clinics, homeless shelters or generally people with extreme low incomes and very poor educational results? (yes, they’re on the “blue” model as well). The urban poor and commonly dis-guarded? (blue model). Society is more complex with more enclaves and inner workings. Secular humanism, statism and/or atheism, the net cultural results can cross among many groups and classes. Hence the Hollywood producer, millionaire if you will, can share many of the same social and political views with someone he might never to directly associate with personally and hold complete contempt for in a mutually exclusive way (say other than politics).
The same paradox is found in the “science” and “education” community. Many highly compensated (at least when compared to median incomes of different fields) consider themselves exploited economic victims who are under appreciated and under represented politically. Many share a great sense of job insecurity (although objectively their jobs are more secure statistically to the general population), a contempt for the “private sector” and those who pursue “profits”. This is very common across the country and at the university level and is essential to the socialization and peer group formation. So while Michael Mann might objectively be seen as paranoid delusional, in his own mind he is a “victim” fighting for a righteous cause (against industrial might for example) and is subject to persecution from political enemies. How this culturally becomes an enclave in largely government funded universities and perpetuates itself over decades is worth considerable reflection. The “Blue State” economic model which is also the tradition found in Old Media or the government bureaucracy itself both of which are also democratic (left-wing) enclaves. So what is perpetuated in public unionized schools to the proletariat, proliferates at elite and common university levels each with their own government related funding mechanisms (debt finance, endowments benefiting from fiat currency related asset inflation or who the “1%” REALLY ARE for example) consolidated over 100 years of massive government expansion, cronyism and institutionalization. The academic and “science” left aren’t just a political block they are a social and cultural class with a wide variety of groupings that even compete with each other but share the same political orthodox.
Some sciences lead itself more to private sector symbiosis and there you will find the skewing of political acculturation less pronounced, computer science, engineers etc. as you stated. The fantastic growth in research and academic funding (largely through debt) from the WW2 period on has created the politically needed hand-to-mouth culture of a Blue State operation. From this abyss rose “climate science” which is comparable to casinos adding slot machines to bathrooms in the now distant past. Due to the massive over leveraging the “science” community, in particular the fluff and junk science portions which climate science is surely a member, are likely to continue in the most reactionary fashions as the events in Australia, little discussed for tactical reasoning of the media blue arm are certainly apparent;
A rent seekers nightmare.
↧
Comment on Towards a pragmatic ethics of climate change by Angech
The size of the slices of cake fit the sizes of the participants exactly so what is the problem?
Without the morality (or righteousness) there is no imperative for action.
The ethical way to view what someone who did something harmful but before anyone realised it was harmful is very clear.
“We know they were wrong so they and their successors must pay”
After all ethics is for the complainers.
↧
↧
Comment on Towards a pragmatic ethics of climate change by Angech
To paraphrase, no one needs ethics when they are right
TM angech
↧
Comment on Towards a pragmatic ethics of climate change by Alexander Biggs
It is now clear that the predictions of the mathematical models were all wrong. Instead of the monotonic rise in global temperature predicted by the scientist consensus, we have a flat result since 1997 which leavrs the consensus in disarray.
↧
Comment on Towards a pragmatic ethics of climate change by Repeal the Act! (@faykellytuncay)
I am just reading ‘Arming Mother Nature: The Birth of Catastrophic Environmentalism’ a history by Jacob Darwin Hamblin. See his lecture here:
“When most Americans think of environmentalism, they think of the political Left, of vegans dressed in organic hemp fabric, lofting protest signs. In reality, maintains historian Jacob Darwin Hamblin, the movement and its dire predictions owe more to the Pentagon than to the counterculture.
In his new book Arming Mother Nature, Hamblin argues that military planning during the Cold War created “catastrophic environmentalism”: the idea that human activity could cause global natural disasters. This awareness emerged out of dark ambitions, as governments poured funds into environmental science in search of ways to harness such natural elements as animals, bacteria, plants, and even the weather to kill millions of people. Hamblin presents his research, which is rapidly changing our understanding of the Cold War and the birth of the environmental movement.”
This history adds to the debate and tells us something about the U.S Democrats and the British Labour party, who are so keen to support the morphing of the Cold War narrative into the Climate War.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
