Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Week in review by kim

0
0

I hesitate to click that link, for where I’ll read I know not where.
====================


Comment on Week in review by GaryM

0
0

c1ue,

“Thus what you’re really attacking is the means why which a perfectly admirable goal is to be achieved.”

I am not sure what your comment is. My comment above to which you responded is not an “attack” on any “means” at all. It is an attack on the mind set and lack of critical analysis by those who support that means, decarbonization.

I am also unsure what you mean by “I am all for clean energy – if it is unsubsidized cost comparable to existing energy sources.”

Who is against “clean energy?” And what does that have to do with my comment? Global decabonization has nothing to do with clean vs. dirty energy, except in the PR releases of the decarbonizationists. It has to do with lowering CO2 emissions based on weak, sparse, interpolated, highly manipulated data about both the catastrophe to come and its certainty, as an excuse for implementing policies that progressives would want to implement even if there were no green house effect at all..

And the question is not just the cost of subsidies, it is the impact on development for the billions the warmists are willing to keep in poverty.

In short, my comment was not a critique of decarbonization itself, but an answer to Kim’s (probably rhetorical) question?

Comment on Week in review by ordvic

0
0

In the eyes of the beholder a pause or weaker trend:

Comment on Week in review by kim

0
0

Clueless, or surrounded with moneybags of agenda.
===========

Comment on Week in review by Steven Mosher

0
0

Joshua. Stop being stupid. your question about black flag was stupid ( note I didnt say bad faith ) i said stupid.

Here you continue the stupid questions.

“So do you think that Singer just included everyone was on the original list by using “reply all – without any consideration of whether the recipients would be interested?”

You would be surprised how many skeptical mailing lists include me on their distribution. In some cases it has been really embarassing for them.
If you want to know whether Singer considers her an Ally. ASK HIM STUPID! Next, It doesnt matter who he considers to be an ally. I disagree with Judith on some aspect of the science. I consider her an ally on transparency.

” Or do you think that he only left the names of those he felt would be more receptive to his efforts?”

Another stupid question that invites people to read minds and motivations. Your question is as stupid as skeptics asking random questions about GCMS. You want to know what singer thought, ask him nimrod.

Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by JCH

0
0

At this very moment, it’s unlikely that very much heat is accumulating below 700 meters. Because England’s anomalous wind has stopped blowing.

Comment on Week in review by davideisenstadt

0
0

back on your game today mosh
even joshua should deb able to understand your point.

Comment on Week in review by Joshua

0
0

mosher –

==> “But that does not mean he sees her as an ally in regards to his scientific views.”

So here there’s a bit of a problem, IMO. Although Judith spends quite a bit of her time criticizing “realist” scientists for tribalism (comparing them to McCarthy and jihadists, for example), from what I can see she has very little interest in criticizing “skeptic” scientists for their tribalism – even when asked directly as to whether she finds the latter phenomenon concerning.

Aside from, in my opinion, that such selectivity is a questionable approach to the engineering of “bridge building,” I think it creates a kind of cone of silence around her scientific views:

In such a context, where she fails to adopt a scientific approach to defining “activism” and “advocacy,” when someone as politically aligned as Singer seems to view her as an ally, where she makes vague allusions to the work of someone like Salby without following up, and fails to engage in debate with someone like Gavin in the manner she has indicated previously, and when she tends to climb on a high horse w/r/t the political implications of her own input into the climate wars, then she is, IMO, not doing her best to minimize the kinds of fallacious arguments as represented in the view that her name on an email from Singer tells us something meaningful about the science of climate change.

OK. So that’s’ all sameolsameol. But it does then seem like a bit of drama-queening when she paints herself as some kind of a victim.


Comment on Week in review by JCH

0
0

Weaker trends come and go. Right now it’s going. The pause has fooled a lot of people. The AMO is a pansy. It plays thermodynamics like Liberace.

Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by tonyb

0
0

Danny

My comment is in moderation so please look out for it at the foot of the thread

tonyb

Comment on Week in review by aaron

0
0

The Guardian is a bit confused, the e-mails were not private and the reputation damage was quite warranted.

Comment on Week in review by Joshua

0
0

mosher –

==> “Joshua. Stop being stupid. your question about black flag was stupid ( note I didnt say bad faith ) i said stupid.”

Actually, you sad “bad question.”

What is a “bad question?”

That depends on my goal, IMO. How do you know if it was a bad question? I would suggest that if I had a good faith intent with the question, then it would be a “bad question.” But I’m not claiming good faith intent.

