tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post149940686335812212..comments2024-01-13T18:57:18.243-05:00Comments on Information Processing: Climate change priors and posteriorsSteve Hsuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02428333897272913660noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-79068932783951154952010-05-10T22:10:41.834-04:002010-05-10T22:10:41.834-04:00The letter is signed by NAS members without regard...The letter is signed by NAS members without regard to their field of specialization. As such, many of them have no more formal credentials in climate science than any random Joe the plumber. I recognize only about 1/3 of the names but willing to bet that the majority are not even physicists, much less earth/climate scientists. This should be kept in mind when reading statements like "There Nanonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-1043636496146932492010-05-10T15:49:25.354-04:002010-05-10T15:49:25.354-04:00As I've said before on the blog, I'm not a...As I've said before on the blog, I'm not an expert in this area, and don't have the time to become one. Therefore I do not assign a high weight to my own pdf -- did you not understand the reference to Knightian Uncertainty?<br /><br />But I do think you should take much more seriously the observation that "experts" predicting the behavior of complex systems almost always steve hsuhttp://duende.uoregon.edu/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-19853233391729897612010-05-10T15:27:08.752-04:002010-05-10T15:27:08.752-04:00steve,
so you will agree that you have no strong ...steve,<br /> so you will agree that you have no strong evidence for group think in climate science only a general expectation that it is there?<br /><br />also does this expectation of group think invalidate the science, i.e. start with the conclusions of the 255 person in the Science Article.<br /><br />is it only time series analysis on which the conclusion of AGW is based or are there oarobinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-58510853625580993272010-05-10T14:18:46.504-04:002010-05-10T14:18:46.504-04:00I have observed strong tendencies toward groupthin...I have observed strong tendencies toward groupthink in *every* context that I have observed closely: finance professionals (see last 2 bubbles), technology investors and technologists (Silicon Valley), educators (political correctness), economists (efficient markets), and scientists (even particle physicists -- recall the strong expectation that the top quark mass was around 40 GeV or the currentsteve hsuhttp://duende.uoregon.edu/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-38816786984260972102010-05-10T13:28:32.036-04:002010-05-10T13:28:32.036-04:00Steve,
what i would like is the analysis...Steve, <br /> what i would like is the analysis that informs your prior?<br />also accusation of groupthink are easy to make especially if no evidence is provided. can you support your insinuation of groupthink?<br />do you have any reason to think that the five conclusion articulated in the Science are not robust and supported by faulty analysis?oarobinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-4297219632700894452010-05-10T12:08:30.300-04:002010-05-10T12:08:30.300-04:00Anyone with common sense can see that the big fund...Anyone with common sense can see that the big funding governments have poured into particle physics has corrupted it. I mean come one, for 30 years these government funded scientists have been taking our money and telling us a Higgs or a superparticle is just around the corner. How long can they keep this going? Any "discoveries" coming from that massive tax boondogle in Switzerland Guestnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-5567644158395499632010-05-10T11:26:17.406-04:002010-05-10T11:26:17.406-04:00"Scientists are only slightly less susceptibl..."Scientists are only slightly less susceptible than others to groupthink"<br /><br />This comment brings to mind something which has bothered me for months now but no one has addressed to my knowledge; I refer to the 'errors' in the UN IPCC 2007 AR4 Report. For example the ridiculous claim that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone in 25 years. Why was this and other statements klemnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-83303392732159303682010-05-10T10:37:15.816-04:002010-05-10T10:37:15.816-04:00Anyone with common sense can see that the big fund...<i>Anyone with common sense can see that the big funding governments have poured into climate science has corrupted it. </i><br /><br />Well anyone using this angle frankly comes to me as either mentally retarded (I do consider iq 100 pretty close to retarded :) ) or hopelessly biased . The money side of climate deniers is entire world economy. Because 85% of world energy production comes fromMaxnoreply@blogger.com