Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148656 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Willard

$
0
0

> It’s easy.

Indeed it is, Danny, e.g.:

Although this year’s weather on some parts of the earth is the coldest in 100 years, the fact is that the entire planet has begun to warm up. The strongest evidence for this comes from the Arctic and Antarctic, where a warming trend would be most noticeable and where some of the earth’s most reliable temperature measurements are made.

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost_historical/doc/146556146.html?

What’s the title of the article, again, and do you think that your being obnoxious will turn me into your monkey?

***

First, it was the guru trick. Now, it’s the monkey trick. You sure are a natural for ClimateBall, Danny.


Comment on Week in review – science edition by Peter Lang

$
0
0

Ron Graf,

As I suspected, the 985,000 comes from a group of anti nukes and the site you’ve quoted says this about itself:

The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) is an independent research and media organization based in Montreal. The CRG is a registered non-profit organization in the province of Quebec, Canada.

In addition to the Global Research websites, the Centre is involved in book publishing, support to humanitarian projects as well as educational outreach activities including the organization of public conferences and lectures. The Centre also acts as a think tank on crucial economic and geopolitical issues.

The Global Research website at http://www.globalresearch.ca publishes news articles, commentary, background research and analysis on a broad range of issues, focusing on social, economic, strategic and environmental issues.

I’d take more notice of the WHO, and the 20 years of surveys and analysis they’ve done, than this sort of anti-nuke propaganda.

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

$
0
0

George Klein,

I agree. I think think President Obama and the CAGW movement have done enormous damage to the world. It’s permanent damage. I expect it is increasing the rate of decline of the influence of the developed world.

Told Puttin he can do what he like
Told Iran to do what it likes
Given free reign to China to gain, influence, power and eventually control of the Asia-Pacific
Told UK, Germany, Israel, Australia to F### off
Unleashed the muslim revolution

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Steven Mosher

$
0
0

” Lest you think that I am trashing all conservative talk radio hosts on this, I will say that Rush Limbaugh has learned a lot over the past few years and is now making defensible arguments.”

every day I listen to Levin. It’s good entertainment. However,
I do wish that Judith would take time to school the conservative talk show hosts..

haha, she should challenge the whole lot to a debate

,

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by curryja

$
0
0

Apparently Roy Spencer worked extensively with Limbaugh

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by GaryM

$
0
0

Peter Lang,

I agree with you completely on the issue of why guests appear on talk shows. And please note I had nothing negative to say about what Dr. Curry said in those interviews. My comments were directed to her dismissive comments about those two hosts in particular.

Not to beat this to death (OK, too late), but I commented on her referring to Levin and Santelli as “clueless.on climate change.” I asked for examples, and described a history Dr. Curry has had of being dismissive of conservatives. When some other denizens reacted and tried to answer my question, I responded, but none ever posted a quote supporting her comment.

When Dr. Curry responded, which I appreciate, she wrote that it was her feeling that the hosts were not prepared, but she also did not post any quotes from the interviews in support of her comment. Nor has she herself denied her history of making such comments in the past.

Her latest response is that she has googled Mark Levin climate change, and did not find anything very impressive. Which is fine, but is not a quote showing he is ‘clueless’ on the issue of climate change. And I suspect Dr. Curry in thinking in terms of scientific arguments about “climate change”, a truly non-descriptive term so that may be some of the source of the problem.

But this is way too much ado about nothing. I said what I had to say, many responded, and none has answered my initial question. It is possible to disagree, even on a blog.

The ‘climate change debate’ has been around since conservatives found out what the actual policy agenda was, and who was behind the ‘science’. Were it not for conservatives, Copenhagen would have enshrined, in the west, the progressive decarbonization agenda.

It is nice to have lukewarmers and ‘moderates’ of all kinds on our side now, but they are late to the party. And I just think that those who are gaining more prominence than ever as a result of conservatives giving them a platform for their ideas, ought to consider leaving their condescension behind.

I had these arguments at Keith Kloor’s blog back when it was interesting, and he finally asked me to stop commenting there, in two emails – not on the blog, because I kept asking him for examples of the “racism” he all too frequently claimed was common in the comments of prominent conservatives. He got more than a little irritated when I kept pointing out that he wasn’t posting examples as I requested, but only the opinions of those who agreed with him that conservatives are racist.

