tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post5122397676909140366..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: The Dessler 20EliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-37076262078868197842008-01-03T12:37:00.000-05:002008-01-03T12:37:00.000-05:00Eli,Granted, many folks on your Top 20 list are qu...Eli,<BR/><BR/>Granted, many folks on your Top 20 list are quite publically outspoken concerning their views on global climate change and its causes and potential implications. However, Dr. Frauenfeld isn't one of them. No stretch of anyone's imagination would describe him as "full time denialist."<BR/><BR/>-Chip KnappenbergerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-90650108446034068412008-01-02T22:39:00.000-05:002008-01-02T22:39:00.000-05:00Oh yeah Mike, John Fleck had something you might ...Oh yeah Mike, <A HREF="http://www.abqjournal.com/abqnews/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5872&&Itemid=31" REL="nofollow"> John Fleck</A> had something you might want to read<BR/><BR/>"First, on the Working Groups II and III skill sets. Working Group I is the climate science group, which is where one expects to find climate science expertise (and, in fact, is where you find it). Working Group II involves societal response to changing climate, which makes social science expertise entirely appropriate. Working Group III involves the costs and benefits of various greenhouse gas reduction approaches, which makes the expertise of economists entirely appropriate."<BR/><BR/>IOW you tried simple misdirection and you lost.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-37595863376570512812008-01-01T17:05:00.000-05:002008-01-01T17:05:00.000-05:00Mike, we usually include links.Mike, we usually include links.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-80386351395058732112007-12-31T22:55:00.000-05:002007-12-31T22:55:00.000-05:00Mr. RabbitThank you for checking the list.I found ...Mr. Rabbit<BR/>Thank you for checking the list.<BR/>I found an interesting site that decided to check the names of the IPCC 2500. They are still working on it but I am sure they will be happy to post the results. One never knows what one will find.<BR/>Maybe if they can figure out how to fix the problems in their GCMS and with the surface temps we might one day really know what is going on.<BR/>Or did they fail to admit:We really don't know clouds at all.<BR/>They only people I currently hear denying anything are AGWites. It is either that or dooms day. you might want to see what they are posting at RC.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-41052919316461459912007-12-28T23:08:00.000-05:002007-12-28T23:08:00.000-05:00Bjarne Andresen may have a point but I serioulsy d...Bjarne Andresen may have a point but I serioulsy doubt that even <I>he</I> knows what it is.<BR/><BR/>As Eli pointed out in more detail than most sane people would ever desire, Andresen and his two colleagues ( Larry and Curly) used Celsius instead of Kelvin for Stefan Boltzmann radiation temperatures, which makes about as much sense as using a microwave oven to freeze your ice cream.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-73642271208305603872007-12-28T17:16:00.000-05:002007-12-28T17:16:00.000-05:00Bjarne Andresen's objection was to the use of a gl...Bjarne Andresen's objection was to the use of a global temperature, which he claims is meaningless (for more info, see <A HREF="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070315101129.htm" REL="nofollow">here</A>).<BR/><BR/>He actually has a point, but of course ignores the fact that when all local temperatures rise, it's quite possible to talk about a rise in the global temperature.<BR/><BR/>It should perhaps be pointed out that according to the website of the Niels Bohr Institute, he holds the title of a '<I>lektor</I>' which is equivalent to an '<I>associate professor</I>', not a full professor.Kristjan Wagerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09555892468280743919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-11254467231013719012007-12-28T05:14:00.000-05:002007-12-28T05:14:00.000-05:00Does anyone have any advice on string?I've heard i...Does anyone have any advice on string?<BR/><BR/>I've heard it said (mainly, granted, by its purveyors, who obviously have a vest-ed interest in it) that "Harvard string" has promised to knit everything together nicely for almost 40 years now and that it's superior to the new-fangled E8-type netting at physically tying things together. But then again, I've also heard it said that Harvard string has consistently failed to deliver when subjected to field testing.<BR/><BR/>I've also heard about a variety called brenchley (monkey?) string that should be avoided at all costs, since it falls apart as soon as you look at it, let alone try to use it.<BR/><BR/>Now I'm only looking for stringy stuff for tying in the ol' <I>Phaseolus</I> ssp. again next year, so should I go for the common gardener's string again?