Best Recent Content - HotWhopper Chat HotWhopper Chat
Follow HotWhopper:

Welcome to HotWhopper Chat

Before you post, read the introduction to HotWhopper Chat in the Wiki.

Best Recent Content

  • Scott Adams again

    That was good.

    There's the flip side to that.
      >:)

    'The Drunken Driver Has the Right Of Way'

    ETHAN COEN

    The loudest have the final say,
    The wanton win, the rash hold sway,
    The realist's rules of order say
    The drunken driver has the right of way.

    The Kubla Khan can butt in line;
    The biggest brute can take what's mine;
    When heavyweights break wind, that's fine;
    No matter what a judge might say,
    The drunken driver has the right of way.

    The guiltiest feel free of guilt;
    Who care not, bloom; who worry, wilt;
    Plans better laid are rarely built
    For forethought seldom wins the day;
    The drunken driver has the right of way.

    The most attentive and unfailing
    Carefulness is unavailing
    Wheresoever fools are flailing;
    Wisdom there is held at bay;,
    The drunken driver has the right of way.

    ...

    ...  http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103175352

    mboli
  • Scott Adams again

     Some of the analogies in this rant are tailored to Adams' particular bugaboos, most are more generic. But they aren't going to appreciate it over on Scott Adams' blog, so I'll post it here.

    ------

    Why do I keep driving around drunk? It is possible that the alarmists are right. But I'm not qualified to know. I just look at the patterns. And the patterns tell me that they can't persuade me to stop.

    Think about it. Drunken behavior is a complex model. Can't be accurately predicted. Notoriously so. You can model reaction time, and judgment, just create a bunch of different predictions and one of them would be right. They *might* be scientific, but it looks to me just like what the scammers do. Nobody has ever created an accurate model of what a drunk person would do.

    And the predictions of doom require another complex model after that of what happens during the drive home. Seriously, I have driven home many times. And the alarmist models that said I would kill myself and others have been 100% inaccurate in my experience.

    I agree that 95% of the people I know tell me I need to stop this, and disaster will happen. How is that distinguishable from a mass delusion? There have been many mass delusions in history. They all look the same.

    Did you know that alcohol is natural? And some organisms feed off of it? What is the 'correct ' percentage of alcohol. You can't tell me. There are records showing that in historical times in Europe a lot of people drank mostly beer, not plain water. I won't go so far as to call it the Medieval Beer Period, but it's the truth. And that was when European civilization was flourishing and advancing. The notion that alcohol is a pollutant is nonsense. And the notion that a mere one part per thousand in your blood could cause you to kill yourself and others simply doesn't pass the smell test.

    Can you seriously claim that alarmist organizations like MADD and the National Safety Council don't have their own filters on? They see money. They see prestige. They have their point of view, and they will always see the world in a way that reinforces it.

    Want to witness some cognitive dissonance? Just ask some MADD person what fraction of an accident was caused by the alcohol, and what fraction was caused by natural variability. Accidents happen without people getting drunk. They can't answer that simple question. Ask how often driving home drunk *doesn't* cause an accident. They just freeze up, they don't want to know the truth that they know.

    And anyway I'll believe the alarmists when they all give up driving. The spokesperson for the National Safety Council drives to work. While at the same time warning everybody about drunks driving on the roads. Har har. Clearly he makes his money from drunk driving alarmism and at the same time doesn't really believe driving is dangerous. Very unpersuasive.

    They tried to make me go to rehab, I said No No No! I am not a denier. It's just that you can't persuade *me*. So there.


    citizenschallenge
  • Fyfe et al. 2016 elevator pitch to the co-authors.

    There be sludge in that paper. I can certainly imagine a snappier and clearer presentation. (Not that I'm the one who would know how to write it.)
    citizenschallenge
  • Fyfe et al. 2016 elevator pitch to the co-authors.

    Okay, so my attempt to critique Fyfe 2016, was too long for any of the big boys.  Since I believe I do have something worth presenting to these experts, I've worked on coming up much a shorter crisper version.  (Victor, I sure hope you didn't misread our last exchange I certainly appreciated your comments.  I'm curious to know what you think of this version, should you take the time to look at it.)

