tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post1834404898573253584..comments2024-03-18T03:27:18.777-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: Infra Digging Michael TobisEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger203125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-2686809549937861712012-05-09T14:21:02.161-04:002012-05-09T14:21:02.161-04:00Link rot alert!
The conversation with Richart Tol...Link rot alert!<br /><br />The conversation with Richart Tol is there:<br /><br />http://init.planet3.org/2010/08/end.htmlwillardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-82202296749912193182012-04-22T23:01:29.932-04:002012-04-22T23:01:29.932-04:00Tom Fuller are Richard Tol lack intellectual hones...Tom Fuller are Richard Tol lack intellectual honesty. From that all else follows.name irrelevantnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-42242553014715252032011-10-19T16:29:05.755-04:002011-10-19T16:29:05.755-04:00The link to Willie Sutton:
http://www.banking.com...The link to Willie Sutton:<br /><br />http://www.banking.com/aba/profile_0397.htm<br /><br />does not seem to work anymore.<br /><br />Rot! Links! Rot!willardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-91870869094926286182010-11-18T09:29:38.142-05:002010-11-18T09:29:38.142-05:00Please, Tom Fuller, I really would like to know if...Please, Tom Fuller, I really would like to know if you were the person responsible for the quality of the navy's ocean temperature measurements.<br /><br />Is it such a difficult question to answer?<br /><br />Bernard J. Hyphen-Anonymous XVIIAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-12918577147677432872010-11-13T10:17:08.843-05:002010-11-13T10:17:08.843-05:00Rattus (9/11/10 6:32 PM ).
If you're referrin...Rattus (9/11/10 6:32 PM ).<br /><br />If you're referring to Fuller I seem to be missing the point. I couldn't find any indication of the ol' boy's presence on that DD thread - dodgy link, or has all trace of the fellow disappeared after his soliloquy? If so, he must have been wrapped in heavy chains indeed...<br /><br />I for one would actually like to see Fuller return, even if momentarily, just for the confirmation of his claim that he was responsible for any incompetence that might be present in the measurement of sea water temperature.<br /><br />Bernard J. Hyphen-Anonymous XVIIAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-46777241329965586082010-11-10T19:28:47.430-05:002010-11-10T19:28:47.430-05:00Rattus Norvegicus --- Yes, if he stays away.
Some...Rattus Norvegicus --- Yes, if he stays away.<br /><br />Somehow...David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-66649995225682689202010-11-09T21:32:05.803-05:002010-11-09T21:32:05.803-05:00Little Tommy has make a Goodbye Cruel World post. ...Little Tommy has make a <a href="http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/2010/11/how-to-cook-graph-skepticalsciencecom.html#comments" rel="nofollow">Goodbye Cruel World</a> post. Good riddance, I say.Rattus Norvegicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03449457204330125792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-45264734203442788642010-11-08T22:36:35.560-05:002010-11-08T22:36:35.560-05:00Good Lord, it multiplied by dividing!Good Lord, it multiplied by dividing!David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-44872478762296284682010-11-08T06:53:23.914-05:002010-11-08T06:53:23.914-05:00Uh-Oh... Looks like I am late to the trough though...Uh-Oh... Looks like I am late to the trough though;... when I read it, I saw it.<br />And his heart, is in it too?.o)<br /><br />http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/8115903/America-will-survive-the-errors-of-Ben-Bernankes-trigger-happy-Federal-Reserve.html<br /><br />How-about-you<br />tude-a-loo<br />buy-buyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-43485075117288315252010-11-07T09:28:21.891-05:002010-11-07T09:28:21.891-05:00OK, so Eli has ended this thread by splitting the ...OK, so Eli has ended this thread by splitting the two interesting parts into their own posts: <a href="http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/11/maple-leaf-sums-it-up.html" rel="nofollow">JC Super Blogger</a> and <a href="http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/11/worst-system-except-for-all-others.html" rel="nofollow">R. Tol channels Winston Churchill </a>.<br /><br />The rememberance of things twenty years ago thread can peter out here.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-89490307691192381362010-11-07T09:09:22.720-05:002010-11-07T09:09:22.720-05:00Richard, not to end this thread, but there are any...Richard, not to end this thread, but there are any number of examples where widespread popular support has produced genocide against minorities. The entire point of a constitutional system is to both empower majorities and set limits on them. In short, you need to think this through before getting corneredEliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-30705152513995509642010-11-07T09:05:37.129-05:002010-11-07T09:05:37.129-05:00Scaredy Mouse says:
