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

Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by climatereason

0
0

Michael

As I am just about to read Rud’s book ‘Blowing smoke’ I would be grateful if you could provide three specific examples of where he is ‘hopelessly wrong’ so I can ensure I don’t waste my time reading these. Thank you.

tonyb


Comment on What should renewables pay for grid service? by Peter Lang

0
0

scotts4sf,

Thank you. I share your frustration. However, I feel our focus should be on providing dispassionate, balanced, factual material to the large mass of people in the middle who simply want information and they will then make up their mind. I feel USA is the one country that can lead the world out of this, so that is where I feel our focus must be. I explained my reasons for that on WIR Politics and Policy in comments starting here: http://judithcurry.com/2015/04/19/week-in-review-politics-and-policy-edition-2/#comment-695211

Comment on Stalking the uncertainty monster by Jim D

0
0

Clearly with a current forcing between 2 and 3 W/m2 on its way to 6 W/m2 by the end of the century we are hitting the climate with a big hammer, and there is a lot of uncertainty as to what happens when the hammer is that big. Maybe all the ice melts, for example. A reasonable solution is to ease off with the hitting as fast as possible until we have a better idea of all the consequences. An unreasonable solution is to say I don’t know what all this hitting is doing, but I will keep doing it regardless and just keep an eye on all the consequences as we go along.

Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by curryja

0
0

I can think of a hundred climate scientist/ideologues off the top of my head, this is without doing a survey (and only knowing a fraction of the conceivable population). TOO many, IMO; not just many

Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by curryja

Comment on Stalking the uncertainty monster by doctorknow007

0
0

Where’s the Mark Twain “expert” ppt? I wanted to be able to cite/quote it. :)

Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by Danny Thomas

Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by Jim D

0
0

Maybe you need a post to define exactly what you mean by ideologue in the climate scientist context. I still don’t know where the dividing line is between saying the science they know drives a common-sense policy and being an ideologue. Many areas of science have led to mitigation policies, whether in the environment or food. Which of the advocates have been ideologues?


Comment on Stalking the uncertainty monster by Danny Thomas

0
0

Those must be girl scout cookies! Yummm!

Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by curryja

Comment on What should renewables pay for grid service? by Joshua

0
0

Ragnaar –

==> ” That this utility hasn’t had competition is because it’s a child of government. Protected and directed by government…They would see very little threat if the renewables had to stand on their own, but I think the case is, government is pushing forcefully renewables upon them. ”

Seems like a little simplistic (overly-unilateral) for describing the relationship , IMO. Utilities and related businesses give a whole lot of campaign contributions to politicians and judges.

Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by Don Monfort

0
0

Even though Bishop Hill is likely my long lost couzin, his critique is rather curt and superficial. Jose Duarte, who is one sharp cookie, has a much more meaty criticism that’s about right. I would somewhat question this part:

Jose “The SciAm article suggests that Stevens debunked Lewis: “Soon after, he took the unusual step, for a climate scientist, of issuing a press release to correct the misconceptions. Lewis had used an extremely rudimentary, some would even say flawed, climate model to derive his estimates, Stevens said.”

However, Stevens never mentions Lewis in his press release. Moreover, he never says anything about any models or methods. He just says he disagrees with some of the implications people are drawing, but he doesn’t specify who or what he’s talking about.

The above SciAm passage clearly implies that Stevens said these things in his press release. Unless Vaidyanathan based the above passage on an interview with Stevens, it’s a fabrication. And if he did get this from an interview, the passage needs to corrected so as not to imply that Stevens said these things in his press release.”

Sure enough Stevens never mentions Nic in his PR. However, we know that the PR is a response to Nic’s sensitivity estimation based on Stevens’ paper causing consternation among the alarmist crowd (aka schooltechers). So, did Stevens’ PR debunk Nic? That was obviously the purpose of the PR. The PR contained a link to realclimate, where all debunking is centralized, so I would say the PR attempted to debunk Nic. Alarmist “journalists” are free to say it did the job.

Stevens did not say in his press release “Lewis had used an extremely rudimentary, some would even say flawed, climate model to derive his estimates,…” My guess is that Stevens said this to the author, who did not put quotes around the words or explicitly attribute the non-quote to the PR. She may have been deliberately vague, but it’s not likely she made up the words attributed to Stevens hoping that no one would read the PR. I agree with Jose that the passage is sloppy and needs to be corrected. I won’t hold my breath.

Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by Don Monfort

0
0

=========>Don’t I deserve a cookie? I’ll settle for a Snausage.

Comment on Stalking the uncertainty monster by Mike Jonas

0
0

Joshua makes a fair point[*]. But I’m not sure about Judith using the term frequently and continually. The word certainly crops up a lot, but that’s normally because other people’s use is being quoted.
[*] A rare event.

Comment on Stalking the uncertainty monster by curryja

0
0

I use the word ‘denier’ in this post for a ‘shoe on the other foot effect’.


Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by iiequalsexpipi

0
0

@ ATTP – “Paleo and climate models being two examples. Both suggest an ECS that is probably above 2K.”

I decided to make a wordpress account rather than just be a lurker of this blog because I didn’t want this claim to go unchallenged.

Can you please provide me with evidence that suggests that the 95% confidence interval for some subset of paleoclimate data excludes an ECS less than 2K? Or if this is not what you mean by ‘probably above 2K’, then could you please define precisely what you mean?

Would I be correct in assuming that your claim is based upon Hansen et al. 2013 (or earlier Hansen et al. papers)?
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/2001/20120294

Or do you have other references that you wish to use to back up your claim?

I look forward to your reply.

Comment on Stalking the uncertainty monster by Willard

0
0

> Ignoring the monster is typified by this statement from President Obama’s web page: Call out the Climate Deniers – 97% of scientists agree. A dubious paper that found a 97% consensus on fairly trivial aspects of climate change is then morphed into 97% of scientists agree that human-caused climate change is dangerous.

See for yourself:

97% OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS AGREE that climate change is real and man-made, and affecting communities in every part of the country.

Yet too many of our elected officials deny the science of climate change. Along with their polluter allies, they are blocking progress in the fight against climate change.

Find the deniers near you—and call them out today.

https://www.barackobama.com/climate-change-deniers

While we may quarrel about the construction of the first sentence, it does not say that human-caused climate change is dangerous.

Also note, for the nth time, that this is the web page of Organizing For Action, not “President Obama’s web page”:

https://www.barackobama.com/about-ofa/

Here’s President Obama’s web page:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/president-obama

***

Mr. T frowns upon misrepresentation.

Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by matthewrmarler

0
0

Brandon S?: I would like for some sort of measure to be taken so Joshua doesn’t divert discussions as much as he does.

I skip almost everything he writes, although I sparred with him a few times in the past. Thus I am almost never “diverted”; being diverted from discussions is largely a self-selection. I have seen that from time to time Prof Curry will engage with him. If he is interesting enough for her, I see no problem with his posting here.

Comment on Stalking the uncertainty monster by GaryM

0
0

Uhhh, who precisely is denying that climate change (ie. changes in climate regardless of cause or degree) is “affecting communities in every part of the country?”

If you take the statement at face value, it is a tautology. Of course changing climate affects communities. But his statement is more than that. He goes on to lament that ” they are blocking progress in the fight against climate change.”

Who cares if anyone is “blocking progress in the fight against climate change” if that change is not dangerous.

This bait and switch use of the term ‘climate change’ is the oldest PR trick in the alarmists’ tool bag. But they return to it every time. ‘Climate change’ to Barack Obama, in the context of accusing others of blocking government efforts to fight against it, only makes sense in the case of dangerous, aka Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.

To a degree, Willard has a point. Obama does not claim that AGW will be dangerous. He claims it is going to be catastrophic, as does every other warmist.

Comment on What should renewables pay for grid service? by Ragnaar

0
0

It was simplistic. Utilities also get benefits from their relationships with regulators and lawmakers. I suppose they are somewhere between a mostly capitalistic company and an entity that works closely with government. It was one sided. As you know I think one side has the better answers most of the time, the libertarian side. I think the writer way trying to say, the problem is that monopolies didn’t have enough competition but does quite understand competition the way I see it, which admittedly might be agreed upon by only a tiny minority. We could say he was questioning the child of government to ask it become less productive. I guess one industry goes after another one using government as a means all the time. It was an interesting article, having me think of all the ways this could play out.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images