No change from any one who counts in team climate change. They cannot afford to throw the baby [Mann] out with the cold bathwater.
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by angech
↧
↧
Comment on Institutionalizing Dissent by jeremyp99
For “hiatus”, substitute “cessation”.
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by dlb
Yes, all that popcorn I bought has past its use by date. Just as well I wasn’t relying on it for sustenance.
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by thisisnotgoodtogo
McIntyre just caught another clanger in Pilty’s complaint
This time, taking only 3 sentences into his complaint before the false statement emerges, Dr. Mann is claiming to have been, with his colleagues to be among the first to document 20th century measured temperature rise.
↧
Comment on Institutionalizing Dissent by Joshua
JIm –
I think that conspiratorial ideation is definitely quite evident in the threads of the “skept-o-sphere,” but I have no evidence to conclude that conspiratorial thinking is more prevalent among “skeptics” than among any other particular group.
My guess is that the conspiratorial thinking such as we see here from the likes of GaryM, Wags, Cwon, Chief, AK, Rud, et al., is mostly a reflection of the identity-aggressive and identity-defensive behaviors associated with motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning comes about because of attributes in human cognition and psychology. There’s no reason to think, IMO, that there is any strong correlation between a prevalence of motivated reasoning and views on climate change.
I’m open to evidence otherwise, however.
↧
↧
Comment on Institutionalizing Dissent by stevefitzpatrick
Joshua,
1. I was joking.
2. I was poking fun at the tendency of dedicated greens to declare anyone who disagrees with them insane.
3. I was trying also to point out that assuming the worst (insane, dishonest, liars, criminals, etc.) about your political opponents is seldom constructive.
Poking fun at the incivility of your political opponents is pretty common when those opponents are behaving badly. There is already too much incivility, on both sides, in debates about global warming and energy policy. There seems to me too much of “they disagree with my beliefs, priorities, goals” = “they are evil”. Leaves no room for policy compromise, you know?
↧
Comment on Institutionalizing Dissent by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
JamesG, Is there something wring with you?
You don’t deprive science students of fundamental knowledge because of some crazy right-wing ideology of your own making.
Find out what Georgia Tech teaches in their climate science courses and get back to us.
↧
Comment on Institutionalizing Dissent by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
“if you don’t agree with us you must have some mental problem”
Jim Reedy, You must not understand projection. It was not Joshua or I that joked about “institutionalizing” someone. That was this guy Fitz. You are projecting.
↧
Comment on Institutionalizing Dissent by naq
Where would we be today if experts had not seen all their tipping points.
Don’t worry, he thinks it’s our fault but the study will say something different.
↧
↧
Comment on Institutionalizing Dissent by nottawa rafter
Michael, just substitute “self” for “commercial” and you have described the situation in climate science to a tee. All the incentive structures, intentional or not, lead to actions and inquiries which are discussed in the piece. Grants, promotions, peer acceptance and fear of ostracism are the dominant forces at work, not pure science.
↧
Comment on Institutionalizing Dissent by naq
If AGW scientists can make the world hot enough…
who needs a prison anymore.
↧
Comment on Open thread by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
”
captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2 | August 19, 2014 at 3:10 pm |
Manabe has already suggested that the “discrepancy” could be as much as 100 degrees. Try again.
”
What a weak strawman argument, Cappy. Anybody could say that if CO2 had 3X the GHG potential the discrepancy would be 100C or 3 X 33C. But it doesn’t because the theoretical process already includes compensating factors such as the negative feedback lapse rate. That’s why it is 33C and not 100C.
You either know this already and you are arguing out of some agenda, or you really don’t understand physics and you ought to wear the dunce cap, Cap.
↧
Comment on Institutionalizing Dissent by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
Webster, “You don’t deprive science students of fundamental knowledge because of some crazy right-wing ideology of your own making.”
I doubt any person, conservative or liberal wants to deprive anyone of “fundamental” knowledge. Some would like to limit the amount of embellishment of fundamentals that is allowed. Watch a video of Hansen sometime where he starts off with bullet proof fundamentals then his eyes take on that stoner look and suddenly the oceans are boiling.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
Webster, “You either know this already and you are arguing out of some agenda, or you really don’t understand physics and you ought to wear the dunce cap, Cap.”