Now as for “stupid question.” There could be two ways (at least) to judge its stupidity. One would be whether the answer to the question was obvious to anyone of reasonable intelligence. Hmmm. Well, I don’t think that the answer was obvious. Draw your own conclusion there. :-) Looks like David has a clear opinion…

The other, IMO, would relate back to the question of intent. If I had a good faith intent, then maybe my question would be stupid if it engendered bad faith. I’m not claiming good faith intent.

==> “( note I didnt say bad faith ) i”

That’s a non-sequitur.

Comment on Week in review by GaryM

0
0

I love the headline to the article.

“Climate Debate Turns Nasty”

Maybe we should take a poll of Steve McIntyre, Dr. Curry, Willie Soon, Mark Steyn and a host of others on whether the climate debate is only now turning nasty.

And Sessions should take some lessons in theatrics from the Church of CAGW. Leave the snowballs outside. Just turn down the thermostat and let the grandees experience globalclimatewarmingchange in the flesh.

Comment on Week in review by GaryM

0
0

And notice that for The Hill, the story is not the ignorance of the EPA administrator (which I strongly suspect was…shall we say…artifice), it is about Sessions having the audacity to point it out.

Comment on Week in review by kim

0
0

Please, Gaia, tailfins again.
==========


Comment on Week in review by JustinWonder

0
0

An…2014,

The fish in question are anadromous, and some are endangered. The key point is that the fish are regulated by federal law, which supercedes state law.

China is not a good model for dam building, pollution, public health, endangered species, or much else.

Why choose between having a few stretches of free-flowing streams with anadromous fish and abundant water when you can have both?

If we go take the desal option the water problem becomes an energy problem and here is where California is exceedingly dumb. Actually, here is where cynical special interests exploit the ignorance of the voters.

Full disclosure: I am a rabid environmentalist and a skeptic about most everything. I don’t really fit into the usual perception of the CAGWist/skeptic divide. My family is vaccinated and I love GMO foods, especially potato chips. I grow native plants organically but I love bigAg and traditional family farms using modern non-organic methods. I love beef, rare. I like my food to come from far away, better risk reduction, and I love American muscle cars. There is no replacement for displacement.

Long live long carbon chains! :)

Comment on Week in review by GaryM

0
0

Faustino,

“Mosher, the net effects of greater energy availability are demonstrably longer and healthier lives.”

Mosher,

“utterly besides the point.

PM25 is not a beauty product. when you can demonstrate that it leads to longer lives collect your nobel proze”

Another faux pas of honesty from the Church of CAGW.

The net effect is irrelevant. What matters is one isolated component of the issue which favors the warmist agenda.

So what if the admittedly negative effects of PM2.5 are far outweighed by the benefits of the use of the fuels that results in their emissions? This is not even a question anyone should ask. They should just shut up and do what they’re told – all 1.3 billion + of them.

I can’t show that car accident fatalities are a net good for mankind, therefore we should ban automobiles. Situational logic – Mosher style,

Which just goes to show that cost benefit is not the real issue here, power is. As it always is when dealing with progressives.

Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by PA

0
0

c1ue | March 13, 2015 at 3:28 am | Reply
I think the focus on power generation is short sighted. Whatever to pros and cons of nuclear power generation are – there are many issues with implementation of nuclear power where it matters most: in the developing world.

Well, gee.

I looked at the map. The countries that don’t have power are in the middle of the map (the equator?) where most of the solar is.

If civilized countries implement an entirely nuclear power system, we can send the equator countries our coal (for urban power) and our solar panels (for rural power). Solar isn’t very useful in the temperate zone anyway.

These countries have little power now, so the global emissions would be much less (they don’t have the infrastructure to use a lot of power). CO2 levels will be limited to under 500 PPM,(a safe level) and they can burn the coal that we have to get rid of anyway.

Comment on The albedo of Earth by kim

0
0

That’s the theory, Vaughn, but it doesn’t seem to be happening in practice, so how come? It may lie in the failure of humidity to keep up, or it may lie in phase changes.

That brings up a quandary, though. How can relatively drier be relatively cloudier? Hmmmm.
==========

Comment on Week in review by HR

0
0

Don, you seem to be assuming that its the anti-cholesterol campaign that is largely responsible for the change in egg consumption, dare I say, without any proof.
A quick look at some US consumption stats suggest that the US diet has changed in many ways and for many different, complex reasons. For example anti-cholesterol hasnt done anything to the growing popularity of fast food over the past decades. In fact it could be this very fact thats partly responsible for decline in eggs, who knows.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images