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

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

0
0

Well,

There are between 25,000 and 30,000 polar bears (conservatively). They are at carrying capacity in a couple of areas (like Davis Strait).

They live about 25 years on average.

600-800 are killed legally every year.

A bunch are killed not so legally.

The IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group appears to avoid counting polar bears in 2/3rds of the habitat completely, and where bears are increasing (to keep older low numbers). Perhaps the PBSG should be defunded if they keep refusing to do their job.

It looks like the polar bear population is more or less in balance except possibly in Russia where there is some poaching.


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

0
0

That’s a lot of BS from the whiners about Fox news. Fox’s highest rated programs are in the neighborhood of 3 million viewers. The low-information drones watching the captive liberal “news” outlets dwarf that number day in and day out. But they want a monopoly on information and a one party state. You see how they try to swamp you here on this thread. So freaking obvious, it’s almost funny.

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

0
0

JCH,
Where have I been dishonest? I gave the links to several on cooling, you gave one on “maybe cooling/maybe warming”. I never went ad hom and called you dishonest. I’m skeptical that GW was a topic in MSM in the early 70’s, asked you to prove it was, and that’s all you provide. I’m skeptical of GW being as prominent as cooling in the early 70’s. You choosing to read more in to my words than that is your issue, not mine.
Land use accounts for somewhere between 10 & 30% (more prior to 1950) of CO2/warming via deforestation, ag practice, UHE, and transportation issues. And it’s predominant in the like about Nixon which I remind you that YOU provided. That’s all I was saying.
But as the saying goes, once it reaches a level of ad hom, it means YOU’VE lost the argument.

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

0
0

JCH,
Wow! Prove my point about MSM indicating that an Ice age/global cooling was imminent in the early 70’s and you show agitation? Still no indication of an equal or predominant level of discussion of global warming during the same time frame. So who’s got a propensity for dishonesty? Me, or you?

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

0
0

“…‘piling on’ to Andy” – JC

Gosh darn!

I seem to remember a very recent link to something about ideolgues and how they are intolerant of dissent.

On the other hand, if you are a ditto-head – pile away!!!

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

0
0

Well Danny, you know you got ’em when they play the ‘debate is over’ card. Neutral observers from another planet watching the foolishness here are saying,”Hmm, that petulant joker with the three letter name just ran up a white flag.”

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

0
0

> Your point?

That “in no way am I taking a side, just offering a discussion” shows an emotional bias regarding how you romancize your own stance in the climate domain, to keep up with the theme of the current post.

***

> He’s actually doing some work (ignoring he’s used a link I provided […]

Not ignoring that you already provided the link, Danny, makes me wonder why you ask:

When they say coverage was sparse, do they indicate cooling vs. warming?

http://judithcurry.com/2015/04/24/contradiction-on-emotional-bias-in-the-climate-domain/#comment-697090

Either you have not read the link you already provided, or you did. Whether you did or not, your loaded question deflects from the emphasis that the coverage was sparse. One does not simply sells catastrophes using a sparse coverage and expect to subdue Mordor.

Scarcity kinda undermines the whole idea that there was a scare in the media in the 70s about global cooling, don’t you think?

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

0
0

“doesn’t think the emotional bias in play here is psycho-babble; neither do I.” – AW

The quote i provided, was.

It’s entirely evidence free speculation.


Comment on Contradiction on emotional bias in the climate domain by Pooh, Dixie

0
0

Abuse of words has been the great instrument of sophistry and chicanery, of party, faction, and division of society. – John Adams, Letter to J.H. Tiffany (31 March 1819).

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

0
0

“…whether in your particularly well demonstrated case that is just an irrational emotional over-reaction, or a deliberately, cynical, and calculated Goebels/Lysenko thingy on your part.” – Rud

Both, of course.

Silly Rud.

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

0
0

JCH,
From wiki:”The mainstream news media at the time exaggerated the warnings of the minority who expected imminent cooling. For example, in 1975, Newsweek magazine published a story that warned of “ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change.”[30] The article continued by stating that evidence of global cooling was so strong that meteorologists were having “a hard time keeping up with it.”[30] On October 23, 2006, Newsweek issued an update stating that it had been “spectacularly wrong about the near-term future”.[31]”

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but during the time:”The mainstream news media at the time exaggerated the warnings of the minority who expected imminent cooling.”

Such as it was, you can’t change it now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science#Increasing_concern.2C_1950s_-_1960s
I’m not arguing accuracy, I’m arguing the message. It was much more so that the world would cool than warm, at that time. Again inviting you to prove me wrong, but you’ve not even come close so far.

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

0
0

What are you doing, willy? Didn’t you get the memo? Your little pal with the three letter name has played the ‘debate is over’ card. Your side has surrendered to Danny. You are supposed to pretend that he is unworthy of your time. Uneducable. Irrational. Etc.

Is joshie OK? Hey, why did you censor that guy with the Nahuatl name, over on your home blog? Are you proud of yourself, willy?

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

0
0

Willard,

Sparse (def) thinly dispersed or scattered.
Of note, if one topic is thinly dispersed or scattered and the other is non existent, which is more discussed.
Scarcity in no way undermines the “cooling scare” of the the 70’s as it compares with the scare of “global warming” during the same time frame (which has been my argument all along).
Nice try though, Mordor! Is this more of the “ware” I should be of? (ugh, more ending with a preposition).

Comment on Contradiction on emotional bias in the climate domain by Pooh, Dixie

0
0

This comes a religious source, but it is good general advice:
“These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the Word with all readiness of mind and searched the Scriptures daily to see whether those things were so.” Acts 17:11 21st Century King James Version
In other words, do your homework.

Comment on Contradiction on emotional bias in the climate domain by Pooh, Dixie

0
0

Perhaps Fox is merely applying the “Precautionary Principle” to the precautionary proposals of CAGW advocates? It is a target-rich environment, given the prevalence of “availability cascade”s.


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

Comment on Contradiction on emotional bias in the climate domain by Steven Mosher

0
0

“While writing the above post, I couldn’t help think of Stephen Schneider and his unexpected death, I believe in a hotel room having just been at one meeting in Sweden and about to present at another meeting.”

see the session that craven spoke at

Comment on Contradiction on emotional bias in the climate domain by John Costigane

0
0

Andy,

I enjoyed your description on emotional bias – money for tears. There is also the opposite – leadership by smiles (narcissism writ large).

Science should be about the pursuit of knowledge, unsoiled by political agenda or money considerations.

‘Closed/Open mind is an interest of mine. Have you looked at that issue?

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

0
0

Steve Postrel – I am a huge admirer of Joskow, he was the voice of sanity who spoke intelligently during the IRP. I credit him for shaping much of my thinking. He gave academic credibility and helped articulate the case for some of us struggling against the demand side management hysteria. When I read him, my first thoughts were “maybe I’m not crazy”. I don’t belive he’s writing on issues today, but wish he was. I remembered he was from MIT and I was trying to google him but was thinking “Jastrow” when Stephen mentioned MIT experts below.

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

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images