Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Mitigating CO2 emissions: a busted flush? by Danny Thomas


Comment on Mitigating CO2 emissions: a busted flush? by DocMartyn

0
0

Increases in ice-dust levels closely track falling temperatures (aerosols) and falling CO2 (oceanic fertilization).

Comment on Mitigating CO2 emissions: a busted flush? by Joshua

0
0

JeffN –

==> “Look, Joshua, it’s actually very simple”

Heh. Yeah. It’s very simple. Thanks.

Comment on Mitigating CO2 emissions: a busted flush? by Joshua

0
0

Mark M –

==> “And, ain’t it cold in the USA at the moment!”

A little birdie told me that the last couple of months have been quite warm, globally.

Didn’t your mother tell you that cherry-picking makes for bad arguments?

Comment on Mitigating CO2 emissions: a busted flush? by PMHinSC

0
0

Until someone can figure out how to make the sun shine at night, solar energy will always be a niche market energy source.

Comment on Mitigating CO2 emissions: a busted flush? by PMHinSC

0
0

There are some very smart commenters here who can’t see the forest for the trees.

Comment on Understanding Time of Observation Bias by Jim Steele

0
0

The keys to understanding TOBS is understanding what is meant by “depending on the time of observation you will end up occasionally double counting either high or low days more than you should”

How often are temperatures double counted in the synthetic exercise?

Comment on Mitigating CO2 emissions: a busted flush? by Danny Thomas

0
0

Hi Docmartyn,

It’s interesting to me that there is so much focus on CO2, but as our climate system is so much more I just don’t buy that we have that much of a handle on things. I’m vacillating so much as I can (at my level of understanding but unfortunately lacking formal education w/r/t sciences) certainly see the correlation, but had prior to this thought mostly of volcanic aerosols and some man made. This had not (yet) crossed my mind. It expands my thinking broadly. It seems there are so many ways our planet can go about responding to our impacts but ones of her own generation. And the CO2 conversation just seems so over simplified. But my gut wants it to be so as that would give us control, at great expense, but control none the less.


Comment on Mitigating CO2 emissions: a busted flush? by Jim D

0
0

I am not saying it is realistic for the world to adopt a carbon tax, but if they do it won’t take much of one to get a revenue of the type Kelly mentions. Just putting things in scale for you. $10 per tonne is 10 cents per gallon.

Comment on Understanding Time of Observation Bias by John S.

Comment on Mitigating CO2 emissions: a busted flush? by Jim D

0
0

Kelly has a complete disregard of human ingenuity when confronted with a problem. While some are still not aware of the problem, most are, and people are already doing things, or know which direction to make better efforts in and which directions are dead ends. It won’t happen tomorrow, but given a few decades a transition from fossil fuels can be made.

Comment on Mitigating CO2 emissions: a busted flush? by Jim D

0
0

We know the future presents some expensive problems, whether in adaptation or mitigation, and what better way to pay for them than to tax the cause. It helps to have a dedicated revenue stream rather than extract money from other parts of the economy.

Comment on Mitigating CO2 emissions: a busted flush? by jim2

0
0

You so hit that nail on the head! They don’t just want to look the gift horse in the mouth, they want to shoot it!

Comment on Mitigating CO2 emissions: a busted flush? by Joshua

0
0

==> “We know the future presents some expensive problems, whether in adaptation or mitigation,”

==> “We know the future presents some expensive problems, whether in adaptation or mitigation, ”

Adaptation and mitigation alike, require a trade-off of short-term spending for long-term return.

It’s facile for “skeptics” to argue about the “cost” of mitigation while ignoring the “cost” of adaptation. They can avoid dealing with the cost of adaptation by whining incessantly about the “catastrophic” cost of mitigation. They can say “We should adapt, not mitigate” even while they keep their death grip on their wallets when the taxman comes around. Meanwhile, no actual adaptation takes place.

We have been experiencing a deterioration of infrastructure in the U.S. because of this short-term thinking. People think that in the short term, they are better off day by day by not paying taxes to improve infrastructure. So the same folks hand-wringing about the “economic suicide” of mitigation never get around to forking over the money for adaptation, for infrastructure development. Because, the same anti-tax ideology would prevent them from supporting the development of infrastructure, for adaptation. “Skeptics” talk about how the Chinese ain’t no fools and will do what’s in their own best interests even while ignoring that the Chinese are investing vast amounts in building infrastructure (4 X as much as a % of GDP?)

Take two companies. Both companies make $X per day in profit before insurance cost. Company A doesn’t buy insurance. Company B spends $20 per year in insurance. For 100 years, there are no black swan events and company A made the smart move. “Skeptics” think that company A is an example of the wisdom of the invisible hand. In year 101, an anomalous weather event hits both companies and wipes them out. Company A loses everything. Company B is protected by insurance payout on a relatively small expenditure of their overall profits. And some portion of the workers at company A wind up in prison or relying on government support.

One of the problems with the arguments of “skeptics” is that the same short-term thinking that rules out, categorically, hedging against risk of climate change through mitigation also rules out hedging against “natural” extreme weather events through adaptation.

Comment on NARUC Panel Discussion on Climate Change by omanuel

0
0

Congratulations on your selection to participate in this panel discussion.

I deeply that the President of your university was drug into the AGW debate.


