At least he doesn’t confuse himself with Samson.
Comment on My interview with Mrs. Green by beththeserf
↧
↧
Comment on My interview with Mrs. Green by Jim D
AK, the problem is per capita CO2 usage. Inefficient energy sources such as tar sands exacerbate that. If you think 700 ppm by around 2100 is safe, go ahead and make that argument, because that is where business as usual is headed allowing for per capita growth in addition to population growth. This kind of short-sightedness is a major problem with free-market thinking. Do the CO2 projections. It is sobering.
↧
Comment on Week in review by ordvic
Indeed! It appears the ‘real truth’ is still just a project.
↧
Comment on Week in review by David in TX
Yeah, Telford. Big boy pants like Mosher said. And take it from him about which way the zipper goes in case you are anatomically indistinguishable front and back like he is.
↧
Comment on My interview with Mrs. Green by Rob Ellison
‘There remains considerable meta uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity, including how the problem is even framed.’ Curry
A misleading footnote in the history of climate science and another round of mis-framing of climate sensitivity. I am afraid that the Lewis and Curry paper was as far as I got with this post. There are much more entertaining and insightful ways to spend my time.
The next abrupt, unpredictable and more or less extreme climate shift is due in a decade or so. At this stage it seems quite likely that we will by and large blunder on quite oblivious until and beyond the point where it hits. One day – one of these thresholds will be over a precipice.
In the context of dynamic climate sensitivity – the idea that we have time to sort out ‘the science’ before committing to policy is as silly as it comes. Quite apart from the fact that abrupt change is the most solid idea in climate science – but not one for which we are likely to able to discern the changes in the simple mechanisms on which complexity is built anytime soon.
The policy secret is obviously to move beyond the Hobson’s choice of taxes or not – to multiple goals with multiple objectives that are based on energy innovation, social and economic progress, sustainable production and ecological conservation and restoration.
↧
↧
Comment on My interview with Mrs. Green by ordvic
I can’t wait to hear the podcast (can’t hear wiyh podcast now. It’s cool Mrs Green wanted to interview Judith. I wonder what she (Mrs Green) thinks of nuclear energy.
↧
Comment on My interview with Mrs. Green by AK
<blockquote>Mann and the Greens keep trying to “delay” growth it won’t work</blockquote>I guess I went too fast. I suppose it makes sense that calling their enemies <i>"delayers"</I> is <a href="http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/gl20/GeorgeLoewenstein/Papers_files/pdf/vb_loew_2003.pdf" rel="nofollow">projection</a> on their part.
↧
Comment on My interview with Mrs. Green by ordvic
(Can’t hear with tablet now).
↧
Comment on My interview with Mrs. Green by AK
AK, the problem is per capita CO2 usage.
No, the problem is interference in peoples freedom to invest their capital/energy/wealth in what they choose. CO2 projections have nothing to do with the future. The exponential improvement of technology will determine that.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by omanuel
Thanks, David, for the link. I agree, it is wrong to label critics, “deniers.”
As noted on page 3 of this manuscript (under review) neutron repulsion is only increasingly important in atoms (planets, stars and galaxies) heavier than 150 amu (atomic mass units):
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/20150106Solar_Energy_For_Review.pdf
It is probably okay to ignore when the mass is less than ~150 amu.
↧
Comment on My interview with Mrs. Green by Jim D
Mrs. Green appears to be a supporter that has not read much on climate change apart from things like the WSJ article. There was an awkward moment when she raised that her neighbor, Arizona climate scientist Overpeck, got all kinds of hate mail after his emails were hacked (Climategate), possibly not knowing that Overpeck was on the ‘other side’. Judith had to admit both sides had problems with hate mail, and she did express it as ‘both sides’ indicating that she agrees that she has some kind of antagonism against even mainstream climate scientists like Overpeck.
↧
Comment on My interview with Mrs. Green by Jim D
AK, you say “CO2 projections have nothing to do with the future”. Why are you even on a climate blog? They have everything to do with the future, especially as we go towards 700 ppm. You are opting out of the central part of the conversation here.
↧
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by gbaikie
–These attempts to apply what happened in France to climate science are misplaced. Militant Islam is the problem, not silly climate science “wars.”
Islam is far more than a religion. It is one embodiment of Eastern values. And it is a barbaric and brutal form of government. —
Islam is more than a religion because it tends towards being totalitarian regime.
But Islam is not alone in it’s tendency of certain group of people to want to control every aspect of your life.
The desire to control what size soda that people can drink by outlawing larger soda is same thing. Same goes for banning light bulbs.
Same goes for, “If you like your healthcare, you keep your health plan”. And etc.
What is a clear example of barbaric and brutal form of government is Cuba.
Whereas Iran in comparison, is a civilized, moderate, and freedom loving country.
↧
↧
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by ianl8888
> You vilify Mann because you fear he’s right
No, Maxie – we laugh at Mann for his pompous vain-glory
Now guess why we laugh at you :)
↧
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Rob Ellison
From two who understand so little of the philosophy of freedom – it means so very little. Sometimes a great notion is perverted in ignorance to serve other expediencies.
How would these barbarians inside the gates of the scientific enlightenment ever know? How would you ever know it from the moral vacuum of progressive duplicity? It is not however the moral question of our time – merely noisy mouth pieces. Froth and bubble heads.
Is this a source of future mayhem? Already they are withdrawing from an unresponsive world – minds reeling with visions of fire and death. It seems only a matter of time.
↧
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by ordvic
Michael, Perhaps you should ask Jim D in regards to trivializing mass murder with his self serving narrative. Are his parrallels equally asinine?
↧
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Rud Istvan
If you want to respond to my comments, please do so with some semblence of sentient intelligence and substance.
So, you do not think Secretary Kerry’s recent international comments are not alarming given his official State Department responsibilities? Now, that is alarming.
↧
↧
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Rud Istvan
Yup. Had not considered that legal angle. Thanks. Relevant.
↧
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Joshua
==> “From two who understand so little of the philosophy of freedom – it means so very little.
If only some day I could reach just a hope of understanding even a fraction of what Chief understands about the “philosophy of freedom.”
Quite a stunning self-perception. I wonder what it’d be like to see oneself from such a lofty perch?
↧
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Faustino
Judith, you said that you’ld like to address the issue of freedom of speech aside from the Charlie Hebdo attack. That’s a bit hard at present, given the post-attack focus on the issue. If I address it here, I’ll do so sans CH. But here are two links to Brendan O’Neill articles which, while prompted by the attack, have broader relevance. The Australian has a paywall – I don’t know whether it allows limited access.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
