Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148649 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on House Hearing scheduled on President’s U.N. climate pledge by Pooh, Dixie

$
0
0

Kim is correct. http://judithcurry.com/2015/04/13/house-hearing-scheduled-on-presidents-u-n-climate-pledge/#comment-693495

Madison, James. “The Federalist No. 10, The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection.” The Federalist Papers, November 22, 1787. http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_10.htm

“By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”

“There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.”

“It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire,….”
“The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. …” “The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests.”

“Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” Pg 133.

“The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.” Pg 135


Comment on House Hearing scheduled on President’s U.N. climate pledge by Don Monfort

$
0
0

It takes all kinds. Some people have two names and don’t mind it being known that they are consultants to one or more institutes. Some people are anonymous blog characters who in a previous life may have been somebodies, but they are now only visible to the world as navelgazing, nitpicking nonentities.

Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by David L. Hagen

$
0
0
Robert have made an INcredible argument which is INeffective against such credible well reasoned arguments as given by Judith Curry. Your post evidences you as the hateful one, not Mark Levine. You but embarrass yourself. <a href="http://www.logicalfallacies.info/" / rel="nofollow">Logical Fallacies defines</a> <b>No True Scottsman</b> <blockquote>The no true scotsman fallacy is a way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one’s position. Proposed counter-examples to a theory are dismissed as irrelevant solely because they are counter-examples, but purportedly because they are not what the theory is about.</blockquote> <b>Begging the Question/Circular Reasoning</b> <blockquote>An argument is circular if its conclusion is among its premises, if it assumes (either explicitly or not) what it is trying to prove. Such arguments are said to beg the question. A circular argument fails as a proof because it will only be judged to be sound by those who already accept its conclusion. Anyone who rejects the argument’s conclusion should also reject at least one of its premises (the one that is the same as its conclusion), and so should reject the argument as a whole. Anyone who accepts all of the argument’s premises already accepts the argument’s conclusion, so can’t be said to have been persuaded by the argument. In neither case, then, will the argument be successful.</blockquote>

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Peter Lang

$
0
0

The reason I won is that you have no valid retort to the important relevant points, so you want to divert the discussion with silly, irrelevant comments, snide remarks and advocacy for your ideologically based beliefs.

Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by Wagathon

$
0
0

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring ’97-Percent Consensus’ Claims…?

Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by bedeverethewise

$
0
0

link the audio Robert, I had no idea Judith was on Levin, but now that you mention it, I can’t wait to listen. You’re doing a great job of advertising for the Levin show. I probably haven’t heard more than 5 minutes of Levin in my life, but if he’s got you this torqued up he must be doing something right.

Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by RiHo08

$
0
0

Judith Curry

“…I found the testimony just full of internally conflicting facts and opinions and in almost total conflict with everything I’ve read in the last 15 years in every journal I could get my hands on.”

It seems that Representative Beyer does not have an adequate source of material to read other than one narrow view, the CAGW perspective. Giving him the benefit of doubt that his aides have a single perspective on climate change and feeding him the climate consensus meme, I recommend that a number of articles should be provided by you to expand his reading repertoire. If he were an honorable person, then, he may give effort in reading the articles and, as a test of his having read the articles, making yourself available to answer questions. If he is not an honorable person who is but parroting that what he already has been conditioned to hear but does no know, then, there would either be silence from him, or, he providing retorts that have no relationship to the articles.

“Then Representative Beyer, you have spent 15 years reading about climate change without a skeptical view; hence, without a scientific view; hence, without the ability to learn about the complexity of the issue.” you might say.

Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by David L. Hagen

$
0
0
<b>Why pursue ineffective policies?</b> <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/14/german-backlash-grows-against-coal-power-clampdown" rel="nofollow">German backlash grows against coal power clampdown</a> <blockquote>“If politicians carry on as they do now then <b>there will be no new, modern power stations.</b> There are no incentives whatsoever for investments, despite politicians emphasising all the time that they aim to change this,” BDEW’s managing director said in a statement on Monday. “It is also likely that further closures will follow.” The issue is fast becoming a test of the German government’s commitment to decarbonise its economy, with <b>German trades unions </b>threatening mass mobilisations against a measure that they say would<b> put 100,000 jobs at risk.</b></blockquote>

Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by Wagathon

$
0
0

I don’t mind voting Obama for a third term because, as a Californian, I didn’t have a say in the last to 2 elections and apparently never will…

Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by ossqss

$
0
0

My point is there is a concentrated source for such trolling, which is not hard to identify in today’s world.

Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by jim2

Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by David L. Hagen

$
0
0
Robert That paragon W* of reliable information summarizes: <blockquote>The Mark Levin Show can be heard on over 150 stations and the SIRIUS XM Patriot channel. Levin's show has been rated number one in its time slot in New York, Chicago, Detroit, Dallas–Fort Worth and Washington, D.C.[7]</blockquote> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/marklevinshow?fref=ts" rel="nofollow">Mark Levin</a> "only" has 950,121 "likes" on facebook. That's a remarkable audience so much "hate". Having dealt with the populus argument, what was your scientific argument regarding Levin's climate comments?

Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by RD

$
0
0

Many thanks for an excellent presentation today!

Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by Willard

$
0
0

> While there are substantial uncertainties in our understanding of climate change, it is clear that humans are influencing climate in the direction of warming. However this simple truth is essentially meaningless in itself in terms of alarm, and does not mandate a particular policy response.

Simple truths seldom mandate policy responses, and are essentially meaningless in themselves in terms of alarm almost by definition. These fumbles indicate an egregious misuse of expertise.

That we ought to stop dumping CO2 in the atmosphere like there’s not tomorrow simply follows from the simple truth that “humans are influencing climate in the direction of warming,” however indirect this simple truth may be conceded.

No amount of weasel words can escape that when there’s too much CO2 in, some CO2 must go out. This constrains the “particular policy response” to be expected.

Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by Don Monfort

$
0
0

I hate to admit it, but the usual trolls don’t seem so trashy in comparison with this nut.


Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by markbofill

$
0
0

Gently lad. Ye didn’t happen to notice me sarc tag laying about? Always misplacing that.

Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by Don Monfort

$
0
0

What policy response do you recommend, willy?

Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by markbofill

$
0
0

‘We’ should, Willard. How?
We being humanity collectively, and the testimony being given to the U.S. House science committee.
I’m not being a smart @$$. Probably being a dumb @$$, but nothing new there. The world should stop dumping CO2 into the atmosphere like there’s no tomorrow, I’ll agree with that. What U.S. policy achieves that?

Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by PeteBonk

Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by Wagathon

$
0
0

Is a “hater’s show” for… deniers?

Viewing all 148649 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images