Point taken.
I’m new at doing more than lurking; just learning to avoid unintentional troll-like behavior. Luckily old dogs can still learn new tricks.
I am reminded of a comment by Dr Johnson to the effect that reading makes a full man, conversation a ready man, and writing an exact man. Commenting in writing here should display more exactness and less readiness.
Comment on The Righteous Mind by Tom Schaub
↧
↧
Comment on Climate change responses in the developing world by Bernie Schreiver
Beesaman, what James Hansen and his colleagues are predicting amounts to a <i>future</i> "Hockey Stick" in <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2012/04/21/climate-change-responses-in-the-developing-world/?replytocom=194206#respond" rel="nofollow">the observed rate of sea-level rise</a>. If that "hockey-stick" acceleration is seen, in multiple independent data records, then it is hard to imagine that much of AGW skepticism will survive.
Conversely, if future sea-levels decline (as your post foresees), then such a decline will indeed severely challenge our understanding of climate-change … especially because (to the best of my knowledge) there is *NO* on-the-record prediction of such a decline in the present scientific literature … in which event today's AGW skeptics will be validated.
After a brief decline in sea-level seen in 2010-11, in early 2012 the satellite data have reverted to the accelerating rise-line … thus it's "so far, so good" with regard to Hansen's strategy of eliminating AGW skepticism via a science-driven and market-validated "checkmate."
↧
Comment on The Righteous Mind by David Wojick
ceteris, I don’t know “whose books” you are referring to. I have both studied and taught Hegel. His Phenomenology of Mind is one of the most important books ever written. It describes the way in which new ideas destroy the old ones. Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions, on which I did my Ph.D. thesis, is quite similar. Hegel’s antithesis and Kuhn’s anomalies are basically the same concept. Every theory is ultimately overcome by the aspects that do not work. This is the essence of progress, scientific and otherwise.
Hegel is not a proto-Marxist, any more than Kant is a proto-Hegelian, or Hume a proto-Kantian. The history of philosophy is the history of the articulation of great ideas, ideas which everyone already has, but cannot speak, as Hegel pointed out. Marx was the first to articulate the idea of technological progress, and that societies will change to adapt to new technologies. He was profoundly correct in that regard, his political philosophy aside.
↧
Comment on Week in review 4/20/12 by beesaman
Mann has never faced off with anyone outside of the team, he just presents monologues. But then he does seem to impressed by his own hype.
↧
Comment on Week in review 4/20/12 by Beth Cooper
The Madrid article re ‘Political pressure coming from the UN’ * describes the bizarre divisions of labour set up, (elephant designed by committee… Hey, its only got three legs and there’s something wrong with its trunk!)
The first division’s task is to ‘assess the science,’ well Okay…. The second division ol labour is to study impacts,,,huh? Impacts of ‘what?’ oh yeah, impacts of ‘ that whch is yet to be identified?’ The third division has the looniest task of all, to explore ‘mitigation’ of that which is yet to be ascertained, we don’t know what, “SOMETHING” and for which there COULD be possible impacts, or not.
* Acronym for ‘Utter Nonsense.’
↧
↧
Comment on Climate change responses in the developing world by Jim2
“You do favor education and infant industry” I may favor infant industry, but the government shouldn’t. It has a recent and abysmal track record at picking businesses. These businesses weren’t a good idea before the government got involved and that’s why private entities wouldn’t risk money on it. Startups are best left to the private sector where resources are allocated more judiciously and effectively.
↧
Comment on Climate change responses in the developing world by beesaman
http://climate4you.com/images/UnivColorado%20MeanSeaLevelSince1992%20With1yrRunningAverage.gif
Nope, no recent rise (since 2009) certainly no Hansen or Mann made acceleration! Game on!
↧
Comment on Week in review 4/20/12 by Bart R
Beth Cooper | April 22, 2012 at 11:21 am |
Huh.
And here I thought it was “a gnu is an animal designed by committee”, “a camel is a horse, designed by committe”, “the platypus is an otter designed by committee”.
