Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Spencer & Braswell’s new paper by commieBob

0
0

She’s right.

Diagnosing feedbacks in a relatively simple system is usually impossible if you have to treat the system as a black box. This is because you can get the same system response from both feedback and non-feedback systems.


Comment on Climate pragmatism by ianl8888

0
0

“We have now taken the high ground in science and in policy – and the first salvos have been fired in the battle to win back the cultural high ground.”

Oh, how I want to believe that

Please demonstrate why I should (no rhetoric, please). Serious statement

BUT:

“They have abused our love of nature to resist any real progress on the environment – or to bring people out of poverty, disease and hunger.”

I agree, but it is not only abuse of love, but cynical abuse of imputed GUILT (which I don’t feel here, actually) that has proved such a potent PR weapon.

So how do we get from here to your quote above ?

Comment on Spencer & Braswell’s new paper by kuhnkat

0
0

Dudette,

it is perfectly acceptable to use alarmist as an adjective to describe computer models that have been tuned to scare the cash and freedom out of people.

Comment on Spencer & Braswell’s new paper by Kermit

0
0

Look up indeterminate or indeterminate systems

Comment on Climate pragmatism by Girma

0
0

Chief

I speak my interpretation as see it. You can refute it or ignore it. But that is my honestly held believe.

I truly believe that the global mean temperature (GMT) oscillates about the global warming trend line like a pendulum. The 1880s, the 1940s and the 2000s are the GMT maximum (swing of the pendulum to the warming side). The 1910 and the 1970s are the GMT minimums (swing of the pendulum to the cooling side).

The GMT has oscillated like a pendulum for FOUR times (1880 to 1910, 1910 to 1940, 1940 to 1970 & 1970 to 2000] in the last 130 years. Why not accept it will also continue to behave like a pendulum form 2000 to 2030?

Why are ALL the GMT peaks in the last 130 years pass through a straight line?

Why is this line parallel to the global warming trend line for the 130 years data?

http://bit.ly/nicmt9

Comment on Slaying a greenhouse dragon by Joel Shore

0
0

Sometimes there is really nothing to say about a post than “What a load of utter and complete nonsense.” This is one of those times. If we randomly re-arranged the words in your post, it could only get more sensible and less wrong.

Comment on Climate pragmatism by Gene

0
0

Really? I guess if I quit working I could quit worrying about how to pay the electric bill…thanks for the brilliant idea!

Comment on Slaying a greenhouse dragon by Pete Ridley

0
0

Hi Hunter, you said of the anti-Semite card that Andrew is playing that “Pete, you put that card into play. .. ”. No, I made no mention of racism of any kind on this thread or anywhere else. On my blog, which has the title “Global Political Shenanigans” I linked to an article that discussed an agenda for the establishment of a new world order, AKA Global Government. That is a valid topic for a blog set up to discus political shenanigans. Racism is not a subject that I discuss on my blog and anti-Semitism is not something that I have discussed on anyones blog as far as I can remember. Being an agnostic I have discussed the doctrines that claim that a benevolent super-power created the universe(s) and has an interest in how humans treat each other. I reject those doctrines just as I reject the CACC doctrine.

Best regards, Pete Ridley


Comment on Week in review 7/30/11 by Girma

0
0

Steven

does not give you license to do junk science

Let observation be our judge.

Like a pendulum, the GMT has reached its maximum in the 2000s, and like the 1880s and 1940s, it will reverse and move towards is minimum by 2030.

I am 100% sure of that.

Why?

Because, that is what a pendulum does after reaching its maximum swing!

Comment on Cool dudes by Bernie

0
0

Vaughan:
We are running out of space! I think the Kahneman and Tversky experiments were powerful, elegant and productive – though I still believe detailed debriefing of experimental subjects (along the lines of bulding expert systems) is called for with these types of experiments. The Kahan et al experiments however look at a different class of variable.
As for the primary issue for this thread, which I take to be how to communicate effectively with “skeptics”, I would start by simply asking pretty well-informed academics and blog opinion leaders like Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen, Steve McIntyre, Anthony Watts, etc., what would persuade them that immediate drastic action is needed to curtail CO2 emissions. A similar approach with opinion leaders on the other side should prove interesting. In large part, such interactions help convince Judy that Steve McIntyre was not anything like how he was portrayed by the folks at Real Climate and was in fact what he said he was.
By the way, I have almost finished Gardner’s Future Babble. It is worth a read, if for no other reason than his commentary on Paul Erhlich.

