Judith Curry’s warning to Bjorn Stevens: “In my quest to objectively evaluate the IPCC’s attribution argument and stand up for research integrity post Climategate, I was not ‘pulled’ away from the establishment community by ‘deniers’; rather I was ‘pushed’ away by scientists who were IPCC ideologues and advocates. Watch out.”
#ProTip: Use of the phrase "climate denier" makes you look like a derriere fedora.
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) April 22, 2015
I’m trying to repair a Windows 7 installation with a Windows 8.1 DVD. I’ve configured the BIOS for Windows 8 mode, and I’m booting from the UEFI-DVD option. It dumps me into the EFI shell. I switch to fs3 (the drive name). I see BOOTX64.EFI on the drive, but when I run it from shell, it gives a screen saying to hit any key to install. I do that, and it dumps me back into the shell. Anyone have any idea what’s going on, or how to diagnose?
[Update a few minutes later]
Huh. Never mind. For some reason, now it’s working.
Now, next question. I selected the option to “repair the PC.” But it says that the drive where Windows is installed is “locked,” and I have to “unlock” it. What the hell does that mean?
[Update a few minutes later]
OK, I followed these instructions. After firing it back up, it’s back to it’s old trick of dumping me back into the EFI shell when I try to run bootx64.exe. Guess I’ll give it a few minutes and try again.
[Update a while later]
OK, separate (but related subject). Has anyone ever experienced a computer that kills flash drives? I just tried to copy an updated BIOS on to one. It didn’t work. When I put it back into the (Fedora) laptop that I’d downloaded it too, it can no longer see the drive. My Fedora desktop has done this as well, to the point that I’m afraid to put USB drives in it.
[Update a while later]
OK, this is weird. It turns out that the machine that’s destroying the flash drives is the one that I’m trying to flash the BIOS on. They’re OK when they leave linux, and get bricked when I plug them into the other machine, without even an OS running.
[Update a while later]
OK, it appears that the front USB port on the machine is killing the drives. The rear ones seem to be OK. Guess I’ll just tape them over.
[Update Saturday afternoon]
Still can’t figure out why I can’t boot Windows from the installation DVD. Anyone have any ideas?
I listened to some of it. Here is Judith Curry’s prepared testimony, and here are Moynihan’s live tweets.
The Democrats were sufficiently unhappy that they abandoned the hearing before it was over. They can’t handle the truth.
[Update in the afternoon]
Before he walked out, Professor Curry assisted one of the Democrats in beclowning himself.
[Update a few minutes later]
Post-hearing thoughts from her. I agree that the economist’s testimony was valuable, too. They basically told the Democrats that what the EPA plans to do would hit the poor hardest. Which is absolutely true.
I know you’ll be as shocked as I am to learn that social media has failed to bridge the gap. Actually, though, they buried the lede:
…tweeters with climate sceptic views are no more likely to post offensive comments than those who accept the basics of climate science.
Sceptics have long been accused of trolling, but Williams said the study indicated their minority status meant they were just more likely to interact with users they disagreed with.
“We found a lot of negativity, but when you crunch the numbers you find out they are no more likely to be negative than anyone else,” he said.
“There is a popular perception that sceptics must be irrational or unreasonable but this study doesn’t support that at all.”
You don’t say.
The emails may be deleted, but that doesn’t mean they’re gone.
I’ve been saying this for weeks. The continued refusal to turn over the server to an independent third party is continued obstruction of justice.
A conversation with Tyler Cowen, on the future of innovation, life extension and God.
Judith Curry wonders if it is a “ruin” problem.
I continue to think it cries out for a serious regret analysis.
Here’s the original piece, on why the propaganda effort is (fortunately) failing.
OK, I took previous advice and installed VirtualBox. It seems to work, but I want to mount a physical drive to it. It’s NTFS, and when I try to load the vmdk file for it, I get a permissions problem.
Failed to open the hard disk file /home/pat/VirtualBox VMs/Windows 8.1/VirtualBox\ VMs\ Windows\ 8.1.vmdk.
Permission problem accessing the file for the medium ‘/home/pat/VirtualBox VMs/Windows 8.1/VirtualBox\ VMs\ Windows\ 8.1.vmdk’ (VERR_ACCESS_DENIED).
Result Code: VBOX_E_FILE_ERROR (0x80BB0004)
Component: Medium
Interface: IMedium {05f2bbb6-a3a6-4fb9-9b49-6d0dda7142ac}
Callee: IVirtualBox {fafa4e17-1ee2-4905-a10e-fe7c18bf5554}
Callee RC: VBOX_E_OBJECT_NOT_FOUND (0x80BB0001)
I’m running VB as a user, but a user doesn’t have permission to do a disk mount (also, the drive itself, when I mount it as admin, shows it owned and grouped as root, probably because it’s NTFS). The file itself is owned and grouped by the user. Any suggestions?
Two years later, it continues to not stand up to even the mildest scrutiny:
Consensus has no place in science. Academics agree on lots of things, but that does not make them true. Even so, agreement that climate change is real and human-caused does not tell us anything about how the risks of climate change weigh against the risks of climate policy. But in our age of pseudo-Enlightenment, having 97% of researchers on your side is a powerful rhetoric for marginalizing political opponents. All politics ends in failure, however. Chances are the opposition will gain power well before the climate problem is solved. Polarization works in the short run, but is counterproductive in the long run.
In their paper, Cook and colleagues argue that 97% of the relevant academic literature endorses that humans have contributed to observed climate change. This is unremarkable. It follows immediately from the 19th century research by Fourier, Tyndall and Arrhenius. In popular discourse, however, Cook’s finding is often misrepresented. The 97% refers to the number of papers, rather than the number of scientists. The alleged consensus is about any human role in climate change, rather than a dominant role, and it is about climate change rather than the dangers it might pose.
But other than that, it’s a compelling argument.
Yet the warm mongers continue to repeat it, because it fits the narrative.
[Update a while later]
Thoughts from Judith Curry on climate change, Ted Cruz, and “the Stupid Party.”
I agree with her that Cruz’s statements were actually quite reasonable.
[Update a while later]
Don’t ask how bad a paper has to be to get it retracted, ask how bad it can be and still be published.
Use of the “97%” number, at this point, is a sign of someone who is either a liar, or profoundly ignorant about the issues. In either case, such people should not be taken seriously.