The elephant was clearly designed by a Freudian.
↧
Comment on The Righteous Mind by Beth Cooper
David Wojick,
You ask which books…
Vol 2 of Karl Popper ‘The Open Society and it’s Enemies,’ on Hegel and Marx for which he was awarded the 1976 Lippencote Award of the American Political Science Association and elected a Fellow of the Royal Society , is highly ctitical of Hegel, as is Bertand Russell, in his History of Western Philosophy.’ Russell concludes: ‘Such is Hegel’s doctrine of the State – a doctrine, which if accepted, justifies every tyranny and every external aggression that can possibly be imagined.’ Russell, P711, Routledge 1991,)
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review 4/20/12 by stefanthedenier
Don Monfort | April 22, 2012 at 12:26 pm said: ”Mann considers anyone who disagrees with him to be dishonest. Debate over”
Don, Michael Mann is same like you. You believe in more phony GLOBAL warmings than Mann. If somebody doesn’t believe in the phony GLOBAL warmings, like me; should be silenced. If Mann admits the truth – he will end up in jail. If you face the truth; you will have to admit that you have being duped by the 100y old misleading propaganda. Temperature OVERALL on the planet doesn’t go up and down like yo-yo, shocking truth…
↧
Comment on Week in review 4/20/12 by Brandon Shollenberger
A commenter on that USA Today’s article left a comment I found hilarious:
Brandon Shollenberger Also, maybe you are afraid that if you download the link, people will be able to tell you are not an individual, but be able to trace your IP address back and show that you are actually a part of a special interest paid disinformation campaign, eh?
↧
Comment on Week in review 4/20/12 by stefanthedenier
Jim Cripwell | April 22, 2012 at 12:29 pm
Jim, if more Arctic ice melts – it will be your fault!!! All you children on the sandpit are demanding more and more little fire trucks and water pistols – for cooling the planet. Santa had to extend his toy factory on the North Poll = releases more CO2, plus Rudolf’s methane are melting the ice.
Or, water freezes on ZERO C, approximate temp on Arctic is minus – 30C, that is twice as cold than in your deep freezer. Therefore, temperature is completely irrelevant to the amount of ice. There is enough coldness to make another 12km thick ice on the top of the existing one, in one season. The amount of ice depends only on the availability of raw material in the air for replenishing the melted ice; because that ice seats on a salty seawater. What is the raw material, and how to produce more of it; that is the question! Warmist say that; that raw material in the air is bad for climate. In the Canadian / Siberian permafrost is colder than on Greenland, but no ice. Permafrost is desert in a cold country, guess WHY?. You have 6 guesses only. Cheers!
↧
Comment on Climate change responses in the developing world by Bernie Schreiver
Doug, if you are any kind of fan of Howard, Tolkien, and Vance, then you might enjoy reading <a href="http://www.nextnature.net/2009/04/mapping-a-lost-world/" rel="nofollow">the history of Doggerland</i> … a vast, once-rich land to the north and east of England, that now lies drowned beneath the waves of the North Sea.
Supposing that we humans cling to our present carbon-burning global energy economy, then a few centuries from now, will the Gulf States be America's own irretrievably drowned Doggerland?
To increasingly many climatologists and archaeologists, a planet Earth having drowned Doggerlands on every continent appears to be not outside the realm of physical possibility.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review 4/20/12 by JCH
When I travelled in Australia it seemed each region was trying to one up the others with some bite that would kill faster, or uglier, than all the rest.
↧
Comment on Week in review 4/20/12 by stefanthedenier
pokerguy | April 22, 2012 at 3:25 pm said: ''A skeptic was born''
pokerguy, even with my limited English, I can understand that: somebody believing in the phony GLOBAL warmings / warmer planet, is not a ''Skeptic'' Warmist believe in 90% ''possibility'' of GLOBAL warming, in 100years - ''Skeptics'' like you, believe 101% in GLOBAL warming...?! Should I teach you correct English? Part of the circus, be honest and insert ''Fake'' in front of ''Skeptic''. Maybe warmer planet is better, but you will be disappointed, same as Hansen Cheers!
