R Gates, I do apologise – I see now that you were just reporting on the alarmist claptrap about wildfires, diseases, air quality etc, but you’re about as sceptical of these things as the rest of us.
Sorry for getting you wrong.
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion thread by phatboy
↧
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion thread by R. Gates
“Models need to demonstrate a reliable accuracy sufficient for their purpose over the timescales being considered.”
_______
This is huge moving target then, eh?
“accuracy sufficient for their purpose…” Models don’t just have one purpose, and their most important one is not to duplicate the exact evolution of a climate system, but to show the general dynamics involved in that evolution. We cannot design a model that will track the exact path of a single speck of dust as it floats in your room, yet we can design models that will accurately tell you the rate of dust deposition on your table because we know most of the important dynamics involved. Specks of dusts are like the evolution of individual climate systems. Do you get it?
↧
Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by Lucifer
It is interesting to look at CDC causes of death.
Weather doesn’t even make the lists.
Climate change, with its slow rate of temperature increase I imagine as even less than not making the list.
↧
Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by philjourdan
The answers to your questions are simple and easy. The Market will decide. Governments can force things upon its own people, but it cannot defy Economics. All it accomplished when it tries is to impoverish its people.
↧
Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by Don Monfort
I am really disappointed, brandi. Don’t you remember that I was the only one to defend you when webby was bullying you over that St. Louis thing and ridiculing the little obscure diploma mill you attended? And you wonder why nobody likes you.
↧
↧
Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by Tonyb
Brandon
You disappoint me. I was pointing out to Mr gates that there are far worse things than agw, one example being criminal hacking.
Remembering our previous conversations I had bet myself 5 pounds that you would pop up from nowhere within Thirty minutes to pass a scathing comment
It’s taken nearly two hours so I seem to have won my bet but am unsure how to collect it. :)
I think that big corporations and govts are becoming increasingly concerned by the escalating and audacious attacks that have taken place and doubtless there are many we never hear of.
I sincerely hope you are right in your analysis but only time will tell.
Mind you, i still think my prediction of the current generation of teenagers collapsing in a heap on the floor should they be denied access to mobile phones for more than 24 hours still holds true.
A happy new year to you
Tonyb
↧
Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by Danny Thomas
Lattimer and Joshua,
Rhetorical games.
==> “Just as there is no logical or scientific basis for thinking that climate change is new,”
There are logical and scientific reasons for thinking that the current rate of climate change MIGHT be unprecedented.
Is it just me, or is “might” a pretty big word as used here? So do we suggest economic policy based on “might” is the correct course of action based on “risk analysis”? Especially if it “might” be that the current rate of climate change is NOT unprecedented?
Unless I misread the article, did not Mr. Tol suggest that continued evaluation and risk analysis in all directions be conducted and mitigation practice include infrastructure as well as CO2 mitigation (or in lieu)?
↧
Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by philjourdan
Sorry davey, that is simply a bald faced lie. Had you prefaced the statement with “IMHO”, you could have gotten away with it. However, there is no proof of your statement. Indeed, as I said in a response to a man of High integrity, Stephen Mosher, Governments can force their people to do most anything, but the end result is still the same. Impoverishing the people.
Your opinion is not only wrong, it is also very injurious as you seek to starve the children of today due to ego alone, with no facts. And that is the most damaging.
↧
Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by Craig Loehle
I would like to suggest a different sort of tipping point: developing economies. Many countries such as South Korea have undergone rapid modernization. China is in this transition. This transition period can be upset and development reversed. This hurts the poor in those countries. Progress is not inevitable. Policies that prevent these countries from putting up a power grid and make energy prohibitively expensive could prevent them from making the transition. Charities like Oxfam are already discouraging modernization in favor of “sustainability”. While elites may find rural villages quaint and want to preserve them, I challenge them to go live somewhere with no running water or electricity or doctors.
↧
↧
Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by markx
Gee Josh,
That is just silly.
Of course there is a cost.
You may perhaps mean to take issue with the question of whether or not that cost is worthwhile.
↧
Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by jim2
@Tonyb | December 27, 2014 at 11:52 am |
That IS strange!
What I was getting at is that I don’t believe diesel particulates are the bugbear they are made out to be, when compared to other factors, sort of in the the gist of the post. There are natural allergens that are much more onerous than some of the man-made ones.
As a society, or societies, we need to remind ourselves that we have limited resources, that life entails risk, and the elimination of risk is impossible and will cost us our quality of life – as ironic as that seems. We need to let the government have only a small amount of our resources and then ensure those are spent wisely. This is something that appears to be completely lacking today. The government in the US and, from what I can see, in the UK and EU in general, is fully out of control of the citizens. Some democracy.
↧
Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by James Evans
“1. what stages”
Unanswerable until we know the answer to number 2.
“2. What replacements.”
Some sort of combination of fairy-wheels, pixie-dust and wishful-thinking. Or nuclear. Or just replace coal with gas.
“3. Who decides”
Despots and populist democrats.
“4. what science inputs do they need.”
