Because threading is broken, I need to clarify who is addressed by my last two posts.
This one,
as addressed to Dr Morton’s post:
This one,
is a reply to Capt. Dallas’,
↧
Comment on Will a return of rising temperatures validate the climate models? by eadler2
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by Joshua
Interesting.
somehow the delay in Schneider’s response justifies an academic writing a report, many years later, about Schneider’s statements without referencing how Schneider explained his statements when they were misconstrued.
“Skeptics” are a very creative lot. They find all kinds of ways to say “Look!!! Squirrel!!!!!”
↧
↧
Comment on Will a return of rising temperatures validate the climate models? by ceresco kid
We won’t hold that against you
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by Joshua
Heh.
Check out the date on this clarification.
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DetroitNews.pdf
Looks like some folks think that it’s skeptical to double down on a lack of due diligence by failing to perform due diligence!
How ethical!
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by Joshua
I mean “several years,” 9r “a year after the fact,” a gap of about two months, well what’s the difference?
Why nit-pick between squirrels, eh?
↧
↧
Comment on Will a return of rising temperatures validate the climate models? by rls
Max
“Especially laws that hold down the poor. Adam Smith admitted it.”
It must be intellectually comforting for progressives to read what is not there. Perhaps they do not lie all the time, perhaps the fondness for Marks makes them see and think things that are not there. There has to be a name for this condition! Marksian Dyslexia?
Richard
↧
Comment on Will a return of rising temperatures validate the climate models? by Beta Blocker
Basil Newmerzhycky: This is the trend-line chart that skeptics fear as much as dracula fears holy water.
Basil, the trend line in the HadCRUT4 plot indicates a warming of roughly 0.1C per decade between 1999 and 2014. However, current rates of increase in CO2 emissions are running at the high AR5 RCP8.5 scenario.
At current rates of increase in CO2 emissions, isn’t it perfectly appropriate to be thinking that the HadCRUT4 trend line between 1999 and 2014 should be running at least at 0.2C per decade, or even higher, not at 0.1 C per decade? What explains the difference?
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by Brandon Shollenberger
Max_OK, while it’s fine to be confused by a post, I think you’ll find saying, “I’m confused” does little to convince people the post is wrong. It might help if you actually raised some sort of rebuttal. Or David Appell could. Or anyone really.
As it stands, it seems whenever a case is actually laid out, all there is is deafening silence.
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by Pooh, Dixie
KevinK:
“Until then it is entirely unethical for a very small subset of the populace to be ‘spouting off’ on what the “climate policy” that we all must follow should be.”
On the contrary, Jerome Ravetz gave permission to do just that. E.g,
Ravetz, Ph.D., Jerome. “The Post-Normal Science of Precaution.” Futures 36, no. 3 (2004): 347–57. http://www.iris.ufsc.br/projetopar/docs/RAVETZ.PDF
Cass Sunstein took exception:
Sunstein, Cass R. Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
↧
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by phatboy
Except that the one from which you drew your quote in your comment to which I replied is dated 1996:
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199608/upload/aug96.pdf
It’s funny how one only really remembers years after the event what they were really thinking at the time.
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by Lars Karlsson
A Schneider quote from the link Joshua provided:
“I never have, and still do not believe or say that ends justify the means or that truth should be abandoned for a good cause – and what cause is more compelling than making nuclear war and its horrors more publicly known?
What I mean by the “double ethical bind” was not even represented in the Discover quote, which only provided a partial snapshot of my views. The “bind” that scientists face is that it is impossible to expect a complicated issue to be fully elaborated on in the public and popular media and thus a scientist who tries to explain to non-specialists the nature of controversial science, particularly that with policy implications, has to find a means to communicate effectively and honestly. To me that means using familiar metaphors.”
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by Lars Karlsson
By the way, that link was Lee’s source, so he must have read the quote above before he wrote:
“However, Schneider’s words in 1989 have served as an invitation to climate scientists to dilute or violate the ethics of scientific practice while – and this is important to grasp – viewing their actions as ethical because of a desire to make the world a better place. The irony here is that some climate scientists may be undermining their own arguments by adopting such an approach.”
↧
Comment on Will a return of rising temperatures validate the climate models? by Antonio (AKA "Un físico")
At last, after one yerar posting in this blog, I have found someone that agrees with myself. In: docs.google.com/file/d/0B4r_7eooq1u2TWRnRVhwSnNLc0k , I explain why current CMIP5 models are not reliable and why they have not predictive capabilities.
All this issue is a huge shame for IPCC authors and authorities.
↧
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by Lars Karlsson
Seems like “the quote above” is stuck in moderation. It was from Joshua’s Detroit News link, page 3, 3rd paragraph.
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by Latimer Alder (@latimeralder)
David Appell asks
‘What, exactly, was declining?’
The tree ring growth.
As I’m sure a veteran commentator like DA is well aware, the problem that was being hidden is that in recent years, the apparent correlation between tree ring size/growth and temperature had broken down. And as temperatures went up, tree ring size declined. It was otherwise characterised as ‘the divergence problem’
And why was it so significant? The whole of Mann’s reconstruction rested on the fundamental assumption that in some way or other, tree rings were good proxies for temperature. And in a very handwaving way there were periods through history when they seemed to be vaguely in step and perhaps good enough to carry the illusion that there was some fundamental relationship that was being explored in the Hockey Stick..