Comment on Trying to put the Climategate genie back in the bottle by Chief Hydrologist

0
0

A little underdergraduate sophistry?

There is no doubt that the IPCC said that most of recent warming was the result of anthropogenic greenhous gases – it isn’t true. Nonetheless, there are ways to reduce CO2 – just in case – that looks at the energy probem from the perspective of free markets, economic development, conservation, poppulation and health all at the same time. It is known as walking and chewing gum.

Most people want just a way forward that doesn’t impact on their incomes or freedom to drive a SUV should they wish – while at the same time conserving nature. The liberal tradition agrees.

Comment on Trying to put the Climategate genie back in the bottle by tempterrain

0
0

The Australian Daily Telegraph is a Murdoch paper. Need I say more?

Maybe you think this video is a “fabrication and exaggeration” too?

Comment on Trying to put the Climategate genie back in the bottle by Jim Owen

0
0

tt-
You really are on a losing streak here. The Oxburgh panel was not only deconstructed by the sceptics, but IIRC irritated Parliament as well by their non-performance. As an investigation, they failed investigate anything – and they were well paid for that lack of performance. They never read the emails, their interviews with the principals were a joke and the sceptics were ignored.

I would suggest a large whiskey and 8 hours sleep might improve your performance. So far, if you were being paid for this, you’d be fired for non-performance – as Oxburgh should have been.

Comment on Trying to put the Climategate genie back in the bottle by cwon14

0
0

“He belongs in a state pen not PennState”???

That’s being “accused”?

Joe Biden called a congressman a “terrorist” this week, the word “teabagger” has a whole other meaning go the urban dictionary if you must. The word “denier” is a linked to holocaust “deniers”.

That’s a pretty thin skin coming from your culture.We’ll see how it goes in court, there is Canada thing going on as I understand it but I don’t know the details. Saying some one should be in jail isn’t the same as saying “he forged a document” but we’ll see how it goes. It isn’t that straightforward at all, given the sort ad hom culture over at Real Climate which Mann supports and is supported by it seem like fantastic hypocrisy. Your sanctimony is certainly in excess.

Comment on Trying to put the Climategate genie back in the bottle by cwon14

0
0

“entire hockey stick controversy is too trivial scientifically”

Just an empty talking point to distract Fred, your posts are mostly based on warming dogma which is far from science. It’s over the top to suggest otherwise.


Comment on Slaying a greenhouse dragon by Askolnick

0
0

In defense of his neo-Nazi, British National Party comrades, Ridley is now making up quotes. Notice that he doesn’t provide either a link or source for the quote he attributes to me: ” David E Michael .. David .. We’ll have you stand up against a wall and I’ll stand 10 feet away with a rifle aimed at you. I’ll then fire a bullet at you .. And I know there will be a lot of people .. who would love to see this.”

Ridley, you are a piece of foul, foul work.

Comment on Trying to put the Climategate genie back in the bottle by Jim Owen

0
0

tt –
Another loser. Foisting Larouche supporters on us as legitimate ANYTHING is dumber than a doorknob. I’ve forgotten more about Larouche than you’ll ever know – and none of it is good. Your buddy there talks about Fascism – and that’s precisely what that group is. Not to say that they’re not dangerous, but calling them sceptics and attributing what they say to sceptics is a level of stupidity that I wouldn’t likely have attributed to you until now.

And you diss the Australian? Murdoch is lily-white compared to Larouche.

Comment on Trying to put the Climategate genie back in the bottle by hunter

0
0

tt,
You are as successful as the apologists for Catholic priests and their bad habits with children.

Comment on Going viral by hunter

0
0

Excellent book.
Too bad our alleged journalists could not be bothered.

Comment on Trying to put the Climategate genie back in the bottle by tempterrain

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images