↧
Comment on Week in review 4/20/12 by stefanthedenier
Arno Arrak | April 22, 2012 at 3:26 pm
Arno, you are contradicting your own previous misleadings, shame, shame!
Water vapor makes milder climate, not GLOBAL warming! You still avoid to compare Brazil’s climate with Sahara! Naughty, naughty! Cloud intercepts some of the sunlight, where cooling is much more effective = less heat on the ground. You are misleading yourself, why? Are you misleading for money, or for feel good?
↧
Comment on Week in review 4/20/12 by Wagathon
Here’s the problem the Warmanazis have: they cannot tell the truth. A direct example is their refusal to admit that the oceans are in a cooling trend (and the unconscious incompetence of schoolteachers who continue to facilitate the ignorance and lies of these anti-humanist science authoritarians is mind-boggling).
It’s a simple fact. The fact is based on easily knowable and understandable technology. Nominally, it’s the Sun, stupid.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review 4/20/12 by stefanthedenier
Eli Rabett | April 22, 2012 at 4:56 pm said: as in the case of the Little Ice Age cooling
Bunny, little ice age was in Europe, not GLOBAL. There are real reasons why it happened, nothing to do with your GLOBAL warmings, stop the crap,please. Whoever told you that it was GLOBAL, ask him to tell you; what was the temp in mid Pacific at that time? Pacific is 20 times larger than Europe. If Europe gets colder by 2C, all it needs over Pacific to get warmer by 0,2C, to be equal. As honest people can recall; at that time the planet was flat / 70% of the planet didn’t exist, and was before the invention of the thermometer. That’s what happen when you repeat a lie 7 times… Why are you still molesting the truth?! Does it make you feel good, when you are lying? Are you so addicted in telling lies? If you keep telling lies, your nose will get bigger and bigger – but your water pistol will get smaller and smaller; think about it
↧
Comment on Week in review 4/13/12 by WebHubTelescope
I wouldn’t expect a civ such as yourself to understand anything about photonics or electromagnetic theory. The fact that you use the term “speed of light” shows how utterly ignorant you are about physics. I bet that you took one physics course, perhaps as a freshman, and you have been making it up ever since. It makes sense that you and your SkyDragon buddies are in cahoots over making a mockery out of essential physics.
What’s more, the same equation that you keep positing over and over, that of defining the imbalance of incoming and outgoing power, says that the difference must go into a latent store. That latent store is predominately the ocean. There is your 1st law of thermo that you keep bringing up.
Yet you are so belligerent and manipulative that you can’t admit to the ocean being a heat sink. The ocean is in fact a heat sink and your equation points out what is happening. That is how I started this thread long ago, by analogizing the ocean to a CPU’s heat sink. I also corrected the fact that other commenters had the net energy flow going the wrong way. I actually enjoy trying to come up with simplifying reductions to real physics and hope that this can help to get the point across.
But you and your SkyDragon agenda refuses to believe in the direction of the net energy flow, even though the one equation that you show supports that idea. Not surprising, in the fact that a civ can handle only one equation at best. And in your case, you make a mess out of the one equation. No wonder it gets your goat.
↧
Comment on Week in review 4/20/12 by Don Monfort
Try this one, slick:
I don’t know if there are any more recent encounters that could be called a debate. Your side has pretty much stuck to hysterical demonization, since they got their hynees whupped so thoroughly in this one. That genius, Gavin Schmidt, whined that the debate was unfair due to Crichton’s height advantage. You characters are funny. The inept CAGW side couldn’t even win over the lefty NPR crowd. Results of audience polling:
“In this debate, the proposition was: “Global Warming Is Not a Crisis.” In a vote before the debate, about 30 percent of the audience agreed with the motion, while 57 percent were against and 13 percent undecided. The debate seemed to affect a number of people: Afterward, about 46 percent agreed with the motion, roughly 42 percent were opposed and about 12 percent were undecided.”
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
