Gold, Kim.
The ‘worse still, agreement’ is the secret fear of CAGW climate scientists. Perfect timely evidence, here’s a link to the Climate Dialogue final report of 17 Feb 2015.
http://www.climatedialogue.org/final-evaluation-report-of-climate-dialogue/
Sections 4.2 and 4.3 are pretty damning of mainstream climate scientists.
I saw Sachs on TV shortly after Climategate broke. He was asked if there was anything of significance in the emails. He said no but I watched his body language closely and it told me he believed otherwise.
Good comments, but how do you communicate truth when one side in the debate controls both the media and the government?
Richard according to the fifth assessment report of the IPCC the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity is likely in the range from 1.5°C to 4.5°C. personally I think that 1.5°C is reasonable and so there will never be cAGW. Such a belief means that Appell calls me a denier.
> The problem with Francis’ work is that all this has nothing to do with AGW.
I’d like to know more about that, pretty please with sugar on it.
Danny — Per numerous news reports, Manufacturing Companies in China often don’t run their pollution control equipment on coal units. More and more, this pollution is drifting to the U.S. West coasts.
If a Manufacturer in say, Vietnam installed a U.S. or E.U. best technology and efficient coal power plant — shouldn’t they be rewarded into U.S. and E.U. Markets over the Chinese?
The removal of potential fisticuffs from public discourse while providing advantages in many cases also iunfortuntely in other cases fosters increased noise, bile and venom from from those who are not otherwise restrained by a general allegiance to civility. There are some boards where decent people should not venture,
hidethedecline (@hidethedecline) | February 18, 2015 at 6:22 pm
Heh, true, Matt Ridley and others do dare to wade against the tide, despite occasional engulfment (if that’s a word). But for now at least, it’s still a tide.
What francis is seeing is the effect from the AMO. her so called AGW impact starts in 1995, when the AMO flipped warm. You don’t need to go very far back to find other analogous examples.
I knew Hamilton, who I would class as a third-rate loser, though he has amazingly acquired some go-to status and following from the vapid left, I spoke to Suzuki years ago, but he was exhausted, can’t assess him from the meeting but pretty unhappy with his later interventions.
I can’t remember a time Science wasn’t part of my life.
At age 8 I had a fossil collection and was etching limestone with HCL to recover better specimins.
At 10 I had a paraffin dissecting pan and tools as well as a killing bottle.
At 11 I helped my dad wind the welding transformer from copper wire and laminations and build our 240/120 dual tap welder core, then weld the frame to hold it. We also built a carbon arc cutting torch.
At 13, I got my adult library card, temp drivers license and work permit, started working for $.65 an hour and started building my chem lab in the basement.
By the time I was 19 and a Sophmore in Engineering, I realized I didn’t have time to use the lab, sold it for about $1000.
That same summer, I did my first research project (on waste water treatment) for a major refinery.
Currently retired after an international career including process control, waste treatment, control programing and debugging; currently consulting, mostly specializing in control design and upgrade in metal plating and etching industry.
I can’t remember a time I wasn’t concerned about the environment, can’t remember ever believing the CO2 drives climate hypothesis or the apocalyptic (or even hugely inconveniencing) climate related disruptions. The data doesn’t seem to support such claims, the models seem kludge atop kludge. There are far worse environmental problems waiting to be attended to as I have seen working extensively in SE Asia, C and S America.
The actions of the climate faithful saddens, sickens and disgusts me. Climategate I watched unfold, heartsick at the betrayal of science I saw. Have seen nothing from #IPCC supporting vocal Climate Scientists and ‘green’ NGO’s to offer me hope, with very few exceptions.
Blog erratically at http://imablawg.blogspot.com/, (thanks for building it, @Intrepidwanders!) where we try not to take ourselves too seriously and try to keep it to a very short post form blog, prefer twitter to blogging, mostly talk as @ImaBannedd because I lost so many accounts to getting reported.
The AMO got dragged warm. It’s a mirage.
Stephen Segrest,
I follow what you propose, but there are issues. I, then, as a consumer, pay a higher cost for that which may (or may not) be the root cause of some amorphous thing known as AGW. If China continues business as usual, all I as a consumer have to do to aquire their product is go to Alibaba and bypass the “incentive’s” impact on my pocketbook. Plus, I’m then supporting a China based company over one based in the US (say Amazon).
So while in theory I understand your desire to address “pollution”, in practice I don’t think it would function as hoped. Even if marketed as “carbon free” or the like, in the actual market place I’m not sure it would work. Evidence is that as many have indicated anecdotally, just ask one who professes we’re causing warming what they’ve done personally to address it. Usually, crickets.
PE,
I might add “on both sides”.
Hi Jim2 — In full disclosure, I will remind everyone that I’m a Fan of Fast Mitigation of GHGs (which Dr. Curry has written favorably about).
Here is an example. EPA is considering reducing smog emissions. Should we keep it at current levels, reduce it to levels allowed in Canada, reduce it to E.U. Regs?
Each level of smog reduction involves uncertainty — health claims vs. economic costs. But what if we coupled smog and GW/CC together in how we look at total uncertainty?
As a stand alone, maybe we keep smog standards where they are. If we couple smog and GW/CC together as to total uncertainties, maybe we go to 60 parts per billion on smog.
Er, cherry picked? Try geologically picked.
Fan, if you look again at the graph you show, you’ll see that there was a (much discussed) slight dip from the 1930s to 1950s, interrupting a slight rise, which slight rise was resumed. If I was a cherry-picking coolist I could have just pointed to a graph showing sea level falling somewhere, sneakily omitting all mention of glacial rebound. (The way some clever scamps omit mention of subsidence.)
Sea level rise is real but it is a dribble, starting (this time!) around the late 1700s and maybe going slightly faster before rather than after the 1860s. Very slight, of course, like the whole sea level beat-up. Of course, when I consider the massive rises (and substantial falls) in sea levels in quite recent millennia, I wouldn’t buy sea-level real estate as a millennial investment. A Bond Event cooling would leave me high and dry (and droughted), while a Roman Warming would have me paddling home.
The only way to “tackle” this particular manifestation of climate change is to have a glaciation. Judging from the sooking over some slight cooling and ice increase in the 1970s, I wouldn’t suggest that.
Not Gregory Peckka; ooey…
Nice picture though — Pekka guarding the M&F gang from unpredictable danger.
Rud,
You are correct on all three points. I would add a 4th – the political donations that flow to politicians that maintain this corrupted status quo. Exhibit A for that is Oregon.
The problem is not what Nottowa watches
It’s what he refuses to read.
