jim2
Some say that cultural imperialism, intentional or not, has contributed to Islamic fundamentalism. Perhaps. Clearly western culture has come to dominate the world. Niall Ferguson has described this pretty well. There are a lot of holdouts in the middle east, which is why I think it is odd that the Jordanian fellow quoted Clint Eastwood’s movie character from “Unforgiven”. Why not quote Saladin?
Thanks tony, I saw that. Will read it again.
Jimmy, stop clowning around. Read what captd said. If you don’t have the guts to go over to CA and take it up with Nic Lewis, you should fade out.
Many that I have read about plan to have diesel backup.
Judith
Hope the article will specifically deal with the alleged retrospective cooling issue in a comprehensible and factual manner.
I am no conspiracist but these issues keep resurfacing and need dealing with
Tonyb
We don’t need to wait until the average global temperature trend is unequivocally down. It is trivially easy for anyone with access to existing CO2 and temperature measurement data-sets to falsify the statement that CO2 (at any level that ever existed) causes significant warming.
If CO2 is a forcing, a scale factor times average CO2 level times the duration divided by the effective thermal capacitance (consistent units) equals the temperature change of the duration. During previous glaciations and interglacials (as so dramatically presented in An Inconvenient Truth) CO2 and temperature went up and down nearly together. This is impossible if CO2 is a significant forcing so this actually proves CO2 CHANGE DOES NOT CAUSE SIGNIFICANT CLIMATE CHANGE.
See more on this and discover the two factors that do cause climate change (95% correlation since before 1900) at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com . The two factors which explain the last 300+ years of climate change are also identified in a peer reviewed paper published in Energy and Environment, vol. 25, No. 8, 1455-1471.
I’m tellin’ ya. It’s the Machines wot dunnit.
In the lab, with a program, climate scientists for fall guys, and uh, dolls.
=========================
Downright revolutionary thought, Mark. So let’s be formal; start with ‘we’ to be white, male and land-owning. I suspect it’ll be useful to broaden the inclusive requirements at some point.
======================
Planning engineer believes that this is the industry’s current message:
“Please be fully aware of and consider the cost and reliability implications of the proposed policies as well as what is possible in a limited time range. We stand ready to go along and do the best we can with whatever policies are adopted”.
A more cynic or realistic view might be:
As long as electricity distributors are allowed to pass the full costs of generation and distribution on to our customers – including a fair return on our current and future capital investments – our industry will abide by any emissions plan legislators and regulators devise. Public utility commissions, not the industry, are responsible for setting the rates that we charge most of our customers. Power distributors and the generators they own generally do not earn more profits from providing cheaper or more reliable electricity to our customers. It isn’t their job to decide whether “the currently proposed expanded policy actions to reduce greenhouse emissions” are economically “justified at this time” or “provide significant net environmental benefits as part of any thorough lifetime analysis.” The industry is owned mostly by mutual funds (“share renters”) that are interested in little besides the price of our stock. Current management must be principally concerned with current profit and avoiding regulatory and legislative actions that threaten those profits – and the very existence of businesses. (Flawed regulations and legislation drove California’s power distributors into bankruptcy in 2001.) Future management will be able to deal with the unreliability of renewable power more effectively once the public has experienced the consequences.
Unfortunately PE, the only economic “justice” that will satisfy the renewables crowd is the complete dismantling of the fossil fuel industry, and on the (barely) more extreme side, the arrest and prosecution of Oil company CEOs and the like. As GaryM stated above, your basic statement would not likely be well received, and would more likely than not elicit childish responses like those of FOMD, Then of course, we have the convoluted logic of Jim D. with the simple solution that if we just find new and better methods to tax everyone in a fair and balanced way, all problems will be solved. We are dealing with people who are simply disconnected from reality. They are blind ideologs who see only harm coming from our use of fossil fuels, despite the blindingly obvious benefits.
The following link provides another bit of info that the renewables crowd should read and respond to.
http://www.theautomaticearth.com/2012/10/renewable-energy-the-vision-and-a-dose-of-reality/
Jim D
Getting up this morning I see the debate has moved on a bit overnight. On your comment above I assure you I understand and accept M&F’s reasons for trying to make the correction to N to achieve F.
The thing you are missing is that the way they did that won’t work, not for any reason grounded in climate science (forget what these time series are meant to represent or causality between them). It won’t work because the estimate of F from Forster relies on using the T series, and then F series is again used with the T series to estimate the internal variance of the models. This is what Lewis is referring to by circularity.
I appreciate that this isn’t instinctive to you. There are analogies in other disciplines that might help you understand it. But it is important to try and do this given your interest in climate science. Its the foundation that it is built on.
so close and yet so far.
Does the color of my skin matter when I contemplate the future of my kids, does the fact that the son in law might be a member of muslim brotherhood outweigh the fact that he’s studying computer science. No, not really.
It’s not what I was talking abuut Kim.
Look, there are some truths that we all accept. I think that the ‘WE’ part is harder that the ‘TRUTH’ part, that’s all Iz be sayin. Ez. Sayin-Ez. Ye-Ah. You saw what I did there.
??
I need a nap.
Dopey DiCaprio immediately comes to mind…
Don’t know what happened to the link to Paul’s graph, let’s try again:
Oh well WP is srewing around with the URL. those interested , stick this in your browser:
rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/DK2005soln.jpg
Who’s complete branch of employment would have been totally impossible without fossil fuel burning by the way…
last link to Bob Ward article is broken
shivers of antici-pation…
Rud, you mean E.ON I think, not RWE.
Barnes: The problem with the AGWers is that they only look at the possible downsides without considering the possible benefits. A valid cost/benefit analysis cannot be done without considering both
I agree.
I did say that working out the costs and payment mechanisms was hard. For the case of lead pollution, the process has taken decades. Downwind and downstream costs included sick cattle, and middle class mothers with elevated blood lead levels.
Oh.
Yeah.
We’re apes right? We be bright eyes.
Darnit. I sit down and shup now; cookie me.
WTF.