RE: flavius collium: "I&...Scaredy Mouse says:<br /><br />RE: flavius collium: "I'm saying that if people are delusional, democracy doesn't work."<br /><br />Democracy often doesn't work if decisions on each and every issue is left up to the voters and if it doesn't have a ruling class that has the best for the country in their heart.<br /><br />To solve all of our current problems at once... Why not just move the dialectic forward and exclude men from voting throughout the world. Men are not qualified to vote, & they all know it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-15586764468519168522010-11-07T07:10:23.515-05:002010-11-07T07:10:23.515-05:00If democracy somehow should decide what should be ...If democracy somehow should decide what should be done about AGW (or should it decide whether AGW is true first ?), should democracy also decide whether evolution is true and, therefore, whether branches of science like Genetic Engineering should be allowed ? How would America vote ?JMurphynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-46052603134235366992010-11-07T05:47:37.093-05:002010-11-07T05:47:37.093-05:00@Flavius
There is no doubt that democracies make m...@Flavius<br />There is no doubt that democracies make mistakes. A quick glance at history suggests that disastrous mistakes are more likely in autocracies -- even if many autocrats started with the best of intentions.richardtolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14239680555557587153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-21392256117770336472010-11-07T05:35:07.906-05:002010-11-07T05:35:07.906-05:00@dr Tol:
Not so, if the majority are delusional o...@dr Tol:<br /><br />Not so, if the majority are delusional or misled. If the majority has a counter-reality view of the world on an issue, a flipped coin might make better policy decisions on it.<br /><br />Of course, if the majority are delusional AND malevolent, then they can create benevolent policy by the accident of double negation. ;)<br /><br />Your position is illogical.Flavius Colliumnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-71980024065580538532010-11-07T05:01:40.440-05:002010-11-07T05:01:40.440-05:00dhog: facepalm. Godwin. please, stop.
Dr. Tol--di...dhog: facepalm. Godwin. please, stop.<br /><br />Dr. Tol--did you watch the electrical distribution transformer efficiency rules? States and industry had to sue the federal government to get the rules issued<br /><br />Industry, states and conservation groups asked for a high efficiency rule for replacing transformers, to build in the longterm savings installing the most efficient equipment available off the shelf (without shareholders complaining choosing longer versus shorter term profits). Bush's DOE refused to consider CO2 or climate as factors so opted for lesser "improvement" much less than the utilities wanted.<br />http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/us/politics/06energy.html<br /><br />Huge savings are available with regulations like that for hardware that's in service for decades. Industry analyzes this stuff. You should know about it, and many similar opportunities.<br />http://tdworld.com/overhead_distribution/transformer-efficiency-moves-to-forefront-20090701/Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-60195622399020529902010-11-07T01:28:38.449-05:002010-11-07T01:28:38.449-05:00@Flavius
Thank you for the clarification. I would ...@Flavius<br />Thank you for the clarification. I would think that the probability of delusional rule gets smaller as more people have a say in policy making.<br /><br />@Hank<br />The appropriate rate of inflation is a political decision. You'd find that the academic literature is divided on this matter and on related matters, such as on how best of achieve price stability and on how to define inflation. You'd also find that politicians disagree with one another.richardtolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14239680555557587153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-69019100869526357652010-11-07T01:00:23.913-04:002010-11-07T01:00:23.913-04:00Another cross post:
Dr. Curry,
Perhaps a more ap...Another cross post:<br /><br />Dr. Curry,<br /><br />Perhaps a more appropriate title might have been "Ending the assault on science and scientists by "skeptics"".<br /><br />Anyhow, that brings me to the point of this post. As you know there are already musing about holding McCarthy-like interrogations of climate scientists by Republicans and Tea Party ideologues. These are indeed scary times, although your actions of late may have saved you experiencing the wrath of Barton and Inhofe. Time will tell.<br /><br />You volunteered recently that you have been contacted by a politician/s. You allowed Mosher to post an (illegally obtained) email. So now I am going to ask you, very nicely, in the spirit of transparency and openness, to post a legally obtained email (or emails) that you received from the politician/s. Feel free to obfuscate their details, and name their name/s.