<BR/><BR/>Whatever your recommendation, it needs to last a full season, and in slightly warmer, windier (and convectively stormier) summers than we've hitherto been used to in these parts. So, should I stick with plain old gardener's string?<BR/><BR/><I>Cymraeg llygoden</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-35159369212710111222007-12-27T13:42:00.000-05:002007-12-27T13:42:00.000-05:00Sam, correct on the first, somewhat correct on the...Sam, correct on the first, somewhat correct on the second, its a mix of other science and plain old wingnut, but the remainder also include a whole bunch who Eli simply knows nothing about (see Alan Titchmarsh for example)EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-33992720755480399862007-12-27T12:37:00.000-05:002007-12-27T12:37:00.000-05:00"Lubos Motl, PhD, physicist, former Harvard string..."Lubos Motl, PhD, physicist, former Harvard string theorist"<BR/><BR/>Does that mean he's moved on to the woodwinds?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-68386482636364081962007-12-27T11:37:00.000-05:002007-12-27T11:37:00.000-05:00I assume that the first list is of persons who hav...I assume that the first list is of persons who have actually worked in climatology and are in-de-Nile (cue photo of Egyptian river); and the second list is of persons who have scientific training but no experience with actual climate science (still in-de-Nile). The remaining 350 or so are persons with insufficient qualifications or are not sufficiently in-de-Nile.<BR/><BR/>Am I correct? (sometimes the curious language of The Rabbet leaves me baffled.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-76800286702923627342007-12-26T22:50:00.000-05:002007-12-26T22:50:00.000-05:00clarification:I consider AGW (more CO2 = more heat...clarification:<BR/><BR/>I consider AGW (more CO2 = more heat) and hurricanes two separate debates. And I will note that Landsea does appear to be on the losing end of the hurricane debate but that is a different matter.Sparrow (in the coal mine)https://www.blogger.com/profile/15685798234951547115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-87185736365441717582007-12-26T21:43:00.000-05:002007-12-26T21:43:00.000-05:00Nary a riposte from the hare?This sparrow is wonde...Nary a riposte from the hare?<BR/><BR/>This sparrow is wondering if Eli agrees with the birg or if the scruffy little hairball knows something others do not. I've been under the impression that Landseas position on AGW was quite clear and centrist.Sparrow (in the coal mine)https://www.blogger.com/profile/15685798234951547115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-32298719757470606572007-12-26T19:42:00.000-05:002007-12-26T19:42:00.000-05:00"What's even more amusing is the list itself as an..."What's even more amusing is the list itself as an attempt at appeal to authority"<BR/><BR/>Especially since the list includes such "authorities" as Lubos Motl.<BR/><BR/>Authority on what?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-23104161526319318772007-12-26T17:35:00.000-05:002007-12-26T17:35:00.000-05:00Of course, Baliunas shows up on top because of alp...Of course, Baliunas shows up on top because of alphabetization of the list but it's rather funny when one recalls the Soon-Baliunas paper fiasco, the ozone denying before the Nobel and the GW attribution to ozone after the Nobel. Not to mention the congressional hearing where she said phasing out ozone would cost "trillions."<BR/><BR/>What's even more amusing is the list itself as an attempt at appeal to authority when skeptics so commonly argue that such logically flawed tricks are void and null when referring to the the many scientists contributing to the consensus view.<BR/><BR/>SaturnianAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-87384930851424669472007-12-26T16:09:00.000-05:002007-12-26T16:09:00.000-05:00Pielke Jr. is not a denialist, just a contrarian i...Pielke Jr. is not a denialist, just a contrarian in dreadful need of media attention. He's often wrong but very aggressive in promoting his views, and he knows how to manipulate journalists.<BR/><BR/>Landsea is a just a run-of-the-mill mediocrity who is on the losing end of a debate.<BR/><BR/>Mus musculus anonymouseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-427962109866371932007-12-26T12:17:00.000-05:002007-12-26T12:17:00.000-05:00You said: Why no Landsea, Pielke, etc., well while...You said: <B>Why no Landsea, Pielke, etc., well while they are no fans of the IPCC their positions on whether people are changing the climate are equivocal.</B><BR/><BR/>equivocal: "of uncertain nature or significance; or (often) intended to mislead"<BR/><BR/>That work may fit Pielke (regretfully I'm not intimately familiar with his work) but I'm pretty sure Landsea's position on AGW is well documented and in agreement with the consensus. His only dispute is the hurricane link which, thanks to the Pacific, has room for legitimate doubt. In short I think you are missing an "un".Sparrow (in the coal mine)https://www.blogger.com/profile/15685798234951547115noreply@blogger.com