    March 21, 2017

    Elevator pitch to co-authors of Fyfe et al. 2016 - need for clarification 

    Dear Fyfe 2016 Co-Authors,

    All of you by virtue of being experts of the highest caliber possess a nuanced understanding light-years beyond ordinary citizens, politicians and business leaders.  Belonging within that rarified world you risk being out of touch with how non-scientists, particularly those with hostile agendas, read your papers.  To us Fyfe et al. 2016 offered up a muddled Rorschach test rather than the promised clarifications.

    Please give this summary of my previous effort a moment to see if something resonates, or not.  I don’t need a response, all I'm hoping is for you to take it seriously, if only for a moment.
    ____________________________________________________________________________
    ¶10  Understanding of the recent slowdown also built upon prior research into the causes of the so-called big hiatus from the 1950s to the 1970s. During this period, increased cooling from anthropogenic sulfate aerosols roughly offset the warming from increasing GHGs (which were markedly lower than today).  This offsetting contributed to an approximately constant global mean surface temperature (GMST). Ice-core sulfate data from Greenland support this interpretation of GMST behaviour in the 1950s to 1970s, and provide compelling evidence of large temporal increases in atmospheric loadings of anthropogenic sulfate aerosols. The IPO was another contributory factor to the big hiatus. 
    ________________________________

    Clarify the process so people can 'appreciate' what you're talking about.

    Sulfate aerosols reflected the sun’s energy back into space 
    before it had the opportunity to be converted into the infrared energy 
    that fuels our climate system.  

    Thus a cooling trend in the GMST and the global system.
    ____________________________________________________________________________
    ¶11  Research motivated by the warming slowdown has also led to a fuller understanding of ocean heat uptake. … In summary, research into the causes of the slowdown has been enabled by a large body of prior research, and represents an important and continuing scientific effort to quantify the climate signals associated with internal decadal variability, natural external forcing and anthropogenic factors.
    ________________________________

    Clarify the process …

    The heat was moved into the oceans where ~90% of our climate system’s heat resides, thus it was absorbed into the global climate system - even if not registering in the GMST estimate.

    Help people viscerally visualize the dynamics.            
    ____________________________________________________________________________
    Claims and Counterclaims 
    ¶13  Recent claims by Lewandowsky et al. that scientists “turned a routine fluctuation into a problem for science” and that “there is no evidence that identifies the recent period as unique or particularly unusual”26were made in the context of an examination of whether warming has ceased, stopped or paused. …
    ________________________________

    What’s the point in picking this bone with the Lewandowsky paper?  

    Worst your paper doesn’t acknowledge, the massive disinformation campaign surrounding the recent faux hiatus and how the faux hiatus has been artificially hyper-inflated with a significance it does not warrant.  
    ____________________________________________________________________________
    ¶15  … Just exactly how such changes should be referred to is open to debate. Possible choices …
    ____________________________________________________

    Why not demand your opponents truthfully reflect what scientists are explaining? 

    Why not a bit of moral indignation at the general acceptability of having your information constantly misrepresented and lied about? 
    _______________________________________________________________________________
    ¶18    "Superimposed on this forced anthropogenic response are small signals of solar irradiance changes, cooling and recovery from volcanic eruptions and internal variability.”
    ________________________________________________________

    A standout sentence.  Build on to it.  Internal variability, that is various vectors of heat transport.  

    Come up with some illustrative paragraphs that convey the notion of our dynamic global heat/moisture distribution engine, rather than showing up with a list.
    _________________________________________________________________________
    ¶21  The big hiatus and warming slowdown periods correspond to times during which the dominant mode of decadal variability in the Pacific—the IPO—was in its negative phase. …
    __________________________________

    No helpful narrative, instead you repeat and reinforce the “hiatus” dog-whistle 13 times and never draw a clean qualitative distinction between the “big hiatus” (reflection of sun’s rays) and the “faux hiatus” (heat moving away from the surface).

    Besides, even more important - Why not point out that no one knows precisely how these numbers relate to future impacts anywaysso why are leaders and the public sweating such trivial deviations?

    Bring the discuss back to the important issues, the well understood fundamentals dynamics that are in motion.
    ____________________________________________________________________________

    mboli
  • Scott Adams again

    What, does he want money for it.
    Why doesn't he just do it?
    Another case of the fool believing he's smarter than experts.

