tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post5148782021490301472..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: The Honest JokerEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-13372688032957942692010-01-29T10:25:38.734-05:002010-01-29T10:25:38.734-05:00Eli, you just wrote the best blog lead that I have...Eli, you just wrote the best blog lead that I have read in a long, long time. I am in awe, and thank you. For once, I can't think of anything to add.<br /><br />I look forward to your take on the Watts/Pielke weather station humiliation. They are writing excuses at the same time that they are figuring out how to spin the fact that their entire weather station "project" was a joke. It's kind of funny, really. <br /><br />The sad thing is, you have to read a blog to find this out- MSM is silent, once again.mike roddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13530742071590158793noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-60313830530994037582010-01-27T01:17:23.401-05:002010-01-27T01:17:23.401-05:00>>"Now true, Ethon would like a bite, b...>>"Now true, Ethon would like a bite, but we are ever so earnest here at Rabett Run and the policy person formerly known as #14 deserves an answer, although the Rabett respectfully declines the opportunity of doing it at Roger's new place."<br /><br /><br />Pussy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-35873492404903332462010-01-26T21:51:20.273-05:002010-01-26T21:51:20.273-05:00"Lukewarmers" are just denialists trying..."Lukewarmers" are just denialists trying their best to retain their credibility while they flap around leaving doubt droppings everywhere. Sure, there's plenty of outright denial and demagoguery, the stuff that tells you exactly what you should think and why: tell the big lie and tell it over and over. But then there are the reasonable-sounding lies that are full of half-truths, carefully constructed to lead the reader and make him think he came to his own conclusion: insidious propaganda.seamushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04299590041498402002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-43698148767695420812010-01-25T09:59:45.779-05:002010-01-25T09:59:45.779-05:00Science marches to a different drum...mer
http://...Science marches to a different drum...mer<br /><br />http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/topic.html?t=Organization&q=National+Oceanic+and+Atmospheric+Administration<br /><br />Mankind taught how to do more with less.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-70698218385859131752010-01-25T08:44:10.075-05:002010-01-25T08:44:10.075-05:00Eli, You got spammed! A sure sign of blogging succ...Eli, You got spammed! A sure sign of blogging success! RPJ is a political scientist. While I will never agree with anyone with political associated with their title or profession, you have to admit that Eric Steig's totally out of context rant was humorous.Recovering in the Florida Keyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07913299764512464597noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-38509153821715791652010-01-24T23:20:20.264-05:002010-01-24T23:20:20.264-05:00FWIW Roger omitted that EVERY OTHER REFERENCE in t...FWIW Roger omitted that EVERY OTHER REFERENCE in the fifth chapter of the Stern Report uses the 0.13%. In short the 1.3% that has his panties in a bunch was clearly a typo, which has been corrected and Roger is misleading his readers, including Ian Castles who also has donned the harumphing regalia. Count your fingers after you touch anything Roger writes. <br /><br />From the Stern Report chapter 5<br /><br />Key Messages: "Damage from hurricanes and typhoons will increase substantially from even small increases in storm severity, because they scale as the cube of windspeed or more. A 5 – 10% increase in hurricane windspeed is predicted to approximately double annual damages, resulting in total losses of 0.13% of GDP each year on average in the USA alone."<br /><br />Box 5.3: "The study did not take full account of the impacts of extreme weather events, which could be very significant (Section 6.4). Nordhaus (2006) shows that just a small increase in hurricane intensity (5 – 10%), which several models predict will occur 2 – 3°C of warming globally, could alone double costs of storm damage to around 0.13% GDP. The risks of higher temperatures, as the latest science suggests, could bring even greater damage costs, particularly given the very non-linear relationship between temperature and hurricane destructiveness (Chapter 3)."<br /><br />Pg 132 bottom: "Storms are currently the costliest weather catastrophes in the developed world and they are likely to become more powerful in the future as the oceans warm and provide more energy to fuel storms. Many of the world’s largest cities are at risk from severe windstorms - Miami alone has $900 billion worth of total capital stock at risk. Two recent studies have found that just a 5 - 10% rise in the intensity of major storms with a 3°C increase in global temperatures could approximately double the damage costs, resulting in total losses of 0.13% of GDP in the USA each year on average or insured losses of $100 – 150 billion in an extreme year (2004 prices).29 If temperatures increase by 4 or 5°C, the losses are likely to be substantially greater, because any further increase in storm intensity has an even larger impact on damage costs (convexity highlighted in Chapter 3). This effect will be magnified for the costs of extreme storms, which are expected to increase disproportionately more than the costs of an average storm. For example, Swiss Re recently estimated that in Europe the costs of a 100-year storm event could double by the 2080s with climate change ($50/€40 billion in the future compared with $25/€20 billion today), while average storm losses were estimated to increase by only 16 – 68% over the same period.30"EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-2028607048048077492010-01-24T19:43:18.791-05:002010-01-24T19:43:18.791-05:00I still have to wonder why anyone is still demandi...I still have to wonder why anyone is still demanding we take lomborg, pielke, or mcintyre seriously.Marion Delgadohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493068399042656060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-45841011075292164592010-01-24T19:32:20.461-05:002010-01-24T19:32:20.461-05:00Waste of blog space, even as chear as that is...Waste of blog space, even as chear as that is...David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-10302126893417047172010-01-24T16:50:19.771-05:002010-01-24T16:50:19.771-05:00I see Her Majesty's Treasury have fixed a typo...I see Her Majesty's Treasury have fixed a typo in the Stern Review, moving a decimal point in the figure for hurricane damage to give the right number of 0.13%. According to Roger ... "There is no note, no acknowledgment, nothing indicating that the estimated damage for hurricanes was modified after publication by an order of magnitude. The report was quietly changed to make the error go away."