DH, I know about the US farm ‘subsidies’ since own and operate one.
As for Silurian, just follow their PR. There is no simple way to invest, as they remain private and continue to take in big ‘smart’ money. Looks good so far. I will keep the blog ( and you) updated even though on the ‘outside’.
Regards
“total control”. That would be Progressive.
Hey John Carpenter –
Leaving aside comparisons between Levin and Olberman or Maher…
What do you think about Judith appearing on Levin’s show? Do you consider it irrelevant? Do you think it’s consistent with Judith’s criticism of others for activism, advocacy, politicizing science, and tribalism?
On the one hand, I have absolutely no problem with Judith’ appearing on Levin’s show. She certainly has that right.
On the other hand, I find it surprising that she would lend her name to someone whose main focus is engaging in extremist political rhetoric.
And on the other, other hand, I think that Judith appearing on that show is clearly a situation of her engaging as a triabalist, within the politicized and polarized context of the debate.
So to go back to asking questions, what’s your assessment of the impact of appearing on a show like Levin’s? Do you think that it is likely to have a positive impact in some way (meaning point the direction towards better policies w/r/t the issue of climate change)? Do you think it is likely to have a negative impact in some way?
“Well, you’ve just explained the “pause” at least :-)”
Is this what you refer to as “climateball?” Well, returning the volley, I would say either one can argue that climate rapidly adjusts to CO2 emissions and concentrations and thus tracking them or there is dangerous effects still unrealized due to decades slow response, but one can’t argue both. Which do you choose? I think Dr. Micheal Mann pinned the pause on Pacific Multidecadal Oscillation downturn in January but in Februrary his favorite argument became the slowing of the AMOC. I suggest one should be compelled to state their hypothesis once, make predictions based on it, and concede failure when these predictions prove false.
Hi Professor Curry. I’m normally a lurker here and don’t write in, but I want to thank you for what you’ve done. It was an excellent speech and an excellent response to Rep. Beyer.
I think we’re reaching the stage now where it cannot be ignored that there are other factors at play and that CO2 is not the demon-gas it’s been made out to be. I hope a complete turn around of these hopeless, foolish policies is not far off. I do feel you’ve whipped some blinkers off and maybe got some people thinking. I hope so anyway.
I also want to thank all the commenters in today. I have really enjoyed reading this thread and will pop back in for the latest as it grows. You guys and gals have made my day. Thank you. :)
I am unaware that appearing on a talkback program necessarily implies that you agree with everything that has been said on the program. There is a significant audience and Judith should be reaching out to a wide an audience as possible.
Mark Levin may or may not have extreme political views but surely appearance on his show represents an opportunity for a moderate like Judith to put a POV forward that may assist members of the audience to make up their own minds on the substance or otherwise of the POTUS climate change policy agenda.
Peter –
==> “I am unaware that appearing on a talkback program necessarily implies that you agree with everything that has been said on the program.”
If directed towards my comment, that looks to me like a strawman. I didn’t say or suggest that appearing on Levin’s show implies that Judith agrees with him on everything.
==> ” There is a significant audience and Judith should be reaching out to a wide an audience as possible.”
Levin’s show exist within a polarized and politicized context. Reaching out to audiences from various venues has various effects. Indiscriminately saying that she should reach out from any venue in order to disseminate her views more widely has a real-world impact. IMO, reaching out from highly politicized and polarized venues that are associated with extreme political rhetoric is likely to enhance, at least to some degree, the impact of political ideology within a polarized and politicized controversy over climate change. It is certainly Judith’s right to align herself with a particular political and ideological strain (which is towards one of the extreme ends of the spectrum) within that politicized context, but it is what it is.
==> “Mark Levin may or may not have extreme political views but surely appearance on his show represents an opportunity for a moderate like Judith to put a POV forward that may assist members of the audience to make up their own minds on the substance or otherwise of the POTUS climate change policy agenda.”
Surely?
IMO, there can be and likely are any number of possible effects. Indeed, the effect that you describe is one of those possible. But, IMO, what is more likely that the effect you described, in a relative sense, is that Judith’s appearance on that show will, if anything, likely harden the political and ideological cleavages that already exist. Climate change is already a politicized issue (in the U.S. – there Levin’s audience exists). I think it is highly unlikely that on a relative scale, there are very many people listening to that show in order to “make up their own minds” on the substance of POTUS’s policy agenda.
Even my GARDEN is a better expert than the EPA – “dangerous pollutant” – yea, right.
Ms. Lofgren, while not asking Judith any direct questions certainly took a few side swipes at things she said. Her opening remark was to the effect of “welcome to the last place on Earth [this Committee] where the human influence on climate is questioned”. Hers was the only representation of what the scientific consensus view was, and another Democrat noted that the government was not invited to defend their policy.
Is it just me, or could this be the beginnings of what will become the “oh, it looks like our efforts to reduce CO2 worked after all, and now climate change is slowing because of it!” tag line?
Solution 1: Eliminate 5000 international airline seats per year by re-making climate conferences via webcast and blogging.
David,
I will remind you (and then I’m done) that the study you offer is dated 2008. The media reports and study (ies) I cited as well as the Nimoy video (can you say ……….Matt Damon?) were in the 1970’s. Deja Vu!
Shut up you little pencil neck putz self-confessed braggart troll a$$hole. Mark is Angela Bofill’s cousin.
Don’t report me to Judith.
ds
Danny Thomas: Do you really need a list of what else science didn’t understand in 1971?
Dark energy
Dark matter
accelerating universe
field theory of baryon constituents (quarks, gluons)
mass of neutrinos
number of genes in the human genome
number of neutrinos
number of quarks
existence of explanets
water on Mars
evidence for gravitational waves
proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem
quantum hall effect
ozone hole
existence of Higgs boson
Do I really need to go on?
Danny Thomas wrote:
“I will remind you (and then I’m done) that the study you offer is dated 2008.”
Please read the study itself to see the years it covered. Thanks.
The cause of the pause is dead, and the pause barely has a heartbeat. How much did the 30-year trend drop between the end of 2014, and the end of the record setting 1st quarter of 2015? Because that is the only heartbeat the very nearly dead General Franco pause has left. So weak it can barely fog a mirror: -.0005988C.
DA:
This isn’t rocket science. 0.2 W from 22 PPM.
The forcing multiplier is equal to the Forcing/ln (C/C0)
M = 0.2 / ln (395/373)
M = 3.49
Ftcr = 3.49 ln (C/C0).
That is a hell of a lot better than guessing at it like the IPCC does.
Davey, does this explain why you cherrypicked GISS E2R?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014MS000403/pdf
You are hiding, davey.
ppaa: First of all, it’s W/m2, not Watts.
Second of all, it’s noticeable that you didn’t include error bars. What is the result then?
