Here’s your chance, kid.
The debate is over. AGW is happening. Solutions are within reach.
No more words.
Comment on Blog moderation etc. by Willard
↧
↧
Comment on Bankruptcy of the ‘merchants of doubt’ meme by Joshua
why don’t you just try restating the theory that you were responding to with your question about bona fides?
↧
Comment on Bankruptcy of the ‘merchants of doubt’ meme by swood1000
Perhaps, instead, you might consider presenting an argument for why the evidence-based theory is wrong.
Perhaps I misunderstood. Could you restate the theory?
why don’t you just try restating the theory that you were responding to with your question about bona fides?
Well, that one wasn’t evidence-based, so it couldn’t be the one you are referring to.
↧
Comment on Bankruptcy of the ‘merchants of doubt’ meme by Willard
Here’s Gallup’s bottom line:
Bottom Line
The slight majority of Americans support global warming as valid on a number of measures. And after peaking in 2010, public skepticism about global warming softened slightly in 2011, and remains at the lower level this year. Nevertheless, Americans remain less certain about the accuracy of global warming news coverage, about humankind’s role in causing global warming, and about the scientific consensus on the issue than they were last decade.
Some shift in Americans’ global warming views might have been expected this year, given the near-record warm temperatures experienced this winter across much of the country — Gallup finds 79% of Americans reporting that the weather in their area was warmer than usual, though less than half of these attributed this to global warming.
However, the fact that belief in global warming did not increase markedly suggests Americans are basing their perceptions more on the debates over scientific evidence than on the weather outside their front door.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/153608/global-warming-views-steady-despite-warm-winter.aspx
This bottom line may or may not be consistent with Hamilton’s 2015 results.
That was Dave’s source, BTW.
↧
Comment on Bankruptcy of the ‘merchants of doubt’ meme by Willard
> Lower levels of certainty are appropriate, but there has to be a weighing of the likelihood of harm, the magnitude of the harm, and the cost proposed in order to avoid the harm.
This is consistent with think tanks always requiring a little something more:
Suggested looking at several criteria:
– severity of harm
– number of people suffering harm
[…]
– likelihood of ban going into effect
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/action/document/page?tid=ynm85e00
Bans, Warnings, and Laissez-Faire: Choosing the Right Response.
We have yet to reach that last level in this thread.
***
The bottom line is that manufacturing doubt us structurally similar to what Denizens do day after day, hour after hour, minute after minute.
↧
↧
Comment on Bankruptcy of the ‘merchants of doubt’ meme by Joshua
whether you consider the theory evidence based or not should not determine whether or not you can state the theory you were addressing when you asked the question about bona fidess
fides.
↧
Comment on Blog moderation etc. by Danny Thomas
RIHO08,
I see you made it all caps again!
I am not, to my knowledge, related to New Display!
↧
Comment on Bankruptcy of the ‘merchants of doubt’ meme by George Turner
I still enjoy watching Leonard Nimoy’s “In Search of Episode” on the coming ice age. It’s on Youtube. A timeless classic. :)
As an aside, a little over a week ago I was sleeping in an igloo warmed by a three-wick candle while the outside air temperature was -2 F, and I thought “Spock told us this would happen!” When I originally built the igloo, two weeks earlier, it was so cold that if I owned a penguin I would’ve kept it inside. I wasn’t on an arctic adventure, I was in my yard’s new igloo outbuilding (which was probably violation of neighborhood zoning), in March, in Kentucky, near Rupp Arena.
Side note: When occupied, the igloo stayed in the mid to high 30’s inside, sometimes hitting the low 40’s. They really work! If global warming gets worse next year I’m going to build an igloo on the back of a trailer so I have a proper mobile home. Maybe I’ll drive it down to Florida. Take that, neighborhood association!
↧
Comment on Bankruptcy of the ‘merchants of doubt’ meme by James Evans
Mosher,
What do you get out of interactions like this?
↧
↧
Comment on Blog moderation etc. by Craig Loehle
test
↧
Comment on Blog moderation etc. by Carrick
Good luck with the moderation efforts.
↧
Comment on Blog moderation etc. by Carrick
Testing equations:
↧
Comment on Bankruptcy of the ‘merchants of doubt’ meme by Beta Blocker
Jim D March 16, 2015 at 11:05 pm
What do you mean? Is this not enough for you? This is receiving Republican pushback, so they have noticed it.
http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards/what-epa-doing
Jim D, the Obama Administration’s Climate Action Plan, of which the Clean Power Plan is one part, is not in any way indicative of what a truly aggressive approach to reducing America’s carbon emissions should look like, if the goal is to reduce America’s GHG emissions to the extent that the Progressive Left believes is necessary.
