I must say that I like what you have been doing on your quest.
Comment on What exactly is going on in their heads? by DocMartyn
↧
↧
Comment on What exactly is going on in their heads? by David L. Hagen
<B>Why not include "global cooling"?
Verheggen et al. used keywords “global warming” and/or “global climate change”
Why did they not include the term "global cooling"?
e.g., <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22global+cooling%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C15&as_ylo=1950&as_yhi=2014" rel="nofollow">Google Scholar notes 15,000 hits papers from 1950 to 2015 addressing "global cooling".</a>
↧
Comment on What exactly is going on in their heads? by Faustino
I’ve had telepathic communication, over distances up to about 150 miles. No artifacts involved, only with one person (although I could pick up some things from other people). This was in 1974-75, not since. Our brains are more powerful than we think, we just don’t develop all of their capacity. But with modern tele-communications, why worry about telepathy.
↧
Comment on What exactly is going on in their heads? by Faustino
Correction, 1973-74.
↧
Comment on What exactly is going on in their heads? by David L. Hagen
Webhubtelescope
What about temperature driving CO2?
e.g. what if you changed from “CO2″ to fossil CO2 from anthropogenic sources, and average ocean temperature rather than atmospheric CO2.
On LOD, few models include it.
Try publishing it with a prediction based on training from data before 1950, and post an ongoing monthly comparison like Scafetta.
↧
↧
Comment on What exactly is going on in their heads? by Jim D
Then there is a big gap between what kim calls a difference between basic science and catastrophe. It is not one or the other, unless you skeptics automatically equate 4 C with catastrophe.
↧
Comment on What exactly is going on in their heads? by Steve McIntyre
Dan Kahan’s work is infused with the conceit that his opponents have ideology, but he doesn’t. For example, consider Kahan’s silence on the Lennard Bengtsson incident in light of his following analysis: http://www.nature.com/news/why-we-are-poles-apart-on-climate-change-1.11166
Kahan considered the potential social crisis for someone taking a position that “conflicts with their cultural group”. His example is tellingly a “barber in a rural town in South Carolina” who want to take action on climate change:
Yet the impact of taking a position that conflicts with their cultural group could be disastrous. Take a barber in a rural town in South Carolina. Is it a good idea for him to implore his customers to sign a petition urging Congress to take action on climate change? No. If he does, he will find himself out of a job, just as his former congressman, Bob Inglis, did when he himself proposed such action.
But isnt the Lennard Bengtsson incident an example of someone taking a position that “conflicts with their cultural group”. But although this incident was very widely covered and very controversial and even though it seems to exemplify one of Kahan’s core hypotheses, Kahan did not write about the incident and was seemingly blind to it, because he is much quicker to recognize ideology among his opponents than in himself and people with whom he sympathizes. An easy enough failing, but one hopes that social scientists would be more objective.
In The German Ideology, Marx condemned “the sanctimonious and hypocritical ideology of the bourgeoisie [which] voices their particular interests as universal interests.” Something that Kahan might reflect on/
↧
Comment on What exactly is going on in their heads? by Rob Ellison
They don’t need a map – it’s on the bus route.
↧
Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by Don Monfort
I enjoy watching webby flounder just as much as the next man, but can anybody produce a reference to anything that indicates that anyone has used B-E stats in relation to water molecules in the atmosphere, other than Judith and Vitaly? Hey, maybe they made a mistake.
↧
↧
Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by Don Monfort
I’ll try again:
I enjoy watching webby flounder just as much as the next man, but can anybody produce a reference to anything that indicates that anyone has used B-E stats in relation to water molecules in the atmosphere, other than Judith and Vitaly? Hey, maybe they made a mistake.
↧
Comment on What exactly is going on in their heads? by gbaikie
The same people who want to hear a barber “explain” **climate change**, are same people who pay thousands of dollars to listen to Al Gore.
And Barber don’t get fired for talking about anything, they get fired for driving away customers. As in who in there right mind wants to be stuck in chair and forced to listen to someone like Al Gore?
↧
Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by mwgrant
Carrick wrote
“It includes the page in which WHUT was disputing the use of Bose-Einstein physics”
Just FYI
‘Pages 293 to 303 are not shown in this preview’…same as before. Section 8.2.3 ~1 p. starting on 299…maybe WHUT post entire section. If so that is a little thin. Hope it was done as a correspondence moment. ;o)
Oh, well…enough of this silliness.
