Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Week in review by cwon14

0
0

It’s about humanities but is climate “science” any less driven by left-wing agenda??;

http://the-good-news.storage.googleapis.com/assets/pdf/psychology-political-diversity.pdf

Actually it’s worse since the bulk of the field would only exist with the AGW meme and the green coerced funding derived from deception and self-delusion of like minded academia and the rabble it transacts with.

Calls for political diversity will likely fail on all fronts but will never even be acknowledged in the blinder culture of climate “consensus”.


Comment on Week in review by Martin C

0
0

Jim D, VERY MISLEADING with how you presented the graph.
You want an explanation? EASY. Show it with more sampling data. Also change the time trends in segments, as per the below:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1950/mean:1/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1950/to:1973/trend:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1973/to:2002/trend:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/to:2014/trend

Note the change in the y-axis, now 1.6 degrees, rather than Jim’s 0,9 degrees. So the slope of the center segment increase is less (not as ‘scary’ as on Jim’s plot).
And adding the means for each time segment CLEARLY show the trends for each time period: slight decline from 1950 to about 1973, the increase from about 1973 to 2001, and the slight decline from about 2001 to the present.

Comment on Week in review by kim

0
0

Inhofe’s basket of bread turned to roses.
========================

Comment on Week in review by kim

0
0

Treeline, sometimes arctic sometimes alpine. Never only about temperature.
======

Comment on Week in review by kim

0
0

Hey, I dissemble that remark.
=============

Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by Wagathon

0
0

…too early to tell is resolved in months if you’re pregnant, but for other things… there’s no telling: how many years would it take?

Comment on Week in review by kim

0
0

Tibetan tree rings
Untouched by the Piltdown Mann,
Proxies bell well rung.
===============

Comment on Week in review by kim

0
0

Better second line:

Untouched of hand, Piltdown Mann’d.
==============


Comment on Week in review by kim

0
0

Keith DeHavelle makes me jealous.
=============

Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by Hugh Jurass

Comment on Week in review by A fan of *MORE* discourse

0
0

Answer  Your memory is mistaken, “Lady in Red” … `cuz the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry’s “Open Letter” never *WAS* on this week’s Climate Etc ‘things that caught my eye’ list.

Postulate  Climate Etc’s self-proclaimed ‘skeptical eye’ has become a one-way ratchet promoting lower climate-change risk.

Prediction  For precisely as long as Climate Etc sustains its one-way ratchet, Climate Etc will continue to enjoy the favor of the   [name redacted] Foundation  [name redacted] Institute

*EVERYONE* understands *THESE* common-sense skeptical/denialist realities, eh Climate Etc readers?

\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

Comment on Week in review by Jim D

0
0

Martin C, you are not doing what they were doing. They were looking at trends ending in 2014, which is what I showed.

Comment on Week in review by PA

0
0

Max_OK, Citizen Scientist | December 20, 2014 at 10:51 am |
Jim D, I believe that’s called “destructive testing,” which definitely is not a good idea for anything irreplaceable.

Well, if you refer to the “Models vs Observations” chart in the next thread, the trend of reality is headed for negative numbers and the models are starting their trend toward infinity.

It is time to start talking about requiring by law that the model aggregate bear some resemblance to reality, as a requirement for future federal funding. To this point researchers have failed to correct the models. It is pretty clear they are going to have to be beaten with some sort of stick to make them change.

There is no point in having models that seem to model Venus and not earth. The atmosphere of Venus is so different it might as well be another planet.

Bad models are not irreplaceable – they are irrelevant. What is being “destructively tested” is funding justification for GCMs that are grossly incorrect.

Comment on Week in review by Jim D

0
0

PA, I had questions on that graph too. Did they underestimate the observation line? They are not using OLS trends for sure, maybe end-points?

Comment on Week in review by A fan of *MORE* discourse

0
0

DENIALIST RESEARCH

DENIALIST COGNITION

CLIMATE-CHANGE REALITY

\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}


Comment on Week in review by Jim D

0
0

On the other hand, they do seem to get 0.17 C per decade. It appears lower than 0.15 when eye-balling, but you can line it up and the observed trend is not far short of 0.2 C per decade for the last 30-40 years, which is about right given the forcing going on.

Comment on Week in review by aaron

0
0

I don’t think that’s entirely implausible, much of the ocean biomass pyramid is thought to be upside down. Short lived plants at the surface are quickly consumed by animals. Ultimately fish poop, dead fish matter, etc. may end up decaying on the ocean floor.

Comment on Week in review by David L. Hagen

0
0
Max You can get preview glimpses of the <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=little+ice+age&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1" rel="nofollow">Little Ice Age</a>

Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by JustinWonder

0
0

Great keynote speech – it requires patience but is worth it. I like the idea of ambassadors. Flaming idealogues create havoc. Former ambassador Bolton is amusing but was justifiably fired – diplomats need to be diplomatic. Sadly, blogs seem to attract psychopaths like sh&t attracts flies.

Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by JustinWonder

0
0

Oops! Either I messed up or threading is broken. My post was a reply to Daniel’s post of the Megan McCardle keynote speech on YouTube

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images