    Thanks for not posting the link and I'll do my best to resist the morbid urge to go over there.

    If you engage them, maybe share this link.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_WLArrksB4
    Published on Aug 24, 2015 - 1:40 min
    Prof Alley gets passionate about the motivation of scientists.

    Climate change is real, so why the controversy and debate? Learn to make sense of the science and to respond to climate change denial in Denial101x, a MOOC from UQx and edX.

    Denial101x isn’t just a climate MOOC; it’s a MOOC about how people think about climate change.
    Any research used to develop this content has been cited on a references page within the subsection for this lecture. 
    To register and learn more: http://edx.org/understanding-climate-...


    mboli
  • Scott Adams again

    Oh and 100% confidence sounds like an absolutist, not healthy, we need a touch of self-skepticism.

    Oh, and don't forget, unidirectional skepticism equals denial.      =)
    mboli
  • Scott Adams again

    I'm having difficulty quitting Scott Adams. Here is his latest.

    He refers to a headline "Climate change computer model vindicated 30 years later...." Then he offers to bet a million bucks that he, Scott Adams, could do that.  More specifically, "I can come up with a climate forecast model that ignores C02 and still predicts the temperature 30 years from now ...."

    And he isn't going to. Aw shucks! A climate model that ignores greenhouse gasses would be a scientific miracle. A revolution in physics. Such revolutions have happened. Let's hear him out.

    Scott Adams adds he is 100% confident he can do it, "using my current skill set."  So that revolution in physics is in the bag already. Probably it is already in Scott Adams' head!  And we have testimony that Scott Adams has quite a smart head. Very persuasive testimony. From the source itself. So it is likely true.

    But then, as so often happens, @SA continues to write, and utterly spoils the illusion. He doesn't propose to model anything. He proposes to pull a bunch of numbers out of his butt and *call* it a model. Repeatedly.
    And one of those numbers will turn out 30 years later to be true, so he wins his bet.

    Get it? It is just like the old story about the investment-adviser scam. The guy who sends different stock predictions to a bunch of different people, then ....  Scott Adams goes on to compliment his readers as being smart enough not to fall for that old scam.

    So Adams equates physical modeling with pulling-numbers-out-of-your-butt, and a successful model is a scam. And he congratulates his readers for how smart they are for knowing about such scams.

    One problem is that he his a pretty good storyteller.
    Another problem is that it has lessened my taste for Dilbert cartoons. One of his best tropes is when a character uses logical-sounding rhetorical trickery to turn something on its head or put down another character. It is funny in a cartoon. it became less funny when I found out that Adams likes to practice these tricks in real life. And even less funny because he does it for the purpose of reinforcing climate denial.


    citizenschallenge
  • Evan Jones is ALIVE and well...still plugging away at those Stations Data...won't be long now...prom

    Dear Citizen challenge,
    Ive known Evan for some years now....we exchanged thousands of comments ....the actual does not matter to him and he is motivated by promoting "lukewarmism", as he calls it. This is tied to his political/cultural belief system. Just thought I would show those interested his " progress" regarding the Anthony Watt sponsored paper. Believe me, I hope his results indicate we have more time to act, but in actuality that would mean just procrastinating a while longer. 
    citizenschallenge
  • NOAA_ERSST_V4 data products - global coverage ?

    ERSST has full coverage from the beginning. The uncertainties will be larger in the beginning because they have less data to work with, but they estimate a sea surface temperature value everywhere to avoid a coverage bias. How the temperature where they do not have measurements in early times is related to the temperature where they do have measurements is estimated from the last decades of data where the coverage is good.


    Sadly, that will just lead to the deniers crying about us scientists 'making stuff up'. And they wouldn't even be (entirely) wrong. Doesn't really matter for the larger changes over time (especially since the really nasty warming seems to be happening *right now*) but it's always tricky working with gaps in the data and the deniers don't accept any uncertainty.
    Wish I knew what to do about it all.
    citizenschallenge
  • Best source for keeping up with new research

    For some reason, I agree with this. :-)
    citizenschallenge
HotWhopper Chat Close
Follow HotWhopper:

Welcome to HotWhopper Chat

Before you post, read the introduction to HotWhopper Chat in the Wiki.