In my opinion, Dr. Curry was just repeating another meme about how conservatives in general are clueless, without knowing the history of the conservative commenters (I think Santelli is more libertarian, but I am not sure).

I appreciate her responding to my comments, and actually looking into the views of some conservative talk hosts. I doubt that many other bloggers would put in such an effort.

All that (way too much) being said, I responded to your comment because you are always so gracious in your comments to me. I also want to dispute the claims that I am somehow attacking Dr. Curry by disagreeing with her. But I think the topic is well done. And unless someone says something really outrageous, I am as well on this subject.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Danny Thomas

$
0
0

Willard,
That’s a very good question. How about you doing some leg work yourself and contributing? I personally have asked you to do so and you did, in your favor, offer the one link. Then I followed with much more even that which contradicted me as it indicated the time frame before GW outpaced GC was nearer to 1975, not 1980. Or, are you soley in this for the “Climateball”?

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Don Monfort

$
0
0

Yes, PA. I said science issue. You then bring up ECS, which is a science issue. I have to wonder if you know what ECS is, but you can make the argument that ECS hasn’t been measured. You can also argue that we haven’t accurately measured average global temperature and a lot of other things. You are talking science issues there, PA. Not very intelligently or effectively, but that’s what you are going on about. Maybe you think you are commenting on cooking? sports? the price of potatoes?


Comment on Week in review – science edition by Danny Thomas

$
0
0

Joseph,
Tony B gave a very thorough answer. I’ve been working so delayed. But I do wish to note you have a wonderful propensity to ask questions yet are not so good at responding to those posed towards you.

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by PA

$
0
0

Peter Lang | April 19, 2015 at 8:08 pm |
PA,

Even more important than ECS is the damage function. What is it? We haven’t a clue.

There are two pieces of information that are mandatory:
1. A good estimate of the atmospheric CO2 trend until the year 2100 (which has little if anything to do with emissions).

2. An accurate measurement of the TCR and ECS to +/- 10%.

The IPCC RCP8.5 numbers of 935 PPM in 2100 (940 at years end) and 1961.5774 PPM in the out years (from RCP85_MIDYEAR_CONCENTRATIONS.xls) can most charitably be characterized as a delusional fantasy.

If the recent 0.2W/22 PPM study is any indication the IPCC median estimate is off by a factor of at least 3, an IPCC estimate that has changed little in almost 30 years.

WHAT HAVE THESE PEOPLE BEEN DOING FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS??? SITTING ON THEIR HANDS???

Without these two pieces of information we are in the analogous position of arguing about the “damage” from something without knowing how big it is or how fast it is going.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Danny Thomas

$
0
0

Joseph,
On this:” But I am all for reforming campaign spending and being skeptical of vested interests.” we agree fully.

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by maksimovich1

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

$
0
0

PA,

There are two pieces of information that are mandatory:
1. A good estimate of the atmospheric CO2 trend until the year 2100 (which has little if anything to do with emissions).

2. An accurate measurement of the TCR and ECS to +/- 10%.

That may be what scientists are interested in, but it’s of no use whatsoever for policy analysis.

What is needed for policy analysis are pdfs for:
1. When will the next abrupt climate change begin?
2. what direct will the change be (to warmer or cooler)?
3. How long will the change continue?
4. What will be the magnitude of the change
5. What will be the max, min and average rate of change and how long with the max rates of change last.
6. The damage function (by region)

Who has those? No one has a clue and there seems to be virtually no work being done on it.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Willard

$
0
0

> How about you doing some leg work […]

The monkey trick again.

I’m not the one who claims anything about that document, Danny. Seems that you’re the one for whom this document seems to indicate something. But what exactly, you don’t seem to tell, since you don’t quote anything from that document or even comment on it. What is this document supposed to prove exactly, Danny?

As if linkdropping sufficed in this case. But which case? Citing this document does not cohere with your new “but the newspapers” stance. How is that document relevant in your quest for that 70s scare in the media, Danny?

Also note, dear Danny, of this possible double bind that your whole charade may lead:

(B1) If scientists never change their minds, they dogmatically indulge in group think or whatnot;

(B2) When they do, that means what they say is unreliable, which means they break our trust in them;

Both prongs lead Denizens to doubt the climate scientists’ INTEGRITY ™.

