Buy
Books
Click images for more details
Currently discussing
-
Dec 20 - julie
on
Established Fiction Ghostwriters Contribution To Fiction Writing -
Dec 6 - sexdollpartner
on
Established Fiction Ghostwriters Contribution To Fiction Writing
Links
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
-
Science blogs
-
Political blogs
-
Other blogs
Subscribe
Josh
Copyright © 2006-2013, Bishop Hill All rights reserved.
Reader Comments (13)
Give them a couple of days. They will come up with a reason for it to be timesings
At first glance I thought they were all sitting on a communal lew.
No global discussion of consensus now is complete unless everyone is aware of the Rockefeller Foundation push to force all international entities to push Communication for Social Change. http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/experimenting-on-people-and-places-via-the-rockefeller-process-of-communication-for-social-change/
It forces consensus and is a requirement coming to most K-12 classrooms under the meaning of communication as a required 21st Century Competency as well as what is meant by a Discourse classroom. If anyone is unfamiliar with GELP--Global Education Leaders Programme, this is how these same ideas spread throughout the Anglosphere--US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Scotland, UK, Hong Kong, South Africa, India.
So cute cartoon, but not a cute idea. It's about to be omnipresent too.
Read the SkS kids trying to define the consensus
http://www.hi-izuru.org/forum/The%20Consensus%20Project/2012-01-24-Defining%20the%20scientific%20consensus.html
(without letting the definition include nasty sceptics/deniers)
Dana (SkS/Guardian):
"I'm also confident the first criticism of the paper will be "I'm a denier and based on your definition, I endorse AGW", assuming our definition is any anthropogenic warming. If deniers fall into our 'endorse' category, that substantially weakens our result."
All of Dana's comments in that link are worth a read, to see what an activist he is.
Trying to define what the 9&% agreed on, came after planning how to market a 97% result, before doing any research:
which drew Ari's comment:
"I have to say that I find this planning of huge marketing strategies somewhat strange when we don't even have our results in and the research subject is not that revolutionary either (just summarizing existing research). I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't do this, but just that it seems a bit strange to me." - Ari Jokimaki - SkS
http://www.hi-izuru.org/forum/The%20Consensus%20Project/2012-01-19-Marketing%20Ideas.html
Consensus project section from the leaked leaked SkS forum:
http://www.hi-izuru.org/forum/The%20Consensus%20Project/
the leaked SkS forum
http://www.hi-izuru.org/forum/
The warmist answer is always 'it's worse than we thought'. Even to the question 'how good is your maths?'
I really love the escapades of the treehouse gang but is it me or is their platform getting a little cramped and worn out? Perhaps it explains why they've started trying to get into other club houses?
Wow Barry there is a paper trail showing they engineered the project to get the 97% result. This is the first time I have seen this evidence ..(I must have been out of the country when that time those secret discussions were made public)
Make a great presentation or is it already in a book ?
Well done Josh.
AND THEN THERES FIZzIKS WOZ HERE
Not quite sure who was teaching who, though.
['Not Here' not 'Here' ;-) ]
Oh for the money of a rich hedge-fund manager like Grantham! I'd set up an institute dedicated to Quality Audits of climate science papers, institutions, leaders, and campaigns. I can see quite a few PhD theses in and around comparing the relative moral and intellectual merits, and basic competence, of the two main perspectives on climate variation and our influence on it. One is obsessed with CO2 and the end of the world, while the other is perplexed by seeing so much hoo-ha based on so little substance.
Another area of interest would be comparing and contrasting the public views of retired and not-yet retired scientists in relevant fields. For example, here is a taster to help motivate this line of research:
N.B.: “I’m now retired, so I have no scientific career to protect by spreading lies.”
Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/phi-beta-cons/396004/retired-climate-professor-admits-global-warming-will-not-destroy-earth-jennifer
The fabrication of their tree house, appears more solid, than that of their science.
"Cook up". Noun. A situation, contrived to create fear in others, that actually causes self harm. See also "Blue on Blue" and "Friendly Fire" (military).
You have to seriously wonder how this paper passed peer review and got to be published by ScienceDirect. Didn't this passage in the Abstract even raise an eyebrow?
"Our model is based on observed changes in radiative forcings, and is therefore constrained by physics, unlike the Loehle model, which is little more than a curve-fitting exercise."
It just sounds so immature, so spiteful, so "we do proper physics, so there", and finally, so "and then there's physics . . . "; like it WAS actually being written by the type of characters mockingly portrayed in Josh's cartoon. A seasoned scientific reviewer would surely have picked up on this and taken extra care when reviewing the contents - but apparently not. I knew the peer review process, especially in climate science, was more than a little suspect, but this is truly dreadful.
...Al Gore – “the drum major in the parade denouncing global warming as an unmitigated disaster.” --Dr. Terry Hughes
That presents quite a mental image. Another cartoon, perhaps?