Also, I appear in the sixth listing and am probably nearby in the association network for the third one (follow the "recently hired" link in the Wonk Room story). So it looks like the Google is supporting my candidacy, as prominently mentioned in the first blurb!
Thanks and a tip of the ol' cowboy hat to Professor Ursa for the heads up!
8 comments:
Climate Depot has no way to comment.
That makes sense--the site would have too many dissenters with real research and facts to shine through the mostly cloudy arguments, outrageous claims and shaky news items.
The best way to disinform and control information is to deny feedback. Authoritarian regimes like those in China, Iran, North Korea and so-called Myanmar (actually Burma, under dictatorial rule) are experts in this type of information control.
That's why, to sidetrack a bit, Obama's Presidency is the "most open" in history. He is (surprise!) seeking comment and feedback, in marked contrast to the previous power-broking and corrupt administration.
Progressives, liberals and Democrats mostly act democratically; conservatives and Republicans talk a lot about "liberty" but don't walk the walk--unless it serves the wallet.
I think Google may have reformed - either that or they know who they're serving their search data to. When I google "global warming" now, I don't get a pageful of denialist sites returned anymore.
I noticed that Bing gave reliable global warming search results; maybe that spurred Google to do likewise.
re ThinkLife's "The best way to disinform and control information is to deny feedback."
The absolute best is to appear to allow feedback, but quietly deep six the feedback you don't want.
The New York Times has been sending its editors and journalists out to answer questions from readers, but to my knowledge they don't mention that they only answer the questions they choose to; the other submitted questions never see the light of day.
(and yes, some of the "disappeared" Qs have probably been stupid or hateful; but some haven't been.)
It's not that easy. Without editorial judgment you get a forum for not very bright people with terrible manners to yell at each other.
See, for instance, the wide open forums associated with many online articles at the Austin Statesman. They are completely useless.
So am I right that this chunk is now inoperative and is being replaced in a new draft? Or is this the published text and the revision will be in a followup?
Quoting from the latest document linked at the Piekle blog:
--- excerpt---
The global amplification ratio of 19 climate models listed in CCSP SAP 1.1 indicates a ratio of 1.25 for the models' composite mean trends and 1.19 in their composite median values over a 21-year period that is completely contained within the 30-year record used here. Thus, in 19 realizations this consistent ratio was calculated. This was also demonstrated for land-only model output (R. McKitrick, personal communication) in which a 24-year record (1979-2002) of GISS-E results indicated an amplification factor of 1.25 averaged over the five runs. Thus, we choose a value of 1.2 as the amplification factor based on these model results. All ratios are lower than the 1.2 factor amplification expected from the models except for the ratio between the NCDC surface dataset and the RSS lower troposphere data over oceans.
---- end excerpt---
That's the piece that got recalculated after Gavin provided more complete data. But where is the new paper/version?
Patience, please, for those of us already becoming confused -- we need an, erm, I can't say 'honest broker' it'd be too ironic, but we need a competent writer here who has no direct relationship to anyone involved in these papers, who can keep a running commentary going apart from the back and forth comments.
Anyone?
Hank, you meant this for a different thread, no?
> "It's not that easy. Without editorial judgment..."
Agreed 100%, but if the host doesn't disclose that such judgment is being exercised, nor upon what criteria, it feels like a breach of the social contract, and makes the question submitter cranky.
Blush. Yeah, that was for one of the other threads that has recently had Pielkes in it.
Post a Comment