Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148656 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by Rob Ellison

$
0
0

If you look at websites that have been around for 10 years or 15 years, those that have communities that are actually constructive where the comment threads are interesting and the discussions are good and they are actually adding to the value of the place, are ones that tended to start very carefully. The people who founded them or who started them, the early members of the community, were all present. It was like a big company that just opened up some space and said to the world come on in and comment. Usually there was some kernel of committed individuals, people who felt that this was their place, and they were having a conversation about something that they cared about and that sort of established the initial norms of that space.

And then over time as new people would arrive they would look around and see, oh, this is the kind of place where people are saying things that they care about or they are putting some effort into their comments or they are saying things that they want other people to hear and they are not getting into fights with each other. There is a kind of contagion to good manners and bad manners and to not just manners but to the substance of what people are talking about that applies online as well as it does in-person conversations.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/futuretense/online-comments—ep/5795478#transcript

After a long winded discussion of blog civility this morning – that’s their solution? What we have in the climate war is a community of climate extremists who move freely between encampments on both sides. The home territory is the training ground for activists who venture out to skirmish in enemy territory. This is a very different dynamic to that described above – and a vigourous defense of the home territory is required to avoid the polarized discredication effect. The tactic is very simple. Be as uncivil as possible in commentary and that creates adverse perceptions of the content.

Uncivil discourse is a growing concern in American rhetoric, and this trend has expanded beyond traditional media to online sources, such as audience comments. Using an experiment given to a sample representative of the U.S. population, we examine the effects online incivility on perceptions toward a particular issue—namely, an emerging technology, nanotechnology. We found that exposure to uncivil blog comments can polarize risk perceptions of nanotechnology along the lines of religiosity and issue support. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcc4.12009/abstract

The activists self identify with groups and adopt group memes. They have negatives stereotypes of the opposition. Warmist or sceptic – and I am very commonly both at the very same time. Mind you – I am happy not to be a skydragon or one of the Borg Collective.

We now, with the internet, have the opportunity to talk to each other and actually look at things slightly differently, go into perhaps more depth than you can fit into a newspaper article. But the problem is that with the way that comments are run at the moment, quite often what you see is antagonistic minorities shouting at each other, rather than the broader middle ground having a meaningful discussion, because those people, those moderate views get drowned out by the sort of rage and hysteria from the extremes of the spectrum.


Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by Rob Ellison

$
0
0

I keep forgetting that the threading is stuffed.

If you look at websites that have been around for 10 years or 15 years, those that have communities that are actually constructive where the comment threads are interesting and the discussions are good and they are actually adding to the value of the place, are ones that tended to start very carefully. The people who founded them or who started them, the early members of the community, were all present. It was like a big company that just opened up some space and said to the world come on in and comment. Usually there was some kernel of committed individuals, people who felt that this was their place, and they were having a conversation about something that they cared about and that sort of established the initial norms of that space.

And then over time as new people would arrive they would look around and see, oh, this is the kind of place where people are saying things that they care about or they are putting some effort into their comments or they are saying things that they want other people to hear and they are not getting into fights with each other. There is a kind of contagion to good manners and bad manners and to not just manners but to the substance of what people are talking about that applies online as well as it does in-person conversations.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/futuretense/online-comments—ep/5795478#transcript

After a long winded discussion on blog civility this morning – that’s their solution? What we have in the climate war is a community of climate extremists who move freely between encampments on both sides. The home territory is the training ground for activists who venture out to skirmish in enemy territory. This is a very different dynamic to that described above – and a vigourous defense of the home territory is required to avoid the polarized discredication effect. The tactic is very simple. Be as uncivil as possible in commentary and that creates adverse perceptions of the content.

Uncivil discourse is a growing concern in American rhetoric, and this trend has expanded beyond traditional media to online sources, such as audience comments. Using an experiment given to a sample representative of the U.S. population, we examine the effects online incivility on perceptions toward a particular issue—namely, an emerging technology, nanotechnology. We found that exposure to uncivil blog comments can polarize risk perceptions of nanotechnology along the lines of religiosity and issue support. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcc4.12009/abstract

The activists self identify with groups and adopt group memes. They have negatives stereotypes of the opposition. Warmist or sceptic – and I am very commonly both at the very same time. Mind you – I am happy not to be a skydragon or one of the Borg Collective.

