Thanks!
Agree with the convergence to the truth, as I classify myself as a pragmatist/instrumentalist, rather than a positivist.
The meta-consensus indeed applies mostly to scientific disciplines (or even smaller scientific disputes) that become a, what I call, socially hot topic (I apologize for the wordplay). Another example is the debate on whether or not to launch the Challenger spaceshuttle for instance from aerospace science. Examples are actually many where science meets society and other considerations come into play. Also as the notion is a social notion, it is more contextually dependent than formally fixed. More on this also in the paper.
Comment on Distinguishing the academic from the interface consensus by LaszloKosolosky
↧
↧
Comment on Distinguishing the academic from the interface consensus by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
From my perspective, most of the distrust centers over exactly what the consensus is on. Does CO2 increase the likelihood of warming by about 1 C per doubling? yes
Is at least some significant portion of the observed warming due to activities of mankind? yes
Then the consensus starts falling apart with nasty exchanges and abusing the “consensus” to drive policy.
↧
Comment on JC at the National Press Club by Tonyb
Curious
Over here we’ve had a spate of turbines falling over in much less than the maximum stress wind speed. I don’t know how common this is.
Tonyb
↧
Comment on Distinguishing the academic from the interface consensus by AK
What it doesn't show is all the molecular shape-changes associated with dropping a phosphate off of ATP. Those are what <a href="http://artksthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/05/wiring-cell-for-power.html" rel="nofollow">power</a> it.
↧
Comment on Distinguishing the academic from the interface consensus by willard (@nevaudit)
Even better with comments:
> Swiggity swooty. I’m coming for that booty
↧
↧
Comment on Distinguishing the academic from the interface consensus by NW
In this one instance at least, you’re on the lucky side of the pond.
↧
Comment on Distinguishing the academic from the interface consensus by Bob
Funny, Ole Willy.
↧
Comment on Distinguishing the academic from the interface consensus by WebHubTelescope
The CSALT model will never be completely predictive unless volcanic events can be predicted. Those lame seismologists … they can’t predict anything !
Thanks for contributing an #OwnGoal by mentioning CSALT.
↧
Comment on Distinguishing the academic from the interface consensus by willard (@nevaudit)
Add “http://” to this:
imgur.com/gallery/cDakD23
↧
↧
Comment on Distinguishing the academic from the interface consensus by Rob Ellison
WebHubTelescope | September 19, 2014 at 2:17 pm |
“Rob Ellison | September 19, 2014 at 12:07 am |
And there is no runaway feedback. CO2 varies with temperature“
Taz — Thank you for the #OwnGoal.
Atmospheric CO2 varies with temperature.
Runaway feedback doesn’t happen – because it hasn’t happened. Perhaps because of the Planck response or the saturation function.
There is no point to webnutcoloscope’s comment – except to suggest that I am a Tasmanian devil it seems. This is a very real little carnivore for which we have a wary affection. The Loony Tunes version he refers to seems an apt vehicle for his puerile interjections.
Why is this permitted to continue? There is no substance to anything he says – just insults and abuse and prattling and preening. Why not just put him into permanent moderation and not post anything that doesn’t make any rational point? That would be basically everything. Easy. Time constraints? Simply stop him polluting the site permanently then. This would be reasonable moderation as practiced at any random site.
His only purpose here is to insult and berate ‘sceptics’ – basically anyone who disagrees with his eccentric ideas – and then to return with tales of the Krackpot and her Klimate Klowns to his natural haunts. It is more than time that this disruptive and malicious influence – someone totally off the planet it seems – be effectively moderated.
↧
Comment on Distinguishing the academic from the interface consensus by NW
A soundtrack would rock, like maybe Brick House.
↧
Comment on Distinguishing the academic from the interface consensus by Rob Ellison
whoops… wrong image…
The other one comes from my Facebook announcement that I am retiring from adulthood. Decisions will be made by the eenie, meenie, miney, moe method. Arguments will be settled by sticking out my tongue. If you want me I will be at recess.
↧
Comment on Distinguishing the academic from the interface consensus by Ragnaar
Jim D:
I can follow your infinite series idea which may be helping me. I am trying to visualize a graph of this. At first the effect of plus 1% CO2 is high until something like diminishing returns makes the effect flat line into nothing. Until more CO2 is added and this thing repeats. Describing it this way implies a picture of a large reaction at first which implies the starting point is unstable. It also implies the ending point of increased temperatures is a stable one. While I may understand what Hansen did, I am not sure that’s how the Earth works. I would be interesting to think about multiple iterations rather than use one long time frame.
↧
↧
Comment on Distinguishing the academic from the interface consensus by TJA
Wow Webby, I can see that you have thought through these issues as thoroughly as Mann has!
↧
Comment on Distinguishing the academic from the interface consensus by Wagathon
<blockquote>…you don’t need to be a trained climatologist to smell danger when someone says, Anthropogenic greenhouse gasses are warming the planet, so we need to ramp up taxes, institute a command-and-control economy, stop industrial development in the developing world, and, y’know, just maybe, suspend democracy and jail people who object… ~Prussian (What is Mann that thou art mindful of him?)</blockquote>
↧
Comment on Distinguishing the academic from the interface consensus by JeffN
Hi Tony,
In Klein-world, anyone who doubts that AGW is catastrophic enough to demand “radical” global socialism is a “hardcore denier.” You’ll notice that she includes liberals who merely want a tax hike in the list of “hardcore denier.”
A Kleiniac must believe AGW is imminent and catastrophic. Otherwise, you don’t get what you want politically. And if you don’t get what you want politically, well then they don’t really care about AGW.
Did you see the article is illustrated by images of demolition of a nuclear power plant? Why would someone who wants mitigation celebrate the destruction of the world’s only functional zero emission power plant type?
The world wonders, eh FAN?
↧
Comment on Distinguishing the academic from the interface consensus by willard (@nevaudit)
My vote:
↧
↧
Comment on Distinguishing the academic from the interface consensus by Wagathon
If the consensus of those on the Left is that global warming made him do it (or was at the least a contributing factor), Baltimore Ravens football player Ray Rice may have a valid defense to spousal battery.
↧
Comment on Distinguishing the academic from the interface consensus by willard (@nevaudit)
Dear naq,
You might like Robert Adams’ presentation of No Great Mischief:
[audio src="http://podcasts.tvo.org//bi/audio/2091735_48k.mp3" /]
↧
Comment on Distinguishing the academic from the interface consensus by jim2
One aspect of global warming is that H2O feedback was supposed to amplify the CO2 warming resulting in catastrophic warming. Something I haven’t seen considered is that IF the ocean is absorbing the CO2 warming, there won’t be much H2O feedback. I mean, after all, another 0.01 C warmer ocean isn’t exactly going to stuff full the atmosphere with water vapor.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