Except, of course, when the Denizens’ favorite climate scientists change their minds, which proves that they are true scientists, or when they stick to their guns in face of all the brainwashed establishment that has no INTEGRITY ™.

Double binds like these are important for the way Denizens like your very sorry self play ClimateBall ™, dear Danny.

Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #177 | Watts Up With That?


Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Turbulent Eddie

$
0
0
WUWT posted a link to this <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/15/business/an-environmentalist-call-to-look-past-sustainable-development.html?_r=0" rel="nofollow">NYT article ascribing the new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank to the developing worlds desires to get around US interference with energy projects</a>. US is less and less significant to whatever policy there is around greenhouse gasses. That's true wrt to US emissions which are a falling percentage and it's true with US GDP, similarly shrinking portion. And it's true with respect to US influence. ( not to mention the dollar decline as reserve currency. )

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by jim2

$
0
0

Yep, the Chinese are playing their hand well while the US squanders its “fat.”

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by stevepostrel

$
0
0

What’s interesting about the link to the “Environmentalism is Fascism” site is that its proprietor appears NOT to identify as a conservative/Republican but rather merely cites their research to support his/her own views. In fact, he/she is quite critical of the conservative “counter-movement” to environmentalism for accusing environmentalists of being “leftists” when he/she sees them instead as being controlled by a group of rich elitist landowners (and crony capitalists in the pollution-control and alt-energy industries).

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Ron Graf

$
0
0

Jim D: “Much can happen in just a few decades, as we know from experience”

Jim, you know from our past discussions that we are complete agreement on this. I think it is an important point that alarm skeptics can be so because they are futurists. Here is a list that shows famously poor vision about future technology of their own field of invention. I think Willard referenced the IBM quote in this string.

Jim D: “While not news per se, it (Maher and Stewart) serves as a kind of reality check and shows that there are other people who look at those quotes in the same way.”

Actually he purports to be a reality check. But it is no more reality than Seinfeld. It is a caricature of reality that we can recognize and relate with. There is a difference. A colonel of truth is not truth, especially in complex systems like economic enterprises, climate science and politics.

Joseph | April 19, 2015 at 7:11 pm |
“If there had been another two decades of the slightest decline in GMST you can bet your bottom dollar that the IPCC
‘I don’t know how you can be so sure of yourself, Ron.’ ”

What I meant was that if cooling scientists did not get knocked down by actual warming but the opposite happened there certainly would be global concern about cooling, especially if it was being caused by anthropogenic emissions. If cooling occurred, for example, from SO2 (and it was low-water soluble like CO2) and lingered I would be very concerned. We are vulnerable, in fact, to an ice age.

Here is partial list of imaginable perils we face (remember, be optimistic):

Alien Attack (unfriendly contact)
Artificial Intelligence (robotic takeover)
Cosmic Collision (once in 10,000 year event happen now)
EMP (solar mass ejection destroys all electronic items)
Famine (any cause)
Financial Collapse (like famine from multiple risks)
Final Satan-God Confrontation (second coming – Damian 666)
Gamma Ray Burst (there’s one we are looking down the barrel of now)
Genetic Engineering (loss of human and Earth identity)
Grey-Goo (self-replicating nanobots consume the Earth)
Natural Super-Virus
Nuclear War (escalating to complete surface inhabitability)
Nuclear Winter (limited exchange)
Nuclear plant meltdown (China Syndrome)
Overpopulation (famine-war-warming-social breakdown-viruses)
Super-Virus (artificial)
Super-Virus (natural)
Wholesale Social Breakdown (after any of above – militias to zombies)

Here is partial list perils I lived through:

China Syndrome (1976 Three Mile Island Accident Harrisburg, PA))
Jupiter Effect (earthquakes due in 1980 from conjunction of planets)
Nuclear War (Soviet exchange was avoided)
1984 (though we are not out of the woods yet)
Mayan Calendar End
Y2K (global simultaneous computer crash)

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Ragnaar

$
0
0

More that seems to indicate the jet stream is indicative:

I am wondering if the jet stream is controlling the North Pacific upwelling? If we think of El Nino or La Nina predominate conditions indicating the predominate jet stream.

Viewing all 148656 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images