The estimated albedo is 30% with a small portion reflected by the actual surface and the majority reflected by clouds that are a response of the liquid portion of the surface. If the distribution vary from 100% at the actual surface to 100% at some atmospheric “surface” there would be around a 2 C variation in the impact at the true surface. Even if albedo remains constant, there is a +/- 1C margin of error in the 33C “discrepancy”. What is used to determine the 33C discrepancy is a mixture of subsurface ocean temperature and land “surface” temperatures averaged from a range of about -80C to 50C at altitudes from below sea level to kilometers above sea level. That makes the reference, as in frame of reference, unreliable as an indication of change in “surface” energy.
Since you tend to pick the most unreliable of the unreliable reference, land surface temperature to predict thermodynamic doom, you obviously have little understanding of the thermodynamic portion of the physics.
↧
Comment on Institutionalizing Dissent by AK
<blockquote>Maybe just take your own advice, reread basic thermodynamics and remind yourself why heat by-passing the first 700m and settling in the deep ocean is unphysical.</blockquote>It doesn't bypass it, it just passes through faster, without warming it up (if it actually does). There's nothing <i>"unphysical"</i>, or even implausible, about more heat ending up below 700 meters without any net warming above. Claims that there are just make real skeptics look silly by association.
↧
Comment on Institutionalizing Dissent by A fan of *MORE* discourse
climatereason/tonyb says “Fan, you have surpassed yourself with putting forward as candidates [for honest critics] those long dead.”
Ouch! Have Climate Etc readers forgotten the life-and-lessons of Diogenes of Synope? Here is a remedy:
“Looking for an Honest Man”
Reflections of an Unlicensed Humanist
Leon R. Kass / Jefferson Lecture
American Enterprise InstituteEveryone has heard the story of Diogenes the Cynic who went around the sunlit streets of Athens, lantern in hand, looking for an honest man. This same Diogenes, when he heard Plato being praised for defining man as “an animal, biped and featherless,” threw a plucked chicken into the Academy, saying, “Here is Platonic man!”
These tales display Diogenes’ cynicism as both ethical and philosophical: he is remembered for mocking the possibility of finding human virtue and for mocking the possibility of knowing human nature.
Question Are we “plucked chickens”, to abandon human morality to the soul-less machinations of market fundamentalism’s willful ignorance and moral blindness?
Kudos for history-of-science scholars like Naomi Oreskes, for so diligently shining the lantern of scientific inquiry upon the cognitive origins, economic consequences, and moral implications of market failure, in her great lecture “Scientific Consensus and the Role and Character of Scientific Dissent“
Conclusion Summon your intellectual and moral fortitude, and take a lesson from Diogenes’ and Oreskes’ search, oh Judith Curry and 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}](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=bbffcc&fg=0055ff&s=2 "\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 Institutionalizing Dissent by David Jay
Web:
Really? REALLY? That’s all it takes? There is no possibility of any confounding variables in the climate system?
Why are we spending Billions on research if any Undergrad can do the derivation?
I will toss out just one little itty bitty factor: T^4
↧
↧
Comment on Institutionalizing Dissent by AK
I must confess I thought for your last link it would lead to Hansen so you do retain the capacity to surprise…
AFAIK all the popular browsers will show you the URL of the site linked to in the bottom left corner when you hover the mouse over the link. Noticing that the domain (“casinapioiv.va”) ended in “.va” (Vatican), you might have known it would have something to do with the “Pope”.
↧
Comment on Institutionalizing Dissent by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
AK, “There’s nothing “unphysical”, or even implausible, about more heat ending up below 700 meters without any net warming above. Claims that there are just make real skeptics look silly by association.”
I believe Trenberth’s travesty email highlighted the confusion on deeper ocean heat uptake. Many skeptics have just pointed to his confusion then based on their “model” claimed it is unphysical. With mechanical mixing and chaotic atmospheric influence on the mixing efficiency, it could appear to be unphysical in any simple model including Trenberth’s.
BTW, variation in mixing efficiency or internal unforced variation is pretty much discounted by all the grand poohbah’s simplistic models.
↧
Comment on Institutionalizing Dissent by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
This topic on CO2 as a GHG is taught in classes on atmospheric physics and climate science and is contained in fundamental textbooks. At GaTech, if you answer the exam questions wrong, you are liable to flunk out of the course. Is “dissent” worth risking not passing your courses?
It’s not like petroleum engineering classes, where you still find the occasional passage that says that crude oil is essentially an infinite resource. The petroleum engineering profession is interested in preserving their future, doncha know Cappy.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
