Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148700 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Joshua

$
0
0

RickA –

OK. I think I understand now. And from that, I have a plan for going forward.

From now on, when anyone thinks that they have been defamed, they should just consult with you first to see if their case has any merit. If you say that it doesn’t, then they’ll just know to drop the case, because otherwise they’d be “bullying” (in this case, someone who makes a career out of insulting people for political reasons).

In fact, let’s just do away with the judicial system entirely. Who needs it? What role could it play? We’ll just let you decide on the merits of cases; if you can’t handle them all, you could appoint a few friends to take up the slack.


Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

$
0
0

The U.S. has “no go zones” too, but probably less self-policing than those in France. The U.S and France probably wouldn’t have “no go zones” if each country had only one culture, but it’s too late for that. Anyway, it’s people like you who caused this problem in the first place.

Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Don Monfort

$
0
0

Kim, Judith is not some usually thoughtful and amusing anonymous blog character. I presume that she wants to maintain a reputation as a serious scientist. There is no good reason for her to try to argue some point, or to air some peeve, by linking a freaking civil lawsuit to a very recent massacre. It’s not working for her. It’s unseemly, for obvious reasons. And tasty fodder for the trolls.

Tom, you are just shifting the story line slightly away from the recent massacre to generic Islamist’s force of violence and on to satire about mullahs etc., but you are sticking with the false equivalency BS. Serious people understand that a civil lawsuit is not analogous in any meaningful way on any level to mass murder or any other kind of unlawful violent intimidation. No reason to go there.

Mann is within his rights in using the law to try to sanction some clown monetarily for a few easily avoided words that may or may not be found to be defamatory. Mann will probably lose. Even if he wins, Western civilization and skeptical climate scientists will very likely survive. And people will go right on criticizing Mann, with the smart ones using a different “f” word to describe the little runt. Steyn can even go on calling him the f—- word, as long as he can afford it.

Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by A. Voip

Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Joshua

Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Joshua

$
0
0
<blockquote>I have clearly made a terrible error for which I am deeply sorry. My comments about Birmingham were totally in error. And I am issuing this apology and correction for having made this comment about the beautiful city of Birmingham. I do not intend to justify or mitigate my mistake by stating that I had relied on other sources because I should have been much more careful. There was no excuse for making this mistake and I owe an apology to every resident of Birmingham. I am not going to make any excuses. I made an inexcusable error. And I am obligated to openly acknowledge that mistake. I wish to apologize for all residents of that great city of Birmingham. Steve Emerson</blockquote>

Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Joshua

Comment on What would Charles Keeling think? Science in spite of politics by Stephen Segrest

$
0
0

Today’s post is what I love about CE — Learning something where I can at least ask a question in trying to understand this complex topic (as I’m not a climate scientist).

I’ve always thought the recent atmospheric record of increasing CO2 levels was a pretty clear-cut linear function (explained by the increased use of fossil fuels). But in Dr. Curry’s post (above), this appears not to be the case:

“As I have already explained, these records by 1972 were long enough to see evidence that CO2 varied on a decadal time scale in a manner that couldn’t be explained by emissions from fossil fuel combustion.”

Could Climate Scientists here at CE discuss this with us? A big argument on “the Pause” has been (1) actual temperatures have not been (2) responding to the linear increase/forcing in CO2 levels.

But the above quote says increases in CO2 levels are not so clear cut — with stops, starts, and pauses.

What’s going on here?


Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Joshua

$
0
0

Judith –

Considering that you provide Congressional testimony on behest of Republicans, and you don’t listen to anyone who doubts that ACO2 affects the climate, you may have a bit of a problem:

Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Energy:

Q: Do you believe that human activity is contributing to climate change?

A: No. The Earth’s climate has always varied substantially as demonstrated by pre-industrial human records and natural evidence. There is no doubt that human activity can change local conditions, but on a global scale natural processes including variations in solar output and ocean currents control climatic conditions. There is no credible scientific evidence that greenhouse gas atmospheric concentrations, including carbon dioxide, affect global climate. I oppose regulating greenhouse gases. Doing so will significantly increase energy prices and keep more people in poverty.

emphasis added so you can get right to the point, Judith.

Comment on What would Charles Keeling think? Science in spite of politics by Stephen Segrest

$
0
0

Steven Mosher — Please weigh in on this, please.

Comment on What would Charles Keeling think? Science in spite of politics by Wagathon

$
0
0

At least Roger Revelle recanted before he died, way back before Al Gore delivered the kiss of Judas, committing the first act of character assignation against the global warming alarmists’ first heretic.

Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Joshua

$
0
0

Max –

==> “The U.S and France probably wouldn’t have “no go zones” if each country had only one culture, ”

What are you talking about?

Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Wagathon

Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

$
0
0

I lost the freedom to burn old tires in my back yard and pour used motor oil in the nearest creek. It makes me want to cry.

Comment on What would Charles Keeling think? Science in spite of politics by Curious George

$
0
0

Let’s expect new OCO-2 data breathlessly.


Comment on What would Charles Keeling think? Science in spite of politics by kim

$
0
0

And barely in time to save the Plant Kingdom from slow agonizing asphyxiation.
==============

Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by jhprince2014

$
0
0

A long time David Brooks reader and listener, he is once again spot on. End the oppression.

Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

$
0
0

Well, if a country’s population was all one race and one religion, there would be no “no go zones” based on race and/or religion. But it’s too late for that in the U.S. and France, so different groups have to find a way to get along.

Comment on What would Charles Keeling think? Science in spite of politics by Wagathon

$
0
0

“I believe, however, that a more prudent attitude would be to heed the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration as serious unless proven to be benign.” ~Chas. Keeling

What’s Wrong with the Precautionary Principle?

The precautionary principle has at least six major weak spots. It serves us badly by:

1.assuming worst-case scenarios

2.distracting attention from established threats to health, especially natural risks

3.assuming that the effects of regulation and restriction are all positive or neutral, never negative

4.ignoring potential benefits of technology and inherently favoring nature over humanity

5.illegitimately shifting the burden of proof and unfavorably positioning the proponent of the activity

6.conflicting with more balanced, common-law approaches to risk and harm.

~Fabius Maximus

Comment on What would Charles Keeling think? Science in spite of politics by Curious George

$
0
0

The Precautionary Principle is a guide to survival. Not living. Surviving in a fear of shadows.

Viewing all 148700 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images