↧
Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by mwgrant
Hi Don.
It indeed has gotten a bit sloppy hasn’t it?
↧
↧
Comment on What exactly is going on in their heads? by willard (@nevaudit)
> The mitigation and impacts categories also create a structural bias that invalidates such studies. There is no disconfirming counterpart to mitigation or impacts papers/authors. There is no opposite of a mitigation paper, which will almost always be counted as endorsement.
Category “mitigation”, search term “climate”, classified as a 6:
http://skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=search&s=climate&a=&c=3&e=6&yf=&yt=
Category “impacts”, search term “climate”, classified as a 6:
http://skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=search&s=climate&a=&c=2&e=6&yf=&yt=
Jesus.
↧
Comment on What exactly is going on in their heads? by Rob Ellison
I was sitting around one day dreaming when a young friend said something to me. I was a bit distracted – and an elaborate explanation of adults and sexuality flashed instantly through my mind. Not a single word was uttered. I swear she laughed and said – that’s silly.
↧
Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by mwgrant
"Hope it was done as a correspondence moment."
should be
"Hope it was <i>not</i> done as a correspondence <i>principle</i> moment. "
[Shouldn't have 'Thom Hartmann' on in background]
↧
Comment on What exactly is going on in their heads? by willard (@nevaudit)
> If Verheggen et al did not screen out social science papers, or all the other non-climate papers, like all the irrelevant engineering papers, and it appears they did not , then their results are voided — their poll consists of the authors of those papers.
Oh snap:
Survey Respondents
11. How many responses did you get to the survey?
Out of 6550 people contacted, 1868 filled out the survey (either in part or in full).
12. How did you compile the list of people to be surveyed?
Respondents were selected based on
– keyword search in peer-reviewed publications (“global climate change” and “global warming”)
– recent climate literature (various sources)
– highly cited climate scientists (as listed by Jim Prall)
– public criticisms of mainstream climate science (as listed by Jim Prall)13. Are all of the survey invitees climate scientists?
The vast majority of invitees are scientists who published peer-reviewed articles about some aspect of climate change (this could be climate science, climate impacts, mitigation, etc.). Not all of them necessarily see themselves as climate scientists.
14. Why did you invite non-scientist skeptics to take part in the survey?
They were included in the survey to ensure that the main criticisms of climate science would be included. They constitute approximately 3% of the survey respondents. Viewpoints that run counter to the prevailing consensus are therefore somewhat magnified in our results.
15. How representative are the survey responses of the “scientific opinion”?
It’s difficult to ascertain the extent to which our sample is representative, especially because the target group is heterogeneous and hard to define. We have chosen to survey the wider scientific field that works on climate change issues. Due to the criteria we used and the number of people invited we are confident that our results are indeed representative of this wider scientific field studying various aspects of global warming. We checked that those who responded to the survey were representative of the larger group of invitees by using various pieces of meta-information.
16. Did you take into account varying levels of expertise of respondents?
Respondent were asked to list their area(s) of expertise and their number of peer-reviewed publications. These and other attributes were used to interpret differences in responses.
17. How did you prevent respondents from manipulating the survey results, e.g. by answering multiple times?
An automatically generated, user specific token ensured that respondents could only respond once.
18. How did you ensure respondent anonymity?
Survey responses were analyzed by reference to a random identification number.
They don’t even claim representativity.
Jesus.
↧
↧
Comment on Trenberth’s science communication interview by Rob Ellison
It seems unlikely that Pratt has heard it is on the G20 agenda before.
↧
Comment on What exactly is going on in their heads? by Skiphil
Joshua, if you are ever able to relax your obsession with "skeptics" you might find you are more concerned about combatting the mainstream toxic drivel like this (at link), which poisons the public discussions and renders many independent minds less likely to respect what issues forth from the various true believers in dangerous "climate change":
<blockquote>
<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/02/24/205554/my-response-to-dr-judith-currys-unconstructive-essay/" rel="nofollow">"Turns out McIntyre shills for Big Oil after all"</a>
↧
Comment on What exactly is going on in their heads? by willard (@nevaudit)
Speaking of being “seemingly blind to it”:
To my knowledge, Mr. McIntyre – who purports to have considerable statistical expertise – has failed to “audit” the Douglass et al. paper, which contained serious statistical errors.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