They don’t need any science inputs to do whatever insane thing they want to do. It might be nice if they had some decent scientific advice though. They’ve had bugger all so far. They’ve had a lot of inputs from retards in lab-coats, and crazy hubristic modellers. But I don’t think that’s the same thing.
↧
Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by markx
David Appell. Translated:
“The science is settled!!! .. .. mumble mumble.. . 97% of climate scientist agree to. .. um.. . mumble…
↧
↧
Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by philjourdan
Perhaps you would like to show where that is so? Clearly, as I have stated, the government can make it uneconomical – but that is not the work of the fuel, but of government regulations that serve only to impoverish the people. There is a reason that the middle class is disappearing under this regime. The middle class is the anathema to government power.
Again, you seek to impose your opinion without substantiation in order to starve the children of today. One can only wonder why.
↧
Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by Canman
While I’m normally skeptical about government planning, I think the best policy regarding climate is for government to pick a technology and that technology is nuclear. The reality is that government is already picking technologies and it has picked two losers — wind and solar. I find Steve Goreham’s assessment of the situation in this video to be pretty compelling. Starting at 9:00, he talks about nuclear plants being shut down due to requirements for buying wind energy.
↧
Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by Tonyb
Don
Here is my seasonal article tracking theILife of Charles dickens
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/01/06/bah-humbug/
His formative years were spent enduring one of the coldest pulses of the LIA . This coincided with napoleons European excursions and in particular his march on Moscow which took place during extremely low temperatures. In other years he may have had more success..
With regards to hanibal, Prof hunt leads trips to the passes thought to be associated with hanibal. During the roman period many of the glaciers had retreated which enabled hanibal to conduct his campaign. The glaciers eventually made a return so the attempt was time dependent on the changing climate.
Tonyb
↧
Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by ceresco kid
Brandon
I sincerely hope you are right. But, I remember two “unthinkable” events from the last decade that no one saw coming. There were plenty who, after the fact, developed their Monday morning qb skills and claimed to have foreseen both catastrophes but if you read the specifics of their forecasts, they by and large, were generic. Decades after Pearly Harbor you can connect the dots and make a case that all the warning signs were there but no one had the time, place or method right before the fact. The world is becoming so interdependent and interconnected that the gaps in our intelligence and skills in anticipating the imagination possessed by our adversaries, have created vulnerabilities that will become apparent only after the event. And then the Monday morning quarterbacking starts all over again.
↧
↧
Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by johnfpittman
Thanks for the link. I have not read it. Thanks for the next post. I was starting to look for satire switches and did not see any.
You state “I don’t get how you can evaluate the cost/benefit ratio w/o estimating the costs and benefits of externalities associated with fossil fuels and renewables, respectively.”
I do not do that exactly. Costs and benefits are used. It is that most externalities are not used due to large margin of error or due to assumptions that are counter to current knowledge, or unbalanced (biased). An example is to consider how many persons can be effected by particulate matter, but not count the cost of cheap fossil fuel for preventing deaths. Another example is from wind advocates in studies that claim wind can be sustained at 33% penetration or greater by assuming that the hardware and software will become available, that modeling of wind can reach the point of preventing over and undervoltage, or by assuming that electric devices of the future will be able to stand this without accounting for the costs such devices.
Looking at the linked abstract, I would add another reason to my list, for those who advocate removal of fossil fuel. Has the estimate included nonmarket damages from trying to address climate to include costs caused by the changing composition of the economy and energy changes that lead to rising relative prices for certain goods and services? My opinion as stated before is: yes, there will be greater costs for trying to address climate change than have been accounted. The under and over-voltage problem is just one of several problems when adding renewables above 7%, based on the EU and Wyoming studies of wind.
Note that the reason the externalities fall out is that the don’t knows, don’t get included in the cost/benefit or risk matrix very well. This is being “conservative” with capital, or capital investments. Which is why I do agree that each time we build another fossil fuel electric source, or open a fossil fuel field that we have accepted this input for about another 30 years. The 30 years was the time that the person(s) who objected to Keystone pipeline used and is typical with “conservative” approaches.
So I have to ask you: Did the authors include the relative costs and damages from going from the present structure and system to the proposed system, and if so what was the basis?
Joshua, in a way this is over definitions and how one estimates costs, especially which are included and which are not. The other part is do we discount the current lives or the future lives. This is not a negligible consideration. It s reasonable to assume monies spent on renewables will be detrimental to the poor. Increased costs typically are. One in line with the article you linked, was a study that was about poor persons who lived in older homes that were built and designed before central heating/AC. The incremental value of the home was worth more than temperature based on the buying habits of those in the study. This evaluation or discounting is also part of that counterfactual dilemma we discussed that we as limited beings will face no matter which policy is adapted.
↧
Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by Max_OK, Weird Citizen Scientist
What a load of tripe ! If warmer was better, greenhouses wouldn’t need cooling.
↧
Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by Tonyb
Jim2
After years trying to persuade motorists to change from petrol to diesel, with considerable success, diesel has now become public enemy number 1 because of the particulates.
I don’t know enough to dispute this belief, but it is one held very widely in the UK at the moment with policy being directed to alleviate the problem
Tonyb
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
