Register to Comment
Like Tree13215Likes
  1. #38781
    oneshotleft oneshotleft is offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    484

    No matter what you think about climate science, or science in general, I would hope that you would embrace the need for transparency of data as the most important issue of science, because it is within the data where truth lives. Without the verification and replication of science that data access allows, science runs the risk of falling victim to the human emotional condition of opinions, agendas, tribalism, and personal vendettas acted out via the process of noble cause corruption.

    I believe that is what we see here and it is a sad day for science when administrators in two universities and a journal editor circle the wagons to protect a science paper that may not only be wrong, but is likely based on an emotional response turned into a vendetta by the principal investigator, Lewandowsky, we all lose.

    In cases of public malfeasance, it if often the cover-up which gets more attention for prosecution than the original infraction, and this looks to be the making of just such a situation.


    A stunning revelation from a UWA Vice Chancellor Paul Johnson over access to Lewandowsky’s poll data


    No need to reply Moe, we know;

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    This is the nicest "Go Fck Yrslf!" I have ever read:
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #38782
    Trainwreck Trainwreck is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    17,948

    Quote Originally Posted by soubresauts View Post
    And you don't believe in the precautionary principle?
    No thinking person believes in the precautionary principle. It is an illogical concept that leads to stupid conclusions
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #38783
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    36,016

    Quote Originally Posted by soubresauts View Post
    And you don't believe in the precautionary principle?
    Good post here from Professor Kerry Emanuel on "tail risk".

    When we take out insurance, we are not think about the most probable outcome - that we will never be in a serious car accident, never suffer a house fire, never fall victim to serious illness while we are still young or in early middle age - we think of the risk in the upper tail of the probability distribution.

    That tail risk may be 5% or 1% or even less, but because it has a non-negligible probability, we do spend some hard-earned money on insurance against seriously disastrous events.

    Tail Risk vs. Alarmism, by Kerry Emanuel
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #38784
    Agnotologist Agnotologist is offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,925

    Quote Originally Posted by oneshotleft View Post
    ^ I guess I should explain for Aggy; Santa is not real, and CGW is not...
    Perhaps I should explain for you. That signature is the short form - the one for little minds - of Max Planck's statement about the equivalents to present day climate change deniers in the science community.
    appropriate for Lindzen, Singer, Gray etc.
    Last edited by Agnotologist; 3rd April 2014 at 11:11 PM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #38785
    oneshotleft oneshotleft is offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    484

    We have a new climate change consensus — and it's good news everyone

    We have a new climate change consensus — and it's good news everyone

    Climate change is now a question of adaptation. And it's not as frightening a question as you might think



    ‘The really big breakthrough in this report,’ he says, ‘is the new idea of thinking about managing climate change.’ His co-chair Vicente Barros adds: ‘Investments in better preparation can pay dividends both for the present and for the future … adaptation can play a key role in decreasing these risks’. After so many years, the penny is beginning to drop.

    We have a new climate change consensus
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #38786
    Agnotologist Agnotologist is offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,925

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    Good post here from Professor Kerry Emanuel on "tail risk".

    When we take out insurance, we are not think about the most probable outcome - that we will never be in a serious car accident, never suffer a house fire, never fall victim to serious illness while we are still young or in early middle age - we think of the risk in the upper tail of the probability distribution.

    That tail risk may be 5% or 1% or even less, but because it has a non-negligible probability, we do spend some hard-earned money on insurance against seriously disastrous events.

    Tail Risk vs. Alarmism, by Kerry Emanuel
    But don't you agree with the Trainwreck that "is an illogical concept that leads to stupid conclusions.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #38787
    barry schwarz barry schwarz is offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,414

    Quote Originally Posted by Trainwreck View Post
    No thinking person believes in the precautionary principle. It is an illogical concept that leads to stupid conclusions
    Thinking people and idiots take out insurance. The principle is endemic to many government policies and regulations on health, environment, fiscal planning and product safety. Decisions are taken all the time to reduce or prepare for risk in the face of uncertain knowledge. Pollution and contaminant levels are usually regulated to fall well short of the scientific threshold for safety. Use-by dates for food products are always set prior to spoilage estimates. The precautionary principle is not only not stupid, it is widely applied.
    Last edited by barry schwarz; 4th April 2014 at 01:29 PM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #38788
    barry schwarz barry schwarz is offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,414