<br /><br />http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-tangled-web-we-weave.html<br /><br />Roger should perhaps take time to read the FAQ page on the Stern Review, esp Number 20. <br /><br />" Q. You state the cost of US hurricanes at temperatures of 3°C above pre-industrial levels as 0.13% and 1.3% of US GDP in different places in the report. Which is correct?<br /><br />A. The correct figure is 0.13%. There is an error in Chapter 5, pg. 139, which cites the cost as 1.3%. An Errata page will be published to cover this and any other typographical errors. "<br /><br />On Planet Pielke, publishing something in the FAQs, on the internet = 'keeping it quiet'. Chopped Liver!<br /><br />http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_faqs.htmPhil Clarkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15744659873337514317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-83205975899366702122010-01-24T14:30:12.325-05:002010-01-24T14:30:12.325-05:00"Roger is not shy about evaluating claims by ..."Roger is not shy about evaluating claims by the likes of James Hanson, Kevin Trenberth or the Munich Re folk, and always finding fault with them, but he is curiously shy about doing the same for Pat Michaels, S. Fred Singer and that ilk which is a marker of what he is really about."<br /><br />This is exactly my problem with Roger Pielke Jr and I've told him so not too long ago. <br /><br />I would love to find a true lukewarmer, but all the self-professed lukewarmers I have investigated (Lucia Liljegren being the last) turned out to be lukewarmers with very strong sympathies for the denialist position. The same goes for RPjr IMO.<br /><br />BTW, it's Hansen, not Hanson.Nevennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-54335633134074342372010-01-24T11:06:49.982-05:002010-01-24T11:06:49.982-05:00As the Rabett implied, which way runs causation?.....As the Rabett implied, which way runs causation?...<br /><br /><i>Rogers assumption is that the science follows the policy, not the policy view the science.</i>Lazarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-42704348814263627982010-01-24T11:00:53.721-05:002010-01-24T11:00:53.721-05:00many [...] correlated perfectly
... when model-da...<i>many [...] correlated perfectly</i><br /><br />... when model-data agreement is a binary :-)Lazarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-72678862858912029092010-01-24T10:36:51.953-05:002010-01-24T10:36:51.953-05:00many scientists’ evaluations of the scientific mer...<i>many scientists’ evaluations of the scientific merit of the Climate Research paper correlated perfectly with their public expressions of support for or opposition to the Kyoto Protocol</i><br /><br />Perhaps this is also bs? I can find no source. How many is "many"?Lazarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-50305009512859566902010-01-24T10:24:45.051-05:002010-01-24T10:24:45.051-05:00The citation was found in;
When scientists politic...The citation was found in;<br /><a href="http://heartland.temp.siteexecutive.com/pdf/21904.pdf" rel="nofollow">When scientists politicize science: making sense of controversy over The Skeptical Environmentalist</a>, R.A. Pielke Jr., Environmental Science & Policy 7 (2004) 405–417<br />... hosted at the Heartland Institute :-)Lazarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-90970869588607829232010-01-24T10:20:47.368-05:002010-01-24T10:20:47.368-05:00advocacy groups in support of the [Kyoto] Protocol...<i>advocacy groups in support of the [Kyoto] Protocol called the paper “junk science” (Regalado 2003)</i><br /><br />Intrigued so I looked up Regalado 2003, turns out to be a report in the WSJ, <a href="http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=4361&method=full" rel="nofollow">"Global Warming Skeptics Are Facing Storm Clouds"</a>. It mentions not advocacy groups, nor Kyoto, nor "junk science". Rather describes the editors of the journal resigning and the publication of a peer-reviewed response by Mann et al.Lazarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-64911853256593689142010-01-24T09:50:55.807-05:002010-01-24T09:50:55.807-05:00Eli - your explanation of broker suggests to me wh...Eli - your explanation of broker suggests to me what scientific journals do: the purpose of peer review is to narrow down the scope of the science presented in their pages to the most important, most correct etc. pieces. With different journals acting in competition with differing narrowing-rules.<br /><br />When that brokering role fails (as in Soon and Baliunas, Gerlich and Tscheuschner, perhaps Lindzen and Choi) the impact can be far-reaching; the public ends up buying broken goods.Arthurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06249922708053689717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-70675231994812964642010-01-24T09:36:33.240-05:002010-01-24T09:36:33.240-05:00Well it's not quite Natasha class but Eli thou...Well it's not quite Natasha class but Eli thought he would give Roger a thrillEliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-75339675469180469012010-01-24T09:22:09.574-05:002010-01-24T09:22:09.574-05:00I spy spam!
(the storage craft person. I think a...I spy spam!<br /><br />(the storage craft person. I think any company found using spam like that should be nuked off the internet)guthriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17992984293423290387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-38101436729179284872010-01-24T04:15:46.488-05:002010-01-24T04:15:46.488-05:00This joker i a real dude. He is my favorite as i l...This joker i a real dude. He is my favorite as i like each and every word he speaks and it excites me a lot.StorageCrafthttp://www.storagecraft.com.aunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-2560201894709725812010-01-24T00:19:17.385-05:002010-01-24T00:19:17.385-05:00Great post. RP2 is a piece of--wait for it--work. ...Great post. RP2 is a piece of--wait for it--work. Typical conversation with him:<br /><br />Boris: You are being a petty dick in this post.<br />RP, Jr: Michael Mann is a petty dick in his posts.<br />Boris: *!Borisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-15644597085106533712010-01-23T23:48:36.251-05:002010-01-23T23:48:36.251-05:00Well, I guess denying reality is a lot more work t...Well, I guess denying reality is a lot more work than I'd thought. RPJR is needing a little love for tackling the deconstruction of science. He's asking you for a little smoochy. Or maybe this is his head shot; he's hoping Bill Gates will hire him.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com