The “ruin” at risk on a global level is that of critical scientific thinking.
Comment on Is climate change a ‘ruin’ problem? by john321s
↧
↧
Comment on Criticism, tolerance and changing your mind by Mark Bofill
Joshua,
If you’re making an error I don’t see it. I agree with your points. We’re all the same species, broadly speaking we’re going to value the same things.
Alright. My values aren’t ~different~ from those on the Left, I think that’s reasonably solid. If I’m overlooking some set of values that are different, search me what they might be. So my ideas about how to best serve, or nurture, or realize those values are different. My ideology is different.
↧
Comment on Criticism, tolerance and changing your mind by c1ue
@Mark Bofill
I have watched Joshua spin his tales for literally years across multiple blogs.
I have no interest whatsoever in wasting time with this troll – who constitutes a visible percentage of all posts on this blog (and many others) without actually contributing whatsoever to the discourse.
If you consider my direct responses to him as being uncivil, that’s not my problem.
It isn’t even that I have problems with CAGW supporters. Some, like the infamous drive-by posts Mosier, push belief systems which I disagree with, but there are still occasional bits of information which I respect.
Joshua and his recent sidekick Willard, however, nothing.
But that’s my own opinion – you’ll notice that I have made no effort whatsoever to push others to share it.
↧
Comment on Criticism, tolerance and changing your mind by Willard
I point at this:
Them’s the facts […]
http://judithcurry.com/2015/03/31/criticism-tolerance-and-changing-your-mind/#comment-689388
And I point at this:
But that’s my own opinion
http://judithcurry.com/2015/03/31/criticism-tolerance-and-changing-your-mind/#comment-689508
That is all.
↧
Comment on Criticism, tolerance and changing your mind by Joshua
==> “I have no interest whatsoever in wasting time with this troll – ”
Heh. Which explains the original comment, the follow on comments, and this most recent comment.
==> “Joshua and his recent sidekick Willard, however, nothing.”
Heh. Yeah, Willard’s my “sidekick.”
c1ue – you stated that I have immutable, fanatical beliefs. I challenged you to describe them, and you ducked my challenge by saying that you didn’t have to state what my beliefs are. Well no, I agree with you that you don’t “have” to.
But again, I challenge you.
I am saying that despite claiming that my beliefs are obvious to you, and that they’re fanatical and immutable – in fact you can’t even describe what those beliefs are.
Back up your claim. Take the challenge. Don’t go weaseling away.
Man up.
↧
↧
Comment on Road to Paris: Tracking climate pledges by omanuel
The road to Paris is like another well-paved path.
↧
Comment on Road to Paris: Tracking climate pledges by ROM
Spiegel On Line International; April 2010;
Climate Catastrophe: A Superstorm for Global Warming Research
Part 8: The Invention of the Two-Degree Target
[ quotes ]
Climate models involve some of the most demanding computations of any simulations, and only a handful of institutes worldwide have the necessary supercomputers. The computers must run at full capacity for months to work their way through the jungle of data produced by coupled differential equations.
All of this is much too complicated for politicians, who aren’t terribly interested in the details. They have little use for radiation budgets and ocean-atmosphere circulation models. Instead, they prefer simple targets.
For this reason a group of German scientists, yielding to political pressure, invented an easily digestible message in the mid-1990s: the two-degree target. To avoid even greater damage to human beings and nature, the scientists warned, the temperature on Earth could not be more than two degrees Celsius higher than it was before the beginning of industrialization.
It was a pretty audacious estimate. Nevertheless, the powers-that-be finally had a tangible number to work with. An amazing success story was about to begin.
‘Clearly a Political Goal’
Rarely has a scientific idea had such a strong impact on world politics. Most countries have now recognized the two-degree target. If the two-degree limit were exceeded, German Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen announced ahead of the failed Copenhagen summit, “life on our planet, as we know it today, would no longer be possible.”
But this is scientific nonsense. “Two degrees is not a magical limit — it’s clearly a political goal,” says Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). “The world will not come to an end right away in the event of stronger warming, nor are we definitely saved if warming is not as significant. The reality, of course, is much more complicated.”
Schellnhuber ought to know. He is the father of the two-degree target.
“Yes, I plead guilty,” he says, smiling. The idea didn’t hurt his career. In fact, it made him Germany’s most influential climatologist. Schellnhuber, a theoretical physicist, became Chancellor Angela Merkel’s chief scientific adviser — a position any researcher would envy.
