Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Contradiction on emotional bias in the climate domain by David Springer

0
0

Until morning? You’ve had me in moderation for months. Granted I haven’t asked to be let out but that’s only because I can work around it with very little trouble.


Comment on Contradiction on emotional bias in the climate domain by Don Monfort

0
0

Did you teach joshie that trick of yours, Springer? Somebody has been hijacking my name and sounds supsiciously like joshie.

Comment on Stalking the uncertainty monster by Jim D

0
0

They would see a melting trend continuing and accelerating as far as you can imagine into the future with CO2 levels doubled. Paleoclimate tells us what levels of CO2 are compatible with stable continental glaciers, and we are fast approaching some limits there.

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

0
0

JimD,
“Are people ideologues about evolution or gravity?” Are there similar questions about the effects of evolution or gravity? Are we discussing changing global economies due to evolution or gravity?

Comment on Contradiction on emotional bias in the climate domain by Don Monfort

0
0

Good luck with reforming willy, Danny:)

Comment on Contradiction on emotional bias in the climate domain by JCH

Comment on Stalking the uncertainty monster by Jim D

0
0

If you are saying CO2 won’t exceed 500 ppm in 2100 you are setting the same goals as the IPCC. That would be great, but currently the forcing is increasing by nearly 0.4 W/m2 per decade for a more realistic value of 6 W/m2 by 2100. If you want to reduce the forcing increase you should be supporting the IPCC targets. Only significant reductions in burning rates keep us anywhere near 500 ppm in 2100 which is about 3 W/m2, a fairly solid mitigation scenario.

Comment on Stalking the uncertainty monster by Jim D

0
0

Currently the forcing is increasing by nearly 0.4 W/m2 per decade. It is a BAU extrapolation of the forcing change, but allows for population growth and development.


Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by Steven Mosher

0
0

ATTP

“I realised that this has drifted from my first point which was simply that you seemed to be suggested that Bjorn Stevens was simply too locked into his current views to accept the implications of his new paper. Maybe that isn’t what you meant, though and I’m not sure I can be all that bothered going through this all again.”

No that’s the argument I was trying to make. It didnt hold up very well.
At this point seeing Stevens note to Nic, the argument collapses entirely.

To some extent I empathize cause I know there a few things that I’ve said in papers that get twisted.. and when that happens.. well i get twisted.

Comment on Stalking the uncertainty monster by Jim D

0
0

According to some skeptics like Lewis, anthropogenic forcing adds up to 2.8 W/m2 already (with their low aerosol estimate). The IPCC has a more reasonable 2.3 W/m2. Where does your 2/3 come from, and precisely what do you think the IPCC and Lewis are doing wrong? Their values are almost all GHGs with some aerosol offset.

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

0
0

I am sure there would be similar types of skeptics if these were leading to a policy they didn’t like. The obviousness of the science is no object to them. They would call Galileo an ideologue if they had to.

Comment on Stalking the uncertainty monster by JCH

Comment on Bjorn Stevens in the cross-fire by Steven Mosher

0
0

“Mosher, Just out of curiosity, why do you bother?”

Its no bother. It’s practice.

Lots of people dont get this. I like to try arguments out.

So, starting from Judiths “many” and Stevens “other” what kind of argument can I make.

practice.

for some folks that looks like playing the devils advocate. For other folks it looks like being insincere, to others it looks like a dumb argument.
To me its practice.. and I’ll know what i believe when im done testing arguments out.

Comment on Contradiction on emotional bias in the climate domain by David Springer

0
0

I noticed what appears to be Jizzhua making posts in your name. The ======> is a dead giveaway every time. Sorry about that. I did share the technique.

Comment on Contradiction on emotional bias in the climate domain by Danny Thomas

0
0

JCH,
I have done my own internet research and came up empty except for after about 1976 on warming articles in MSM (not academic). You state you got them for MSM but won’t verify, that’s fine (and forgive my being skeptical).
Even in the link you provide the first para discussion climate states ice age THEN melting ice caps. After that, it’s “land use, land use, land use” then uncertainty again of cooling vs. warming. So you’ve got one article from a paper called “The Day” in New London, Ct. (distributing an AP article)
and I’ve found Time, Newsweek, WaPo, and TeeVee w/ L. Nimoy. In Willard’s climateball, if that’s all you got it’s game, set and match.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=2618


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

0
0

JimD,
Maybe so, but after all you did compare climate science with “evolution and gravity” so all’s fair in love and war, eh?

Comment on Contradiction on emotional bias in the climate domain by David Springer

0
0

Yeah it sucks to see the hallowed halls of science so sullied. And yes Josheila is obviously a former passenger on the short bus if you get my drift.

Comment on Contradiction on emotional bias in the climate domain by JCH

0
0

I asked the librarian to search the local paper for: ice age. I did not mention any other search term. She came up with the articles.

Land use is going to melt the polar ice caps? It’s 1970.

It’s fine if you are skeptical of me. Feelin”s mutual. I’m skeptical you are capable of honesty.

Comment on Contradiction on emotional bias in the climate domain by Don Monfort

0
0

I wish you hadn’t done that, David. It’s like handing the Jedi mind trick to the troll tribe. You’ll be sorry if he starts imitating you. Oh, the unintended irony! Better get out your big boy pants. Which reminds me:

During the North Africa campaign in WWII, Rommel was having a meeting to plan a big tank battle with his staff and the Italian General staff. Rommel stresses that it’s going to be extremely vicious and bloody and an aside says to his aide, don’t forget to prepare my red jacket. The Italian commander says, ” Field Marshal, why you a’wear a red a jacket? Rommel explains that he will be in the lead tank, as he is sure will be the Italian commander, leading his troops into battle. He’s going to be wounded, if not killed outright, so he wears the red jacket so his troops won’t be demoralized seeing him bloodied. The Italian commander turns to his aide and says, “Getta ready my brown a pants.”

Comment on Contradiction on emotional bias in the climate domain by JCH

0
0
<a href="https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=SGYRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=OeADAAAAIBAJ&pg=6529,7703615&dq=allintitle:+ice+age&hl=en" rel="nofollow">Ice age only</a> Done with you.
Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images