    Quote Originally Posted by oneshotleft View Post
    We have a new climate change consensus — and it's good news everyone

    Climate change is now a question of adaptation. And it's not as frightening a question as you might think



    ‘The really big breakthrough in this report,’ he says, ‘is the new idea of thinking about managing climate change.’ His co-chair Vicente Barros adds: ‘Investments in better preparation can pay dividends both for the present and for the future … adaptation can play a key role in decreasing these risks’. After so many years, the penny is beginning to drop.

    We have a new climate change consensus
    Even in the main text of the press release that accompanied the report, the word ‘adaptation’ occurred ten times, the word ‘mitigation’ not at all.
    That's the central deceit of that article. A word search corroborates that the IPCC does not also propose that reducing fossil fuel burning will lessen climate change risks? Oh really?

    So why don’t we have intergovernmental panels on invasive species and overfishing?
    OMG, who is this journalist?

    http://www.un.org/Depts/los/conventi...CONF164_37.htm
    Last edited by barry schwarz; 4th April 2014 at 01:22 AM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #38789
    Steve Case Steve Case is offline
    Steve Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,197

    Here's the link to HADCRUT4 Global Land and Sea Surface Temperatures

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/te...adCRUT4-gl.dat

    Here's the format for the temperature data:

    for year = 1850 to endyear
    format(i5,13f7.3) year, 12 * monthly values, annual value

    Maybe someone can tell me what (i5,13f7.3) means, but besides that:

    The first line is:
    1850 -0.690 -0.279 -0.728 -0.565 -0.322 -0.215 -0.130 -0.234 -0.439 -0.455 -0.191 -0.265 -0.374
    And the last full line is
    2013 0.450 0.479 0.405 0.427 0.498 0.457 0.520 0.528 0.532 0.478 0.593 0.487 0.486

    So just for giggles, I averaged up those two lines and for the annual
    values I got -0.376083333 not -374 for 1850 and for 2013 they said 0.486
    and I got 0.487833333 Hmmm I thought, looks like the old lower the past
    and increase the current values to get a bump in overall temperature
    increase, so I averaged them all out and took the difference and plotted
    it out, looks like this:



    Now I'm sure there's a reason for this, but it's just one more in a long
    line of adjustments that always favor Global Warming theory.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #38790
    Trainwreck Trainwreck is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    17,948

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    Good post here from Professor Kerry Emanuel on "tail risk".

    When we take out insurance, we are not think about the most probable outcome - that we will never be in a serious car accident, never suffer a house fire, never fall victim to serious illness while we are still young or in early middle age - we think of the risk in the upper tail of the probability distribution.

    That tail risk may be 5% or 1% or even less, but because it has a non-negligible probability, we do spend some hard-earned money on insurance against seriously disastrous events.

    Tail Risk vs. Alarmism, by Kerry Emanuel
    Well first, we are thinking about the left tail in such examples. The right tail woild be winning the lottery.

    But more importantly the mitigation we take or insurance we buy will be determined by an assessment of the costs versus benfits of taking the risk.

    So, we do use cars. A lot, despite the ever present risk of death or injury (insurance does not mitigate or compensate against such outcomes).

    And we only insure when the cost of insurance isn't so great is swamps the assessed potential loss. People in flood plains rarely have flood insurance because they wouldn't pay the premium required to cover the risk underwritten.

    But where Emanuel needs to stick to what he knows, is that to price insurance we need to know with some measure of certainty the size and shape of the left tail and the costs associated with outcomes in that left tail.

    Unfortunately for Alarmist making spurious ill informed insurance analogies, the "science" is so full of holes we don't have any genuine knowledge of the size and shape of the left tail. And some of the left tail he wants us to insure has positive or negliginle costs. For example at high predicted temerature increases (predictions which now seem ill founded) the costs by 2100 would leave our grandchildrens'children SLIGHTLY LESS RICH THAN THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN OTHERWISE. Note: still much much richer than us.

    Emanuel knows not what he is talking about. Better stick to.something else.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment