Ellen Stuttle

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Ellen Stuttle

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Psychology, Physics, Philosophy, Literature, Music
  1. Well, here are three things which irk me: (1) Your saying that "we need" better models and that you think "it is worth the cost" of getting them while never saying just what sort of cost you're proposing, how you expect the money to be provided and by whom, and how you're expecting quality control to be achieved. (2) Your apparent inability to understand verb tenses and your outright asserting that the earth IS warming now. That the earth warmed does not say that it is warming. I don't know if the earth is warming now. Maybe, maybe not. I think that there isn't evidence of warming during what's called "the hiatus," and that there are too many unreliabilities to be sure that the supposed warming preceding "the hiatus" was really happening. (3) Your general habit of not answering questions but instead giving lectures which don't actually address what you were asked. Ellen
  2. I didn't have time to look at this thread until now. A lot is going on in discussions transpiring elsewhere which might have some actual effect on governmental climate policies. --- Bob, you continue to display your penchants for not tracking what even you yourself have said and for delivering lectures which are beside the point. You claimed - here - that it "is not in dispute" that "the planet is warming." Note: "is warming," continuous. Not "warmer" than during the Little Ice Age. You've often make the claim of a continuous warming trend since the Little Ice Age. But the existence of a continuous trend is disputed, and justifiably. I don't know, since there are many posts on this thread which I've never read, if you have any awareness of what's called "the hiatus," that is, a pause in measured warming for some sixteen to eighteen years. Alarmists went into a tizzy over "the hiatus," trying to get rid of the problem posed for model predictions. But a further problem is posed from the other direction, because of the uncertainties of temperature data records. For there to have been "a hiatus" implies that there was a previous late-twentieth-century warming trend which "paused." But was there? It's impossible to be sure because of the unreliability of surface measuring devices, compounded by monkeying with data and deleting of raw data. The uncertainties pose a problem for testing climate models. A good model would have to get retroactive temperatures right, but since there's uncertainty about what temperatures were, there's inescapable guesswork as to a model's retroactive accuracy. Thus even if your "better models" project was funded - for how much? with money provided how and by whom? with quality control overseen by whom? - and even if Navier-Stokes solutions were forthcoming, you'd still have to wait to see if the predictions were right, since the retroactive baseline would remain iffy. --- Another issue is your frequent statement that you don't think Earth will "turn into Venus." Presumably you don't mean that anyone is literally claiming that Earth will "turn into Venus," but what are you meaning exactly? Ellen
  3. Bob, what a run-around. What you initially said you think is "worth the cost" is getting better climate models. Now you "can't give specifics" until those models are developed. Oy. And it isn't true that it isn't in dispute that the planet is warming. The data records are so messed up, impossible to be sure. Ellen
  4. I.e., stop the Newspeak. Good. Ellen
  5. I don't see any answers in your subsequent posts, only an assertion (responding to a different post of mine): Ellen
  6. That's how I've been seeing it too. Ellen
  7. Beyond the title, William doesn't indicate what point the article is making. I think that a better title would have been: "Natural Variability’s Role in Arctic Sea Ice Decline Further Invalidates Alarmist Projections." Quoting the concluding paragraphs: Ellen
  8. that was my best shot. Sorry. Give me an example of an answer you consider "unvague". Thank youl Here's the statement of yours in regard to which I asked for specifics - What cost? How provided? Who's doing the research? Well, that's nice and vague. You think "it is worth the cost." What cost? What price tag do you have in mind? Money provided by whom? Collected how? Allocated how? Research conducted by whom? Overseen and vetted by whom? The same pseudo-scientific modelers who have given us a stream of unfalsifiable crud and who you said above "might be right"? Ellen You write in a subsequent post: You think "we should spend some money on more powerful computers [...]" and that "a steady moderate cost approach to improving the science is called [for]." Again, what specifics do you have in mind? "We should [...]," you say. Do you mean the U.S. government should be taxing U.S. citizens to get the money? Or do you want the Europeans to pay for it, a la Palmer's suggestion of a CERN-like operation? And how much do you have in mind "we" should spend? And what proposal do you have for achieving quality control of the research? Ellen
  9. It's further vague and doesn't so much as take a stab at answering the questions I asked. Same with the second paragraph. Ellen
  10. Well, that's nice and vague. You think "it is worth the cost." What cost? What price tag do you have in mind? Money provided by whom? Collected how? Allocated how? Research conducted by whom? Overseen and vetted by whom? The same pseudo-scientific modelers who have given us a stream of unfalsifiable crud and who you said above "might be right"? Ellen
  11. Changing the prediction to something or other, we know not what, might or might not happen an unknown X number of years from now wouldn't retroactively make the string of failed predictions right. And I hope you're aware of the kind of financial drain being called for in an appeal to "European countries to come together to fund a dedicated (exascale) flagship climate-computing centre – a sort of Climate CERN [...]." Europe isn't being burdened enough already with the financial and lifestyle hardships produced by climate alarmism? Ellen
  12. You believe incorrectly. Borrowed it, no desire to support Weart by buying it, nor to have the discussion of it you try to elicit. Ellen
  13. I live in a neighborhood which is more than 95% black and is as peaceful, quiet, and well-behaved as was the upper-middle-class white neighborhood in which I grew up. Among my neighbors, the one I'm disinclined to get into conversation with, because she's the sort of "snoot" Michael and I have been talking about, is a white academic, a philosophy professor. Ellen
  14. Who decides what material is released by WikiLeaks and when? Is material released as it becomes available, or is it sometimes held for a perceived strategic moment? Specifically what I'm wondering about is how long the CIA material has been available, if WikiLeaks has had that stuff since before the election, and, if so, why it wasn't released before the election. Ellen PS: The image of shooting the Amazon Echo cracks me up. I don't know why I find it so very funny, but each time I think of it, I laugh again.
  15. I'm not sure if I understand your question. The lawnewz article discusses ways Obama could be prosecuted if he did use FISA to seek information on Trump. One of the ways is if he disseminated any information gained. According to FISA requirements (the article's author, Robert Barnes, reports; I don't know if the report is accurate), the only legitimate information to be sought using FISA pertains to foreign acts of war, which anything gotten about Trump clearly wasn't. Any other information acquired is supposed to be destroyed not disseminated. Ellen