<br /><br />Many of your readers here have been demanding investigations against climate scientists, so your position on such is pertinent. So your role in these developments is relevant and should be a matter for the public record given what is at stake and given that tax payers money will be used to fund any such interrogations.<br /> <br />Additionally, please answer these questions, again as unambiguously and clearly as possible:<br /><br />1) Do you condone plans by Republicans and Tea Party representatives to launch investigations against climate scientists?<br />2) If yes, do you plan to do to prominently condemn such actions and what do you intend to do prevent them from happening?<br />3) If no. Why so?<br />4) If no. Do you plan to assist in any way the people launching and executing the investigations against your peers?<br />5) If such interrogations go ahead, do you agree that they should include interrogations/cross examination of climate scientists from both the “skeptical” (e.g., Christy, Spencer, Lindzen) and the “warmist” sides?<br /><br />If such a horrid inquisition does go ahead, it will not herald the end of the war, if anything it will just make matters much, much worse. I fear the likes of Inhofe will only be content when a "warmist" climate scientist is physically hurt or worse.<br /><br />Again, I am interested only in your position on this. Thank you."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-27986933720219458442010-11-07T00:16:52.935-04:002010-11-07T00:16:52.935-04:00Part II:
"Moreover, it seems that in your mo...Part II:<br /><br />"Moreover, it seems that in your model, Singer, Michaels et al. can distort and misrepresent the data and science at will and also malign scientists, and do whatever it takes to defend their very real "dogma"/ideology without so much as a word of critique from you or your fan base? <br /><br />And when the science is repeatedly attacked by some of your friends (e.g., Michaels), and even people on your own blog, you are deathly silent-- heck, you even give them a pat on the back. Worse yet, when the scientists have the audacity (sarc) to stand up to the repeated attacks and to defend the integrity of the science, they are accused by you (a scientist) of defending the alleged IPCC "dogma". <br /><br />This startling asymmetry (and hypocrisy on your part) flies in the face of your claims of honest intentions and sincerity. <br /><br />Sure critique the IPCC and let us improve and advance the science, your peers are all for that (really), but you are not going to achieve anything this way. While we are counting how many angels can dance on a pinhead, nit pick, bicker, muse about hypotheticals and indulge your and your cohorts' sophistry-- GHG emissions continue to escalate. Or is that exactly what you want?<br /><br />It is lost on you that your efforts are largely redundant, especially after the recommendations put forth by the AIC review and others. You know that, so why keep fabricating debate, fabricating controversy and sicking misguided and misinformed people on your peers? <br /><br />Now this would all be bad enough, but then you have the gall to claim to be a mediator and to have the betterment of science at heart. How are these inane and clearly mendacious tactics meant to facilitate "building bridges" or constructive dialogue?<br /><br />These are anything but felicitous actions on your part.<br /><br />PS: There are some questions above, I would appreciate some direct and unambiguous answers not from your fan base, not Mosher-- you please. You framed the argument. You have made the assertions. You engaged in innuendo, insinuations and dog-whistling...now you need to answer to it."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-82905363059238838302010-11-07T00:14:52.231-04:002010-11-07T00:14:52.231-04:00From Curry's place:
Mapleleaf
"Dr. Cur...From Curry's place:<br /><br />Mapleleaf <br /><br />"Dr. Curry,<br /><br />I'm sure that you agree (correct me if you don't) that the science behind the theory of anthropogenic induced climate change is a long one, and very well established (I can hear the cries of indignance from those in denial about AGW/ACC already), and borne out by multiple, independent data sets and consilience. Now, that integrated knowledge does not constitute a dogma, nor does defending the science against an onslaught of distortion , misinformation and personal attacks. At least it is not a "dogma" to reasonable, rational and informed (on the actual climate science) people. <br /><br />Why have you elected to frame (and fabricate) the "debate" in such a (ludicrous) way so as to make it impossible for someone to defend any aspect of the theory of AGW/ACC or climate science in general without being accused of defending an alleged "dogma"? You need to choose your words and narrative much, much more carefully if you expect people to believe that you are being sincere.