Comment on Mitigating CO2 emissions: a busted flush? by Danny Thomas

0
0

JimD,

I’m sorry, but I just do not grasp this line of thinking:”It helps to have a dedicated revenue stream rather than extract money from other parts of the economy.”
Any “revenue stream” by defintion will be extracted from other parts of the economy, won’t it?

Comment on NARUC Panel Discussion on Climate Change by Peter Lang

0
0

Global warming (and cooling) are real. They’ve been going on for billions of years.

I am not sure how much human activities are contributing to the current warm period.

It may be doing more good than harm – reducing the risk or delaying the onset of the next abrupt climate change which, other than for humans activities, would probably be a cool change rather than a warm change. An abrupt cooling would be much more damaging than an abrupt warm change.

I am not convinced that AGW is a major issue that justifies the policies advocated by the likes of the EU, UK and Obama..

Comment on NARUC Panel Discussion on Climate Change by R. Gates

0
0

“However there is considerable disagreement about the most consequential issues:

Whether the warming since 1950 has been dominated by human causes…”
—–
Define “considerable” and define “dominated”.

True or false: The majority of climate scientists (greater than 50%) would say it is likely the majority (greater than 50%) of the warming since 1950 has been anthropogenic.

Comment on NARUC Panel Discussion on Climate Change by Skiphil

0
0

Kudos on such an excellent presentation. This is a model for how reasonable public discussions of climate issues should be conducted. Therefore, it will produce much angst and gnashing of teeth from the usual suspects.

Comment on Mitigating CO2 emissions: a busted flush? by ROM

0
0

@ Bob Ludwick.

I guess in one way I am much more optimistic about the future than you appear to be.
But I am very pessimistic from another angle.

Mankind being the generally ornery species he gets to be when he gets pushed around will always have a significant element that will take a hard line resistance to anybody who is intent on enforcing a totalitarian regime of any sort onto himself or onto a society as whole.
Which is why there have been concentration camps. gulags , killing fields and etc right down through history as totalitarian regimes try to inflict total control over the populace supposedly under it’s nominal control.

So my belief is that despite their best endeavors, short of using armed force and thuggery, something the green “slime mongers” [ TM; E.M.Smith ] are working towards, they simply can’t and won’t succeed.

[ A read of the manner of the rise of the Sicilian Mafia and the rise in the Green eco-fascism movement to the present stage brings up some quite marked parallels ]

And if they appear to succeed with their intended totalitarian control they will have created a large reservoir of what has often proved to be a violent opposition which invariably as history has described to us, leads to the eventual down fall of the totalitarian regime usually with horrific consequences until the new masters of what ever shape they are, sort themselves out.

I was in the USSR just before it broke up in 1991.
I together with the group I was travelling with were totally amazed when our guide, perhaps in a moment of unintended candour, we did have a KGB shadow, told us that “next year Leningrad will be renamed as St Petersburg”.
We didn’t believe her.
It was.
The insiders of the old USSR already knew the USSR was on the point of breaking up.

I also believe after some 76 years on this planet, that when a situation or problem is being talked about and discussed, change has already set in, a point in time that is never recognised until much later.

Every political movement and corporation has a life cycle and a finite lifetime.
The “average” life time of an American corporation is 40 years, a figure which I suspect probably applies to most mass movements and a figure related to the vitality of the generation which created it.
After all one of humanity’s biggest mistakes is that a generation creates something, an entity of some sort and then expects and demands that the next generation continue that entity on in the same fashion.
Never works and is the source of much inter-generational conflicts as the next generation is too busy and intent on creating their own generational entities and structures which are usually very different to their parent’s generational desires and intentions.
And they also will make the same mistake of demanding their kids carry on the structures and entities they created.

So I look at the “Adizes Corporate Life Cycle” to try and get some idea on where the likes of the Green and formerly environmental movement and now the Green totalitarian trending eco-fascist movement and it’s green slime mongers are currently in it’s life cycle.

http://www.adizes.com/lifecycle/

I figure that they are moving into the “Aristocracy” stage, on the downhill run in fact towards eventual oblivion.
_______
Aristocracy;
The effects of the steady decline in flexibility, which began in Prime, start to become more obvious in Aristocracy. Because it has neglected to pursue long-term opportunities, the company’s focus becomes increasingly short-term. For the most part, its goals are financially-oriented and low-risk. With less of a long-term view, the climate in an Aristocratic organization is relatively stale.
__________________________

The ornery opposition, the skeptics are too many and too damn ornery and becoming too large in number all of which is leading to an increasing erosion of the Green eco-fascist reputation and standing.
Like water on a stone, that steady drip, drip of doubt, of questioning, of outright skeptical dismantling of the eco-fascists and green slime mongers claims will in the short term, have no visible effect whatsoever.
But over the long term it has always led to an almost complete dissapearing of that supposedly impregnable piece of hard stone as it is worn down by the constant slow drip, drip of skeptic and doubters pressure .
So it will be with the present trending totalitarian eco-fascism of the green slime blob.

Sadly the pessimist in me views the immense and truly sad human cost of living through and destructuring the Green eco-fascists ideology and aims as something that we should as a race and species never have to put our people through if a modicum of honesty, integrity and compassion was ever a part of the eco-fascists make up.

But as history again tells us, that is as it has always been with the human race.
Everything changes.
Nothing changes.

Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images