We now, with the internet, have the opportunity to talk to each other and actually look at things slightly differently, go into perhaps more depth than you can fit into a newspaper article. But the problem is that with the way that comments are run at the moment, quite often what you see is antagonistic minorities shouting at each other, rather than the broader middle ground having a meaningful discussion, because those people, those moderate views get drowned out by the sort of rage and hysteria from the extremes of the spectrum.

Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by A fan of *MORE* discourse

$
0
0

Rob Ellison is concerned “Uncivil discourse is a growing concern in American rhetoric”

Rob Ellison, please direct your attention to the ultimate in abusive, threatening, anti-science, anti-discourse incivility  the increasingly prevalent practice of Weev/WUWT-style “doxing”, which in climate-science has been directed preferentially against women who speak out

Further reading  The Chinese idiom for “doxing” is Human Flesh Engines (Chinese: 人肉搜索) … a topic of great interest both to Judith Curry (as a scientist and a woman) and to her Chinese hosts!

\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 Open thread by Faustino

$
0
0

Former UK Environment Minister Owen Paterson has attacked the UK’s AGW policies. In a speech to the GWPF entitled “Keeping the lights on”, he will say that Britain is the only country to have agreed to the legally binding target of cutting carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.
Campaigners fear that this will bring a big increase in the number of wind farms. They say that to hit the target Britain must build 2,500 wind turbines every year for 36 years.

Mr Paterson will say that the scale of the investment required to meet the 2050 target “is so great that it could not be achieved”. He will warn that Britain will end up worse off than if it adopted less ambitious but achievable targets. Mr Paterson voted for the 2008 Climate Change Act in opposition and loyally supported it when he was in power. However, since he left office he has considered the effect of the legislation and has decided that Britain has to change course.

He will argue this week that ministers should exercise a clause in the Act that allows them to suspend the law without another vote of MPs. In his speech, on Wednesday night, Mr Paterson will state that, without changes in its current policy, large-scale power cuts will plunge homes across the country into darkness.

“Blind adhesion to the 2050 targets will not reduce emissions and will fail to keep the lights on,” he will say. “The current energy policy is a slave to flawed climate action. It will cost £1,100 billion, fail to meet the very emissions targets it is designed to meet, and will not provide the UK’s energy requirements. In the short and medium term, costs to consumers will rise dramatically, but there can only be one ultimate consequence of this policy: the lights will go out at some time in the future. “Not because of a temporary shortfall, but because of structural failures, from which we will find it extremely difficult and expensive to recover.”

He will say that the current “decarbonisation route” will end with the worst of all possible worlds. The Government will have to build gas and coal power stations “in a screaming hurry”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/11156113/Scrap-the-Climate-Change-Act-to-keep-the-lights-on-says-Owen-Paterson.html

Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by tonyb

$
0
0

Fan

With your 5.36 comment you seem to have accidentally taken a comment from the start of the discussion rather than the end where the consensus was not your comment here;

‘Summary Borehole data independently and striking affirm the physical reality of the climate-change “blade” of Mann’s hockey-stick … now we can focus on the “handle”!’

but this; “I think we can agree that the Hockey stick was ultimately a dud as it failed to recognise the LIA and other climate variations. Climate was NOT virtually static for hundreds of years until Man supposedly altered it. Dr Mann rewrote ‘settled’ science when he rewrote the history books”

http://judithcurry.com/2014/10/09/my-op-ed-in-the-wall-street-journal-is-now-online/#comment-636937

tonyb

Comment on Open thread by Faustino

$
0
0

Tee hee. And “Howay th’ lads!”

Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by Faustino

$
0
0

Tony, do you mean his 536th comment?

Comment on Open thread by  D o u g  

$
0
0

There is absolutely no other way to explain how the necessary energy gets into the surfaces of Earth and Venus than by non-radiative heat transfer, because the intensity of solar radiation just is nowhere near enough. It’s not hard to understand once you understand what thermodynamic equilibrium is all about, and if you have no idea why this is important to understand then you are best either working it out for yourself, reading my book “Why It’s Not Carbon Dioxide After All” or keeping out of all discussion pertaining to planetary temperatures, because these temperatures are not determined by radiation alone – not by a long shot, and the world has been very seriously misled by the biggest scientific blunder of all time.


Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by climatereason

$
0
0

Faustino

Who says satire is dead?

tonyb

Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by Alexander Biggs

$
0
0

Beth: thank you. These look like the results presented to thr=e House and illustrate well the exaggeration by the models.

Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by  D o u g  

$
0
0

There is absolutely no other way to explain how the necessary energy gets into the surfaces of Earth and Venus than by non-radiative heat transfer, because the intensity of solar radiation just is nowhere near enough. It’s not hard to understand once you understand what thermodynamic equilibrium is all about, and if you have no idea why this is important to understand then you are best either working it out for yourself, reading my book “Why It’s Not Carbon Dioxide After All” or keeping out of all discussion pertaining to planetary temperatures, because these temperatures are not determined by radiation alone – not by a long shot, and the world has been very seriously misled by the biggest scientific blunder of all time.

http://climate-change-theory.com

Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by  D o u g  

$
0
0

Join the 56,600 people who have visited my website for more information.

Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by jim2

Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by PA

$
0
0

Jim D
“PA, yes in the longwave the water is net emitting, like I said, or did you mistakenly believe I suddenly switched to bringing shortwave into it when up till now I only talked about longwave. Sorry for your misunderstanding.”

Well, I was trying to point out that 20% of solar radiation at the surface is near infrared that doesn’t penetrate very far. Everything over roughly 750 nm only penetrates about 10 μm.

But I’ll still look around for a good analysis of the ocean surface because the surface physics is pretty critical.

Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by AK

$
0
0
<blockquote>AK, if you understand it why are you arguing with me instead of HS about the importance or not of the skin layer?</blockquote><a href="http://judithcurry.com/2014/05/21/mechanisms-for-warming-of-the-oceans/#comment-563196" rel="nofollow">Been there, done that, threw away the T-shirt.</a><blockquote>This was a waste of time.</blockquote><a href="http://judithcurry.com/2014/10/09/my-op-ed-in-the-wall-street-journal-is-now-online/#comment-637140" rel="nofollow">Pop-a-top!</a>

Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by climatereason

$
0
0

Jimd

You didn’t really answer my question.

I live 100 yards from the ocean which is affected by the Gulf stream.
It keeps us a little warmer in winter but rather cooler in summer.

Increasing its temperature by a fraction of a degree is going to have no noticeable effect on us at all.

The heat isn’t going to concentrate itself in just one small area and jump out at us is it? It will be diffused within the water layers over the entire ocean area. .
tonyb

Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by omanuel

$
0
0
Wagathon, Watching a Food Bank distribute free food to hungry people here yesterday, I concluded that <b>communism works as well in the USA today as it did in the past in China and in the old USSR.</b>

Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by David Wojick

Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by Jim D

$
0
0

Tonyb, it certainly is a common misconception that the missing heat will come back out of the ocean some time in the near future. The excess energy accumulates almost entirely in the ocean, and it can’t just increase its volume OHC without the ocean surface warming forever, but it can do that temporarily, which delays global warming until the surface temperature does start warming consistently with the OHC. So, it is not the missing heat coming out, but a resumption of the surface warming to catch up with the OHC change rate.

Comment on Open thread by Rob Ellison

$
0
0

A series of interplanetary probe missions over the next two decades – four US Mariner missions, two US Pioneer missions and sixteen Soviet Venera missions including eight Venera missions that returned data successfully from the surface – refined the estimates of surface temperature and substantially revised the conception of the atmospheric mass and composition. By the late 1970’s, it was known that the surface temperature was nearly uniform at 737K. The atmosphere was found to be much more massive than originally thought, in fact sufficiently massive to raise the surface pressure to 92 times that of Earth’s atmosphere. And, it was found that the atmosphere consisted almost entirely of carbon dioxide, with only traces of water vapor remaining. The thick clouds that give Venus its high reflectivity were found to be made not of water, but of droplets of
sulfur dioxide and concentrated sulfuric acid. It took the better part of another decade before the challenges of dealing with the effect of such an exotic atmosphere on climate were fully mastered and a fully satisfactory account of the high surface temperature could be given.’ http://cips.berkeley.edu/events/rocky-planets-class09/ClimateVol1.pdf

About 35% of sunlight penetrates into the atmosphere – about 3% penetrates to the surface.

Viewing all 148656 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images