<br /><br />Now your incoherence and ambiguity places you in an interesting/awkward position, because now you can never defend the climate science or your peers in the climate field who (like you) know AGW/ACC is a concern without being accused of defending the alleged "dogma"-- at least by many readers here. I will be watching for interest to see whether anyone accuses you of that should you decide to defend the climate science or IPCC at some point.<br /><br />Moreover, it seems that in your model, Singer, Michaels et al. can distort and misrepresent the data and science at will and also malign scientists, and do whatever it takes to defend their very real "dogma"/ideology without so much as a word of critique from you or your fan base? <br /><br />And when the science is repeatedly attacked by some of your friends (e.g., Michaels), and even people on your own blog, you are deathly silent-- heck, you even give them a pat on the back. Worse yet, when the scientists have the audacity (sarc) to stand up to the repeated attacks and to defend the integrity of the science, they are accused by you (a scientist) of defending the alleged IPCC "dogma". <br /><br />This startling asymmetry (and hypocrisy on your part) flies in the face of your claims of honest intentions and sincerity. <br /><br />Sure critique the IPCC and let us improve and advance the science, your peers are all for that (really), but you are not going to achieve anything this way. While we are counting how many angels can dance on a pinhead, nit pick, bicker, muse about hypotheticals and indulge your and your cohorts' sophistry-- GHG emissions continue to escalate. Or is that exactly what you want?<br /><br />It is lost on you that your efforts are largely redundant, especially after the recommendations put forth by the AIC review and others. You know that, so why keep fabricating debate, fabricating controversy and sicking misguided and misinformed people on your peers? <br /><br />Now this would all be bad enough, but then you have the gall to claim to be a mediator and to have the betterment of science at heart. How are these inane and clearly mendacious tactics meant to facilitate "building bridges" or constructive dialogue?<br /><br />These are anything but felicitous actions on your part.<br /><br />PS: There are some questions above, I would appreciate some direct and unambiguous answers not from your fan base, not Mosher-- you please. You framed the argument. You have made the assertions. You engaged in innuendo, insinuations and dog-whistling...now you need to answer to it."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-40721509619828219902010-11-07T00:05:09.234-04:002010-11-07T00:05:09.234-04:00"> Dr. Tol
> the conclusion that climat..."> Dr. Tol<br />> the conclusion that climate change is undesirable.... <br />> is a political opinion.<br /><br />How about "inflation is undesirable"--is that a political opinion?<br />Would you consider it a useful, educated political opinion?<br /><br />Rates of change matter for inflation, and for climate change, no?"<br /><br />Oh, Hank, you can do much better ...<br /><br />Because, after all, it's obvious that commiting genocide is undesirable is a political opinion. We have Nazi Germany to prove the case.<br /><br />Tol believes that there's no reason to chose to be moral.<br /><br />He's in (not good but evil) company.dhogazanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-30720737907311491972010-11-06T22:31:34.669-04:002010-11-06T22:31:34.669-04:00This thread has taken on a Wonderland quality.
No...This thread has taken on a Wonderland quality.<br /><br />No surprise, one goes there via the rabett hole.David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-80504273448591873182010-11-06T21:52:22.789-04:002010-11-06T21:52:22.789-04:00> Dr. Tol
> the conclusion that climate chan...> Dr. Tol<br />> the conclusion that climate change is undesirable.... <br />> is a political opinion.<br /><br />How about "inflation is undesirable"--is that a political opinion?<br />Would you consider it a useful, educated political opinion?<br /><br />Rates of change matter for inflation, and for climate change, no?Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-85367378755005458142010-11-06T21:43:15.510-04:002010-11-06T21:43:15.510-04:00Roger is extremely shallow. So is Judith Curry. ...Roger is extremely shallow. So is Judith Curry. If you get them one on one you can easily puncture their line of reasoning. What they are good at is getting an audience.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-71507474747667855492010-11-06T21:36:02.759-04:002010-11-06T21:36:02.759-04:00Scaredy Mouse Says:
Maybe Roger is simply allergi...Scaredy Mouse Says:<br /><br />Maybe Roger is simply allergic to gluten.<br /><br />http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40043530/ns/world_news-americas/<br /><br />Well, those folks are poor and have a funny religion so let's vote to kill them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com