So when it became apparent that the correlation/relationship really had stopped working (if it was ever there at all) it raised the obvious question – if it doesn’t work now, why should we believe it ever worked? And without a good answer to that question then the whole basis of the HS and all other similar reconstructions fell. If tree rings do not consistently follow temperature what possible use is there to a ‘temperature reconstruction’ based on the rings? None at all.
IIRC when questioned the best that the perps could manage in their defence was that ‘the divergence problem has been discussed in the literature’. Which is/was a complete copout. It had indeed been discussed. But being discussed is not the same as being fixed. Their discussions had been along the lines of ‘That’s another fine mess you’ve got us into, Mikey’
And that Mike (presumably Mann) had to invent a ‘trick’ of concealment and that his coperps had learnt it and were happy to use it tto conceal the sad truth from the uninitiated shows just what a bunch of charlatans they are.
And that, my dear Mr, Appell, is what is really being concealed…the lack of scientific integrity of Mann’s Men.
That others who know full well what was done and why have consistently failed to condemn this ‘trick’ says volumes about their integrity too.
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by Andrew Russell
Cite YOUR context. This “context’ claim is one of the standard lies of the warmists, but they never cite what the context is – because they know the actual context make it WORSE. As those who are involved who actually have ethics have documented:
http://climateaudit.org/2011/07/23/building-trust-and-foi-refusals/
http://climateaudit.org/?cat=197460
http://climateaudit.org/2008/12/28/no-data-archiving-at-the-international-journal-of-climatology/
http://climateaudit.org/2007/04/20/measuring-precipitation-on-willis-boots/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/23/mr-david-palmer-explains-the-problem/#more-51620
http://climateaudit.org/2011/12/27/climategate-2-and-the-foia-mole-incident/
http://climateaudit.org/2011/12/27/climategate-2-and-the-foia-mole-incident/
http://climateaudit.org/2011/12/20/eudora-and-the-briffa-attachments/
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/12/17/the-palutikoff-email.html
http://climateaudit.org/2011/11/28/severinghaus-and-hide-the-decline/#more-15062
http://climateaudit.org/2011/12/06/climategate-2-0-an-ar5-perspective/
http://climateaudit.org/2011/11/25/behind-closed-doors-perpetuating-rubbish/
http://climateaudit.org/2011/11/28/direct-action-at-harvard/
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by rogercaiazza
This also could describe yesterday’s decision by the Cuomo Administration to ban hydro-fracking.
For the idealists in the Cuomo administration it is choosing between good and evil. Acting New York Health Commissioner Howard Zucker said “I cannot support (fracking) in the great state of New York.” Zucker said studies showed harmful health effects from fracking, and there were not enough long-term studies to show the effects over time. “The bottom line is we lack the comprehensive longitudinal studies, and these are either not yet complete or are yet to be initiated,” Zucker said. “We don’t have the evidence to prove or disprove the health effects, but the cumulative concerns of what I’ve read gives me reason to pause.” He said after studying all the analysis, for him it came down to one question: Would he want to live in a community that allows fracking? “My answer is, no,” he said. “We can’t afford to make a mistake,” “The potential dangers are too great.”
For the pragmatists elsewhere it means choosing between lesser evils and greater evils. New York State Senate majority leader Dean Skelos said “The decision implies that at least 30 other states, Senator Schumer and the Obama Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency are wrong about the health impacts and do not care about the well-being of millions of American citizens, and discounts the successes that are occurring in Pennsylvania and elsewhere.”
For cynics it could also be a purely political decision driven by an Administration more concerned with votes, appealing to base support and political ambition than anything else.
↧
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by Andrew Russell
Here is a good example of the “ethics” of UN organizations: The Green Climate Fund wants $10 billion AND immunity from prosecutions for whatever they do with it.
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by Toby White
” the greater the speculation and uncertainties involved, the weaker the ethical claim. Conversely, as the certainty increases, the stronger the ethical claim.”
Not quite. This statement may confound two separate risks of policy calls based on scientific conclusions. The first is uncertainty, as discussed. The second is that, regardless of scientific accuracy, the policy recommendation may run counter to other values. It isn’t just that uncertainty affects our assessment of “the future of the environment or the future of the poorest citizens on Earth.” Even with complete certainty, people simply put different values on environmental health and the alleviation of poverty, and the two goals frequently conflict — or at least present different priorities.
If that’s correct, then the scientist proposing large-scale policy changes has two separate ethical constraints. First, she must fairly disclose the uncertainties of her scientific support. Second, she must explain the non-scientific value choices which are the basis of any priority claim on public resources. The second task isn’t always that difficult, but it requires explicitly making political choices and separating them clearly from scientific analysis.
[Maybe reason actually works. I found myself completely changing some strongly held assumptions in the course of crafting this comment. Someone please tell me that I’m wrong …]
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by Don Monfort
It’s funny to watch the contortions of the usual clowns as they attempt to defend the indefensible. We know what Schneider meant. Just as we know what Gruber meant. But we would be amused if you could find some more BS ex post facto “explanations” for us, joshie.
↧