Breakable
Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
BreakableKeymasterPhil’s Dad wrote:
You’ve gone off at a rather odd tangent here since corporations will not be the decision makers in this matter.
Still, since you bring us here, ignorance is not the alternative to the precautionary principle but the root cause of it.Ignorance is thinking that something less than precautionary principle can protect the public. Does you experience suggests that lobbying and corruption cannot tilt any decision towards business interests where there is no clear cut boundary? Lets imagine a softening of Precautionary principle : “precautionary approach”. So now government can decide if economic costs are larger than public benefit. Basically inflating economic costs (which cannot be verified), can prevent any action.
BreakableKeymasterProbably continue working in the same field for the rest of their lives, or move to other fields if the funds are not available.
It does not (or at least should not) matter for a scientist if his research is right or wrong, the work is to test it.
Specifically http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenure positions were made to solve any pressure issues.
Edit:The only problem would be if they start not to do their job properly and go into Denial.BreakableKeymasterBrian H wrote:
Wikipedia has been systematically filtered on the subject by William Connolley; it often takes just hours for any information questioning the Warmist orthodoxy to be deleted. Wikipedia is in general very unreliable on any controversial topic. The edit wars are endless.I am really interested where do you get your information from?
Original sources are probably the best, but I wonder if anyone has the time to read thousands of papers every day.
I consider myself Wikipedia to be one of the best sources for controversial information. Surely the wiki-wars are going on all the time, but It as long as there is a stakeholder it should be possible to get the truth out. Look – we even got a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_fusion article out!BreakableKeymastermsmith wrote: http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php
I really hate to be a GW advocate – I have better things to do, but when facing blatant mi/dis-information,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition#Criticism_of_the_Oregon_Petition
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py2XVILHUjQ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus
According to the results of a one-time online questionnaire-based statistical survey published by the University of Illinois, with 3146 individuals completing the survey, 97% of the actively publishing climate scientists (as opposed to the scientists who are not publishing actively) (i.e. 75 of 77 individuals out of the 3146) agree that human activity, such as flue gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion and deforestation, is a significant contributing factor to global climate change. Overall, 82% reported agreeing with AGW.[1] According to additional sources, the majority of scientists who work on climate change agree on the main pointsBreakableKeymasterBrian H wrote: The point is that the CRU Team etc. aggressively exclude input from those qualified in the various genuine sciences. Their mathematical hand-waving, e.g., uses PR to substitute for acknowledging the impossibility of producing the kinds of projections they claim.
Interesting paper with zero substance. Author(s) claims he has discovered (absolutely true) principles of forecasting which everyone must adhere to, but he does not provide any proof of. Why does he not use those principles to make some money in forex, stock market, horse race or football betting? Or do they only predict where you can not make any predictions?
Much more substance you can find here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Circulation_Model#Accuracy_of_models_that_predict_global_warmingBreakableKeymasterRegarding the precautionary principle I think corporations would love to throw it away. The alternative Ignorance principle sounds much cheaper. Actually all regulation costs money so it would be nice to abolish it and let the free market resolve all the issues – the strong will survive and the weak will perish.
I like how the free market resolves the quality issues, now to buy a can opener that can open one or more cans you need to find a good brand. Even then there is a limit how much can you use it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence
Do like to remember as well when a bicycle used to last 20 years? Even when you actually use it…BreakableKeymasterI am not trying to discredit it yet, but from the beginning it smells biased:
Compare the author introduction
Taken from article:J. Scott Armstrong (Ph.D., MIT, 1968), a Professor at the Wharton School of Management, University of Pennsylvania, is the author of Long-range Forecasting, the creator of forecastingprinciples.com, and editor of Principles of Forecasting (Kluwer 2001),
Taken from Wikipedia:
J. Scott Armstrong (born March 26, 1937), Ph.D., is an author, forecasting and marketing expert,[1][2] [3] and a professor of Marketing at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.
May 23, 2010 at 10:09 am in reply to: Focus Fusion effect on the "Economic Limit" of depleted Oil Wells. #6645BreakableKeymasterSomehow i have a bad feeling about going back into Cambrian era:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png
Probably a lot of factors were different back then, like the sun being younger and smallerMore recent data shows that we are in a peek of co2:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.pngMay 22, 2010 at 3:08 pm in reply to: Focus Fusion effect on the "Economic Limit" of depleted Oil Wells. #6631BreakableKeymasterhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Toxicity
While the current levels are pretty far from 1%, I would wonder about long term effects, because they were probably not studied yet.BreakableKeymasterBrian H wrote:
Neither the “Consensus” nor “climatology” exist. There is no such degree; those claiming/inventing the title are dabbling in physics, mathematics, oceanography, hydrology, computer modelling, forecasting, and meteorology without qualifications in any of them. Those who do have such qualifications are contemptuous of their amateurish abuse of those specialties.It seems to me the scientists have good qualifications of similar disciplines:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatologist
Just to check the top three in alphabet:
Dr Myles Allen graduated in Physics and Philosophy in 1987
Richard B. Alley (born 1957) is an American geologist and Evan Pugh Professor of Geoscience
Svante August Arrhenius (19 February 1859 – 2 October 1927) was a Swedish scientist, originally a physicist, but often referred to as a chemist, and one of the founders of the science of physical chemistryYes they have qualifications of neighboring disciplines because the original discipline did not exists at the time. Do you expect a climatologist to hold a PHD in ALL of the disciplines you mentioned? Btw Physics (nature philosophy) was once not a discipline either and some time ago Programmers were called Theoretical Physicists, but that did not stop them from doing science. We have only a few centuries of solid science in core disciplines and decades in secondaries. Give it some time and we will have Climatology PHD’s.
I would agree with you that when they working on a different discipline makes your skills less sharp in the original one, but that does not mean that any of scientists that do not currently work on the topic understand it more than a specialist spending his life work on it. Yes you could expect a mathematician to know if a physicist is right or wrong, because he understands more fundamentals, but I bet they don’t, otherwise there would be no need for other fields – we could train only mathematicians. This analogy should hold true for Physics and any other field that Climatology is base on.
Yes I heard about the criticism of Climate research by other disciplines (physicists or hydrologists) and usually the press responds to it with headlines “OMG WTF THERE IS NO CLIMATE CHANGE” where the original message was “OMG WTF A SMALL MISTAKE SOMEWHERE IN A METHOD OR CALCULATION”.
BreakableKeymasterBrian H wrote: Henning;
The “argument from Authority” you quote is readily and easily counterbalanced by a much larger pool of equally or better-qualified scientists who reject most of the core arguments, partly because the modelling is so crude compared to the minimum required to deal with multivariate non-linear systems like climate. …Such pool does not exist or at least they are not climatologists.
Maybe they are physicists or literature professors?
I would rather see you go the other route, that “Consensus does not actually mean anything”.BreakableKeymasterSorry, I did not want to discourage any speculation.
BreakableKeymasterOlympic event…
I imagine doing this in free style swimming competition should be allowed?BreakableKeymasterFF has not completed proof of concept, prototype or design phase so I would say there is a lot of uncertainty about the final pricing. It looks promising, but its far from done. Validation is an even bigger story.
I worked on several mediums size projects, and can say for certain that any journey looks easy before getting up.BreakableKeymasterI am just wondering if the input function (curve) should be generated each time randomly for unlimited game-play, or should it be static.
-
AuthorPosts
