=======>”I use the word ‘denier’ in this post for a ‘shoe on the other foot effect’.”
You think I don’t know that? Huh! I’m still mad because you told on me for bragging on ATTP (he’s my friend) that I am incessantly trolling CE. So there.
Comment on Stalking the uncertainty monster by Don Monfort
↧
↧
Comment on Stalking the uncertainty monster by Willard
> 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.”
GaryM has a point: there’s a party that is filibustering action against consequences that trivially follow from a fact some of its representatives deny or minimize.
***
> Obama does not claim that AGW will be dangerous. He claims it is going to be catastrophic […]
A quote might be nice.
↧
Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by Jim D
By that definition, I could say that an ideologue is someone who doesn’t believe the IPCC could be right with its central estimates. You can go down your ideologue attribute list and it fits. Is anyone who takes the IPCC sensitivity range seriously an ideologue?
↧
Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by Don Monfort
Welcome, iiequalsexpipi. Is that a Nahuatl name?
↧
Comment on Stalking the uncertainty monster by GaryM
“Climate scientists say we need to avert an additional 2-degree temperature increase to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of climate change.”
https://www.whitehouse.gov/climate-change
Now Willard can tell us why the whitehouse.gov webpage which is titled ” Climate Change And President Obama’s Action Plan” is not really Obama.
“We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence. Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science — and act before it’s too late.”
– President Obama”
Then he can tell us that Obama does not attribute “Superstorm Sandy”. the California/southwestern US drought and wild fires in various states to CAGW.
Who ya gonna believe, Willard or your lyin’ eyes?
↧
↧
Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by Don Monfort
I forgot to warn you. Kenny is an astrophysicist specializing in making up names for planets and stars, or something like that. I hope he names the next star Huitzilopochtli, in honor of the hummingbird of the left. You know what I mean.
↧
Comment on Stalking the uncertainty monster by Joshua
GaryM –
Thought you might find this interesting:
I figure some history on the roots of your ideology couldn’t hurt.
↧
Comment on Stalking the uncertainty monster by GaryM
And oh yeah, OFA is Obama’s 2012 campaign apparatus renamed.
” Later, it became the grassroots arm of Obama for America. After Obama’s second inauguration, it was reorganized as Organizing for Action and returned to its previous mission of organizing around the President’s agenda.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizing_for_America
Next Willard will assure us that the Clinton Family Foundation, which received hundreds of millions of dollars from foreign governments who received preferential treatment from the State Department while Hillary was secretary of State, is not Bill and Hillary Clinton.
↧
Comment on Stalking the uncertainty monster by GaryM
But then, Willard believed that if he liked his insurance plan, he could keep his insurance plan.
↧
↧
Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by Steven Mosher
Jim D.
Be careful. I think if denizens were turned loose there might be a long list of quotes from leaders.
Fair is fair.
Ask Stevens who he meant by others
Ask Judith who she meant by many.
↧
Comment on Stalking the uncertainty monster by Don Monfort
=========”A quote might be nice.”
Very nice work, willy. Say, have you managed to remove all my comments on ATTP, wherein I bragged about incessantly trolling CE? You promised, willy.
↧
Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by Jim D
iiequals…, you can also check out a very entertaining Richard Alley AGU talk here for the paleoclimate connection to CO2.
↧
Comment on Stalking the uncertainty monster by justinwonder
Keeping options open… Dan Ariely and Jiwoon Shin…
↧
↧
Comment on APS discussion thread by thomaswfuller2
My experience was different. I was banned before I began commenting there. Of course, they didn’t want to admit it, but that’s the case.
↧
Comment on Stalking the uncertainty monster by justinwonder
Judith wrote, “…please get out of our way and let us do our science so that we can try to figure all this out by exploring the knowledge frontiers, rather than pledging allegiance to the consensus.”
Hoo aahhh!
↧
Comment on Stalking the uncertainty monster by edbarbar
“But science seems less and less relevant to what is going on in the policy arena. Which is fine; please get out of our way and let us do our science so that we can try to figure all this out by exploring the knowledge frontiers, rather than pledging allegiance to the consensus.”
I’m not quite sure how to frame this, but if AGW is so slight as to not warrant major disruption of the lives of ordinary people, it’s not OK. Scientists brought this to the fore. Scientists engaged politicians, political apparatus, gave fodder to people who would control the lives of others using convenient sticks provided by scientists. Having done that, and then to let the political forces wreak havoc on the lives of ordinary Americans, then I say Scientists are ethically bound to undo the damage.
On the other hand, if AGW is on the other extreme, CAGW, then all bets are off. The politicians need to look at available options to protect the peoples of the world. I personally think that’s an engineering problem, best solved by planning engineer and friends.
↧
Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by Michael
“Jim D | April 23, 2015 at 11:55 pm |
By that definition, I could say that an ideologue is someone who doesn’t believe the IPCC could be right with its central estimates. You can go down your ideologue attribute list and it fits. Is anyone who takes the IPCC sensitivity range seriously an ideologue?”
Careful Jim,
I said basically the same thing and it got deleted.
↧
↧
Comment on Stalking the uncertainty monster by Steven Mosher
“While we may quarrel about the construction of the first sentence, it does not say that human-caused climate change is dangerous.”
Ah yes Obama says climate change is the greatest threat, but it’s no danger. I get it.
It’s not catastrophic. It’s not dangerous.
↧
Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by Jim D
The word “ideologue” is just a dismissive term. That person is an ideologue, so we don’t have to actually answer their science argument. We can just namecall and move on. It is used exactly the way “denier” is, as a term for someone you don’t think you can persuade with your own view. Now, it may turn out the ideologues were right to be that way, but you can’t tell so far because we haven’t yet had enough record warm decades in succession for you.
↧
Comment on Stalking the uncertainty monster by Willard
> Climate scientists say we need to avert an additional 2-degree temperature increase to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of climate change.
That’s better: if we’re to attack the President’s action plan, we might as well cite it.
Here’s the lead, BTW:
THE UNITED STATES IS LEADING GLOBAL EFFORTS TO ADDRESS THE THREAT OF CLIMATE CHANGE. WIND POWER HAS TRIPLED, AND ENERGY FROM THE SUN HAS INCREASED TENFOLD. U.S. CARBON EMISSIONS HAVE FALLEN BY 10 PERCENT FROM 2007 TO 2013 – THE LARGEST ABSOLUTE EMISSIONS REDUCTION OF ANY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. TO BUILD ON THAT PROGRESS, PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS TAKEN A SERIES OF AMBITIOUS STEPS TO COMBAT CLIMATE CHANGE.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/climate-change
No C word over there. A threat is not always something that is going to happen.
Then there’s a joint announcement with China. No C word there either.
***
Then there’s the inconvenient fact that:
2014 was the hottest year on record globally, and temperatures from 2001 to 2012 were warmer than any previous decade in every region of the United States.
***
Then there’s this other inconvenient fact:
EXTREME WEATHER COMES AT A COST
CLIMATE AND WEATHER DISASTERS IN 2012 ALONE COST THE AMERICAN ECONOMY MORE THAN $100 BILLION
Some might argue that more than $100 billion is somewhat catastrophic. Some might disagree. Mr. T’s waiting for the river card before raising.
***
Then we get to GaryM’s quote.
That’s how important the C word is.
Yet, “we need to avert an additional 2-degree temperature increase to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of climate change” is not exactly the same claim as “it is going to be catastrophic.” Nor is it made by “every other warmist.”
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