Obama’s plan doesn’t go anywhere nearly as far as it might go in reducing America’s carbon emissions, if the full authority of the EPA under the Clean Air Act were to be vigorously applied.
The Clean Power Plan is a Potemkin Village plan which simply encourages an already-existing trend towards using natural gas as the primary fuel for powering America’s electric grid. Moreover, the existing plan guarantees that America will be covered with fracking wells from one end of the country to the other.
As I remarked to Rud and to David, now that the endangerment finding for carbon pollution has been published and has been successfully defended in the courts, the EPA is assigned by law to act as the central coordinating agency of government in crafting a regulatory pathway which mitigates the dangers of carbon pollution, as those dangers are described in the finding.
Moreover, under the Clean Air Act, the EPA is charged with mitigating those dangers to an extent which is commensurate with the stated gravity of those dangers, as they are described in the endangerment finding.
The only practical means for reducing America’s carbon emissions to the extent that the Progressive Left believes is necessary is to use the EPA, acting in its lawfully assigned role as lead agency for achieving substantial carbon pollution reductions, as the primary enforcement tool for constraining America’s GHG emissions.
The ball is now in the Obama Administration’s court to move smartly forward with enforcing truly effective anti-carbon measures. If you as a Progressive Liberal are not putting heavy-duty pressure on the Obama Administration to use the EPA to its greatest possible effectiveness in legally and constitutionally reducing America’s GHG emissions, then it is easy to believe that your true agenda is something other than fighting climate change.
↧
↧
Comment on Bankruptcy of the ‘merchants of doubt’ meme by Joshua
John –
Just in case you were tempted to generalize about the insightful reasoning of “skeptical” denizens….
Looks like your reverse Poe has backfired.
↧
Comment on Bankruptcy of the ‘merchants of doubt’ meme by John Carpenter
Latimer, there is no reason for you to worry, only reason for Alex.
↧
Comment on Temperature adjustments in Australia by Steven Mosher
huh.
1. A global approach to predicting the temperature at unsampled locations
doesnt aim at getting local detail correct. It is NOT an average.
2. GISS use monthly data and they also use a RSM method. They
stitch stations together. Even the source data has stations
stitched together.
For Alice springs, as an example, looking at all the source data you
have multiple records, inconsistent location records.
Hmm. this record cools.
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/4735
this one warms a bit
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/152286
basically GHCN-M v2 and V3 are going to have limited data.
If you move upstream to daily raw you get more data
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/station-list/station/152286
###########################################################
“One thing I want to try and nail is how the likes of BEST manage to create warming from temperature records that are flat. ”
we dont.
Within 600km or so you have 30 stations. The GHCN /GISS approach requires long records. But we dont use GHCN-M for the vast majority of our data. we go upstream to daily or hourly if need be. That give you more records, more data.
we cool this one
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/172903
cool this one
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/152352
raw data is warming here. there is a small change
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/152356
raw is warming here.. we dont do much
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/152269
a little bit further out.. raw is warming.. we cool it
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/152337
One of the drawbacks of the RSM approach is that you have to have or “make” long records. you make them by stitching series at different locations together.
With a standard statistical approach you dont need continuous records.
↧
Comment on Bankruptcy of the ‘merchants of doubt’ meme by andrew
So, Joshua,
I take it you’re scared.to.death too? Yawn.
Andrew
↧
↧
Comment on Temperature adjustments in Australia by Joshua
==> “Well, perhaps not, but then again if the pause goes on much longer they’re going to have to seriously consider it.
Beautiful. Don’t let the lack of evidence to support the conspiracy theories get in the way. Just because no temperature adjustment conspiracies have taken place in the past doesn’t mean that anyone can prove they won’t happen in the future.
Ya’ just gotta lurve “skeptics.”
↧
Comment on Bankruptcy of the ‘merchants of doubt’ meme by John Carpenter
“Seriously, John. Do you realize how silly you are?”
andrew, this is no laughing matter for Alex, the world is at stake.
↧
Comment on Bankruptcy of the ‘merchants of doubt’ meme by Joshua
Bad, is that you, bro?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
