Welcome to the Gallery – a place where you'll find hope and strength through the healing power of art and the universal reach of technology –
a place where you can
Connect, Create, and Thrive!
Interested in partnering with us?
Click here to find out how!
Displaying (7) Comments | Comment on this piece | Report objectionable art
yes, an ocean current caelld the gulf stream runs from the north atlantic reagon of the artic sea where the salt water freezes depositing its salt into the rest of the water, this then becomes heavey and sinks to the bottom of the ocean where it creates a current that travels to the caribean. here it surfaces as it get heated up and travels accross the atlantic straight at the british isles where it deposits its heat. that is why the british isles are much hotter than land at a similar latitude (ie newfoundland) and also why you can find coconut trees growing in scotland. if the temporatures raised in the artic then the salt water would stop freezing and the current would not have enough energy to reach the caribean and the gulf stream would stop, plunging the british isles into a deep, deep freeze like they get in canada.so yes, very much so.
By: | May 27, 2014 | Report Comment
The near-meltdown of the worldâs financial stysem can be blamed partly on naively reductionist economics and misapplied simplistic statistics, it seems to me that the post-normal scientific analysis of what went wrong in climate science is its own attempt to find a reductionist philosophy and simplistic method to keep science from going wrong. When the professor says the early opposition to any claim of climate change was only partly scientific; the tactics of the opposing special interests were such as to induce the proponents to adopt a simple, forcefully argued position, it doesn't really seem to me he's saying anything wrong about that opposition. The first reaction to any new, radical claim should be that which Carl Sagan expressed: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That's not precisely a scientific opposition, but it is the proper one for science to take. Prove it! Is as old as the schoolyard, but still a fundamental and very scientific position. If that response induces the proponents to adopt the forcefully argued position of You're as bad as a Holocaust denier! then it becomes instantly apparent that whatever is going on here is not science.Later Professor Ravetz says We have argued that in the case of Post-Normal Science, the âextended peer communityâ, including all affected by the policy being implemented, must be fully involved. But what does all affected by the policy really mean? It sounds as though he means this to carry down to the level of the ordinary non-scientist citizen who's electric bill might increase by a factor of ten because of a cap-and-trade tax implemented by politicians sold on AGW, but then he states Its particular contribution will depend on the nature of the core scientific problem, and also on the phase of investigation.a0 Detailed technical work is a task for experts, but quality-control on even that work can be done by those with much broader expertise.a0 And on issues like the definition of the problem itself, the selection of personnel, and crucially the ownership of the results, the extended peer community has full rights of participation. This appears to put the cart before the horse, or maybe to have horses at both ends of the cart. For if the detailed technical work is for experts, how can an extended peer community (of presumed non-experts) be qualified to determine the definition of the problem to begin with, much less choose the personnel to do the technical work and then claim ownership of the results? How can one claim ownership of a scientific study one is not technically qualified to perform?The professor also states that Hitherto, critics of scientific matters have been relegated to a sort of samizdat world, exchanging private letters or writing books that can easily be ignored (as not being peer-reviewed) by the ruling establishment. I would argue that this samizdat state of affairs is nearly unique to this particular scientific theory, and that the history of science is rife with examples of competing theories battling it out in the peer-reviewed literature without one side using its influence to censor the other. For example, J. Harlen Bretz battled in the journals for forty years to prove his glacial lake origin theory of the Channeled Scablands in Washington state; Alfred Wegener proposed continental drift back in 1912 and the idea was argued in the journals until the word by Hess, Mason, Benioff and Wadati put the finishing touches on plate tectonic theory.It appears to me that in this case, the professor's philosophy of post-normal science has it exactly backwards: rather than there being a crisis for which we have to make critical decisions without full understanding of the problem, we are instead in the position of not knowing if there even is a crisis without much more information.
By: | May 27, 2014 | Report Comment
your write very good!