Rule of Thumb
The story of the two-degree target began in the German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU). Administration politicians had asked the council for climate protection guidelines, and the scientists under Schellnhuber’s leadership came up with a strikingly simple idea. “We looked at the history of the climate since the rise of homo sapiens,” Schellnhuber recalls. “This showed us that average global temperatures in the last 130,000 years were no more than two degrees higher than before the beginning of the industrial revolution. To be on the safe side, we came up with a rule of thumb stating that it would be better not to depart from this field of experience in human evolution. Otherwise we would be treading on terra incognita.”
[ more ]
↧
Comment on Road to Paris: Tracking climate pledges by Danny Thomas
Swood,
Sure, you should have used 200%!
↧
Comment on Road to Paris: Tracking climate pledges by John Smith (it's my real name)
eating crow requires a capacity to feel shame
have you observed such in that group?
many openly express the intent to silence all opposition
↧
↧
Comment on Criticism, tolerance and changing your mind by David Springer
Absence of /sarc tag fooled ya, huh Willard?
↧
Comment on Road to Paris: Tracking climate pledges by stefanthedenier
''Climate target'' is loaded comment; because CO2 has nothing to do with the climate - otherwise: the deserts and rain-forests would have had SAME climate; because both places have SAME amount of CO2. because water regulates the climate - no ''climate scientist'' talks about ''saving stormwater on dry lands to improve climate'' = proof that they are not concerned about climate. The therm ''climate change'' is only a nickname for the phony global warming.
2] China didn't ''agree'' to cut emission by 26% - Obama did
↧
Comment on Road to Paris: Tracking climate pledges by Jim Keil
A bit OT – UCAR has announced that Richard Alley will speak at the Conference of World Affairs at Macky auditorium on the University of Colorado campus on April 8th at 3:00 to 3:50 PM. I was at the Curry/Trenberth “match” last year and I’m glad they’re giving this presentation the seating space it deserves.
No matter where you come down in the climate wars, I would suggest listening to Richard if you’re in town. He is an excellent presenter. His YouTube video: The biggest control knob: Carbon Dioxide, is a great introduction to the mechanics involving paleontology in my opinion.
He has my respect.
↧
Comment on Criticism, tolerance and changing your mind by Don Monfort
Well there you go, joshie. Thanks to Peter Davies you can point to one kind, misguided soul who you can claim takes at least something you say seriously. Very nearly all the rest of us don’t give a flying f—. Nobody cares what you think about climate change. We know that you know nothing. You are just a troll. What you believe is that you were put on this earth to stalk Judith and annoy your beloved “skeptics”. Very creepy, dude. You really should insist that Judith put you back in moderation. She is allowing you to incite ridicule and to bring humiliation on yourself. Doesn’t seem to be in your best interests. I don’t know what she’s thinking.
↧
↧
Comment on Road to Paris: Tracking climate pledges by MichaelS
“Well, what can you do when people’s beliefs are immutable and fanatical, eh?”
I usually just mumble, “Oh shut up Joshua” to myself.
↧
Comment on Road to Paris: Tracking climate pledges by stefanthedenier
c1ue
Global warming that doesn’t exist – cannot ”pause”!!! Using the word ”pause” makes you a Warmist role of toilet paper – you are doing the Warmist dirty job… Spooking the public that: the non-existent global warming is only having a ”pause” until the Paris conference -> makes you a ”Warmist gelding” – because they cannot have any legitimate proof of something that doesn’t exist – they are only exploiting Skeptic’s ignorance – obsessed to be trendy; because contemporary the phony warming is fashionable…
↧
Comment on Road to Paris: Tracking climate pledges by kim
I’m fond of reminding myself and others that the Road to Heaven is also paved with good intentions. You just have to watch the terrain and topography carefully, ‘cuz the GPS is subject to possession by unruly and malevolent forces.
================
↧
Comment on Week in review by Sciguy54
Great, thanks… miss a week or two and I miss a lot!
↧
↧
Comment on Road to Paris: Tracking climate pledges by kim
The Revolution has already been televised.
=========
↧
Comment on Criticism, tolerance and changing your mind by kim
There is a lot of energy in the universe and I’ve long predicted that man will not ultimately use all of it.
===============
↧
Comment on Criticism, tolerance and changing your mind by David Springer
If the liking of Willard’s comments persists longer than 3 days see your doctor about it.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
