Population increase my ***s. The only predictions ever close to the mark have been the UN Low Fertility Band ones, and it now shows a ’40s peak at ~8bn, declining thereafter. Depopulation will be the actual crisis, unless androids step into the breach.
Comment on Pope Francis, climate change, and morality by Brian H
↧
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Ali Bertarian
“I’m really struggling to see how this is more than meaningless curve-fitting.”
Could the same question be asked of the IPCC’s models of the climate?
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Jim D
CO2 stayed above 400 ppm for a month for the first time in March. Half of the rise has been since 1980, which coincidentally is also the period of half the emissions.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/06/carbon-dioxide-400-ppm_n_7224088.html
↧
Comment on Is federal funding biasing climate research? by steveharris92
In theory government funded science is supposed to be the least biased. The way it’s supposed to work, is that honest gatekeepers are installed in committees that manage where the funds flow. They are appointed by publicly elected officials, in who’s interest it is to keep their constituents happy. It is the responsibility of their constituents to hold them accountable for fund allocations, and that the public is getting something of value in return for the funds. Sounds great! So what is going wrong here? I think it comes down partially to a voting public asleep at the wheel. A voting public largely dependent on government assistance and paying little in taxes tends to do that. I think the other part of it is opportunists seeing the potential gravy train, that just happens to align with their ideology and preconceived biases, leading to noble cause corruption and abuses of the public system. The pendulum always swings to far in these cases, and it is about to swing the other way. I am so angered by this abuse of public funds by supporters of climate science, I am ready to vote to shut it down completely. The amounts we are talking about are staggering. Tens of billions of dollars! Here is the view from my perspective. Staggering amounts of my tax dollars spent on this research. And I have a hard time coming up with anything of value to me that has resulted from it. We have models that are useless. Mountains of data not much good for anything. And worst of all, it has spawned a new fanatical religion. The USA was built on separation of church and state. Now we have the official state sponsored religion!
Here is a thought experiment. Imagine what the world would be like had climate science never received government funding. We wouldn’t have the extreme polarization that now exists. We would have far more money to spend on other things. We wouldn’t have spent countless hours fighting climate wars. The credibility of science would still be intact. Honestly, I can think of many negatives, but struggle to come up with positives. Our tax dollars may have been better spent employing workers to dig holes with spoons then fill them back in again. What a shame! People like myself are angry beyond words at what has happened. This will lead to broad funding reductions to science across the board as normally democratic voters now side with republicans. I hope something good can come from all of this. The credibility of our highest scientific institutions has been compromised. Shame on the gate keepers who allowed this to happen on their watch.
↧
Comment on Is federal funding biasing climate research? by Jim D
Spending in context. The US spends $2.5 billion on climate science, and $8 billion on clean energy. The cost per person of climate science is a couple of latte grandes per year.
↧
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Steven Mosher
This post was already taken apart when it was first posted.
jeez.
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Steven Mosher
brandon go read it at his site and read the comments.
This is pretty bad to make it on to Judith’s. its begining to feel like WUWT..
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by bentabou
This doesn’t make a lot of sense to me: “The seasonal variations are caused by natural processes which are temperature dependant [sic]. Anthropogenic emissions are not temperature dependent.”
Here in northern New England, anthropogenic emissions sure seem to be temperature dependent to me! We use a lot of oil, wood, and some gas for heat in the winter, and don’t need a whole lot of cooling in the summer. You also don’t get out in your car as much in the winter because not a whole lot is going on (remember “cabin fever”), but summertime is vacation time. I can see how such factors might mostly cancel out globally, but I don’t see how the described methodology could generate a baseline non-anthropogenic CO2 concentration that doesn’t vary by lattitude or longitude.
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Don Monfort
Judith likes to step in some doo-doo, every so often. Maybe she just gets bored.
↧
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Don Monfort
Come on, nicky. It’s comprehensible. A joke. Get it?
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by matthewrmarler
Jim D: The “natural” contribution looks suspiciously highly correlated with the anthropogenic part, presumably because “nature” guessed what Man was going to do and just did the same, or it is just a coincidence.
This is not the first time that it has been pointed out that the measures of the hypothetical human effects are correlated with the measures of the hypothetical natural effects. Getting them clearly disentangled will be hard, and until there is something that can disentangle them unequivocally the estimate of the size of the human effects will always be dependent on the hypotheses about the sizes of the natural effects. That’s among the facts that some people attempt to deny outright.
↧
Comment on Is federal funding biasing climate research? by Don Monfort
That is a pretty pathetic accounting, jimmy. Where did you study finance and economics?
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by matthewrmarler
Brandon S? (@ Corpus no Logos): I’m really struggling to see how this is more than meaningless curve-fitting.
You can’t be sure that it is. Perhaps it will stimulate someone to examine other sources of data to distinguish natural from man-made. As the author noted, looking at the isotope ratios seemed for a while like a way (he didn’t put it that way), but they turn out not to be unambiguous.
↧
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by matthewrmarler
Peter Davies: <i> So from this POV alone, I consider that this paper to be of more than usual interest.</i>
My reaction as well. Maybe it will stimulate more research that will eventually disentangle natural from anthropogenic effects.
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by matthewrmarler
Nick Stokes: This post is incomprehensible. For heavens sake, start with documenting a few things.
Don’t be absurd — he starts with a clear statement of his result, then presents a comprehensible development.
↧
Comment on Is federal funding biasing climate research? by Mike Flynn
Jim D,
A few billion here, a few billion there, pretty soon you’re talking about real money.
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Don Monfort
We do know that nature isn’t driving around in SUVs and operating fossil fueled power plants. How much CO2 do you figure that humans add to the atmosphere in a year?
↧
↧
Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Mike Flynn
When the CO2 concentrations were around 7000 ppm, some time ago, the anthropogenic component was zero, the natural component 100%.
No runaway greenhouse effect since then. The Antarctic managed to freeze.
CO2 levels in the past have risen and fallen. Assuming that Nature has lost the ability to cause a rise in CO2 levels, is somewhat naive.
In that case, there is no way of quantifying any anthropogenic long term change. As the Earth doesn’t seem to be warming overall, it appears CO2 levels below 1000ppm are no particular cause for concern, regardless of the origin.
↧
Comment on Is federal funding biasing climate research? by PeteBonk
“Follow the Money” is always good advice. A money trail doesn’t de facto indicate any impropriety, but it will always tell a story.
↧
Comment on Is federal funding biasing climate research? by Peter Davies
Bob Greene: ……”then I read wild and unsupported claims on climate in otherwise good papers that make it through peer review.”
I agree Bob, the narratives are often only loosely co-related to the science.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
