Denialism is the opposite of believalism

A new comment on the post "The RICO 20: lessons in stupidity" is waiting for your approval
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2016/05/15/the-rico-20-lessons-in-stupidity/ (update: nowadays you may prefer https://wmconnolley.wordpress.com/2016/05/15/the-rico-20-lessons-in-stupidity/)
Author: Brad Keyes
Comment:
Dr Connolley writes inline that:<blockquote>[...The antithesis of science is denialism, e.g. WUWT or Republican congresscritters -W]</blockquote>Um, not quite.

Denialism is the opposite of <i>believalism</i>.

Republican congresscritters is the opposite of <i>Democrat senatecritters</i>.

The opposite of science is <i>antiscience</i>: the active hostility to human discovery about nature. This hostility is exemplified when a supposed "scientist" says that if people he doesn't like ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, he'd rather destroy a priceless library of knowledge about climate and weather rather than send to anyone.

The point is that skeptics are constantly being accused of representing the interest of big oil in order to line their pockets

A new comment on the post "The RICO 20: lessons in stupidity" 
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2016/05/15/the-rico-20-lessons-in-stupidity/

Author: Tom C
Comment:

William has steered this discussion onto the question of "is it illegal?"  That could be true or not, but it is irrelevant.  The point is that skeptics are constantly being accused of representing the interest of big oil in order to line their pockets.  We are offered examples that are usually a few thousand dollars or so - typical consulting fees for a couple days work.  Here is a professor that has an institute with some vague purpose, with a name containing the high-minded words "global", "environment" and "society", staffed by his family and friends.  He gets $ 5.6 MM of government climate money to do, well, whatever it is that he does [can someone tell me what we got for this investment?].  This might be all legal, but it is still a scandal.

Weird blog rules

A new comment on the post "Peabody coal's contrarian scientist witnesses lose their court case" 
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2016/05/02/peabody-coals-contrarian-scientist-witnesses-lose-their-court-case/

Author: Tom C

Comment:I. There shall be no criticism of John Mashey
II. There shall be no criticism of John Abraham

Weird blog rules

Regardless of what you wankers may think... Salby is correct

New comment on your post "Murry Salby ha ha ha"
Author: Leah Salby 

Comment:
Regardless of what you wankers may think... Salby is correct. He has studied the subject for over 40 years.

For 40 years from now Salby will be correct in his study. Go back to when the world was flat. Think about that.

PROOF of GRAVITO-THERMAL EFFECT using Second Law of Thermodynamics and Kinetic Theory of Gases

A new comment on the post "Le Hansen nouveau est re-arrive" 
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2016/03/13/le-hansen-noveau-est-arrive/

Author: Physics Shows What is Correct
Comment:

<b>PROOF of GRAVITO-THERMAL EFFECT using Second Law of Thermodynamics and Kinetic Theory of Gases.</b>

In the state of thermodynamic equilibrium (that is, maximum entropy) in a column of the troposphere the pressure from above and below any horizontal plane is equal. Because pressure is proportional to the product of temperature and density, and because there can be no transfer of energy or matter across any internal boundary when there is thermodynamic equilibrium, we can deduce that, for any horizontal plane, there must be equal numbers of molecules crossing upwards as there are crossing downwards, and the mean kinetic energy of each group while crossing the plane must be equal.

Now, for the numbers to be equal we note that the effect of gravity creates a slightly greater than 50% chance that net downward motion will occur during and also between molecular collisions. This means that there must be a higher density below the plane and a lower one above. So this explains how the density gradient evolves as a result of maximum entropy production (that is, dissipation of unbalanced energy potentials) in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

And, for the temperatures to be equal, this means that (because molecules gain Kinetic Energy with downward motion) there must have been lower mean molecular Kinetic Energy (temperature) above the plane and warmer temperature below. <b>Hence there is a stable equilibrium temperature gradient resulting from the entropy maximization process described in statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.*</b>

<b>Hence the radiative forcing greenhouse conjecture is false.</b>

Hence James Hansen and others are mistaken in thinking that temperatures at the base of planetary tropospheres (and in any solid surfaces there) are primarily determined by radiation of any form reaching that region.

* <a HREF="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics" rel="nofollow">Second law of thermodynamics</a>: <i>In a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems increases.</i>

Protecting Protectionism and Other Economic Inefficiencies

CIP invoked me in response to The WTO Just Ruled Against India’s Booming Solar Program?; I came.

I said:

So, you do think you're hard enough :-). Since you've quoted no facts, you won't insist on references in return.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are examples of nascent industries being protected by tariffs; but I'm pretty sure that most such "examples" aren't real; and that most tariffs imposed are imposed for stupid reasons, whatever pols may say or have said. its just too tempting for people. Most tariffs are just there to protect privileged and powerful incumbents; not for the good of the people.

Which is why your "nations are usually run not for the benefit of everyone, but for the benefit of elites" is so odd; its the elites that benefit from protectionism. As, I think, Smith warned you. So why are you in favour?

"might benefit more by damaging a rival" - is that a reference to dumping? Again, i think that's more imaginary that generally noticed; its more of a rallying cry for protectionist.

The correct tariff rate is zero. The good news: the correct strategy for all countries is to set this unilaterally; there is no need to wait for cooperation.

What’s Wrong with Wikipedia?

Heartland are sad. I asked them if they needed any help:

William Connolley • a few seconds agoHold on, this is waiting to be approved by Somewhat Reasonable.

Hi. I thought I really ought to show up and tweak you a bit, it would be a shame not to.

Are there any aspects of wiki policy that you'd like clarified?

See-also http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/...