By: | Oct 22, 2013 | Report Comment
Rob, that's a false equivalence you're asetrsing.Here's a sample of the kind of abuse that climate campaingers receive, from Hamilton's article: F**k off!!! Or you will be chased down the street with burning stakes and hung from your f**king neck, until you are dead, dead, dead! F**k you little pieces of sh*t, show youselves in public!!! Your mother was a goat f**ker!!!!!! Your father was a turd!!!!!!! You will be one of the first taken out in the revolution!!!!!!!! Your head will be on a stake!! C**t! If you think that calling somone a denialist is equivalent to the screed above, well, we'll have to agree to disagree. Go cry, emo kid.Besides, denialist is not a term of abuse. It's an accurate descriptive label.Here's how it works:If you are unaware of something, you are ignorant (no shame in that).If something has been explained to you, but you ignore it, you are wilfully ignorant.If, after ignoring previous explanations, you continue to propound the same discredited arguments in support of your view, you are a denialist.We are all entitled to our opinions Rob, but we are not entitled to our own facts. Denialist is a perfectly valid label for a person who behaves in the manner described by the above declension.
By: | Dec 16, 2012 | Report Comment
In response to this dealcrbe of a conference, check out this from Chris Colose at CE reposted and Shewonk:What is clear to me is that climate scientists are now being held to standards which are not typical of any scientific discipline, or for that matter, held to standards which skeptics do not want to put upon themselves.On the first point, it is now apparently perceived as âbadâ when scientists come to a conclusion that is robust enough to be well accepted by the majority. I have never seen claims of the sort that âgravity peopleâ are engaging in indoctrination, or the indoctrination of cell theory, the indoctrination of soil science, or the dogma of electrons. Strangely, this only applies to conclusions about climate change, or maybe evolution (and especially in America).In most fields, consensus is thought of as a consequence of a convergence of evidence over time in a particular subject-matter, and one goes to authorities (doctors for medical diagnosis, lawyers for legal advice, etc) for insight. Most people seek the explanation with the most support, which is then echoed by the experts in the field. Some, on the other hand, will leave 100 doctors that give them a certain diagnosis, and then approve of the one that tells them to meditate, take secret forest herbs, and pray five times a day to cure their illness. People go to calculus textbooks to learn calculus, and yet no one goes to an sociologist to learn by the segments of the heart and brain. However, in climate science, apparently âauthorityâ is a logical fallacy, and textbooks and classrooms can be replaced by random opinions on a blog.Whatâs even more startling, is that the personal communiation of scientists through e-mails can actually change the laws of physics!What all of this shows is that many people simply cannot think rationally about climate change, nor do they have the capacity to diagnose proper information from nonsense. And once they pursue nonsense, it is very difficult to convince them that they are wrong. You cannot convince such people that Pat Michaels, Singer, Marano, etc donât actually have anything to say, or that WUWT is a disinformation source. Itâs not that the information to show they are nonsense is unavailable, itâs that the information MUST be wrong.It is also clear to me that climate scientists must now become babysitters to every half-baked idea out there, otherwise they are being dogmatic. They must write detailed responses to people who think the greenhouse effect isnât real.It is also clear to me that the so-called âskepticsâ are allowed to make up whatever they want at will without consequence, and create a large but ill-thought out laundry list, and that we must play this game or else weâre being âdogmatic.â If a climate scientist make one mistake, or a date gets screwed up in the middle of a 1000 page document about glaciers, it will receive international attention. However, if âskepticsâ toss out 8 conspiracy theories, 10 logical fallacies, and 17 arguments with ZERO thought put into them, then it is a good thing that we get to hear all sides. Then, when one item on the bucket list is knocked down, they can just jump tot he next item. In the meantime, they are just as valid as everyone elseâs idea, since the criteria for acceptance is 101% certaintly in everything.
By: | Dec 16, 2012 | Report Comment
Actually, I think Judith Curry used that term. Tallbloke himself refrreed to the invitation committee , if I recall correctly. I've since seen a list of the five organizers (it was in McIntyre's invitation letter). They are:The organising Teamc2ngela Guimare3es Pereira â European CommissionJerome Ravetz â Oxford Univ.,UKSilvio Funtowicz â European CommissionJeroen Van Der Sluijs â Univ. Of Utrecht, NLJames Risbey, CSIRO, AUSThe two main organizers were Ravetz and Pereira at least they signed the statement of purpose.So the exact role of tallbloke is unclear. He did imply that he was not part of the correspondence with invitees and that he received Schmidt's email inadvertantly . So it seems pretty clear that he was not supposed to have that email. But I think it's up to the organizers to clarify tallbloke's role, describe exactly what happened and apologize, especially since tallbloke seems somewhat unrepentant and his story keeps changing.
By: | Dec 04, 2012 | Report Comment
your piece is lovely
By: | Feb 10, 2010 | Report Comment
a good run
jay
There are 4 pieces of art in this thread