Seen elsewhere

 

Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Hitchens on freedom of speech | Main | Sans science, sans maths, sans everything »
Monday
Jan122015

Boxed in - Josh 307

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (13)

Give them a couple of days. They will come up with a reason for it to be timesings

Jan 12, 2015 at 11:12 AM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

At first glance I thought they were all sitting on a communal lew.

Jan 12, 2015 at 11:27 AM | Registered CommenterPhillip Bratby

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.

Jan 12, 2015 at 11:35 AM | Registered Commenteresquirerobin

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/

Jan 12, 2015 at 11:43 AM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

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?

Jan 12, 2015 at 1:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

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 ?

Jan 12, 2015 at 2:38 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Well done Josh.

FIZzIKS WOZ NOT HERE

Jan 12, 2015 at 2:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterBernd Felsche

AND THEN THERES FIZzIKS WOZ HERE

Not quite sure who was teaching who, though.

['Not Here' not 'Here' ;-) ]

Jan 12, 2015 at 3:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterGolf Charlie

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:

A retired professor and glacier expert has publicly declared global warming a good thing. He also refuses to go along with many of his scientific peers who he says have urged him to be in lockstep with former Vice President Al Gore – “the drum major in the parade denouncing global warming as an unmitigated disaster.”

Apparently when science professors retire, they finally get to say what’s really on their mind.

“You will never read or hear any of this from the scientific and political establishments,” Dr. Terry Hughes, professor emeritus of earth sciences and climate change at the University of Maine, told The College Fix. “I’m now retired, so I have no scientific career to protect by spreading lies.”

He said he thinks dire global warming predictions are really all about lassoing federal research funding and votes.

“Too many (the majority) of climate research scientists are quite willing to prostitute their science by giving these politicians what they want,” the glaciologist added.

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

Jan 12, 2015 at 4:04 PM | Registered CommenterJohn Shade

The fabrication of their tree house, appears more solid, than that of their science.

Jan 12, 2015 at 4:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterGolf Charlie

"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).

Jan 12, 2015 at 5:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterGolf Charlie

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.

Jan 12, 2015 at 10:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterJaime Jessop

...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?

Jan 12, 2015 at 11:16 PM | Unregistered Commenterjorgekafkazar

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>