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

Comment on Week in review 4/27/12 by Richard Betts

0
0

Hi Judith

You’ve missed out another important part of the MSNBC interview with Lovelock:

He [Lovelock] said human-caused carbon dioxide emissions were driving an increase in the global temperature, but added that the effect of the oceans was not well enough understood and could have a key role.

“It (the sea) could make all the difference between a hot age and an ice age,” he said.

He said he still thought that climate change was happening, but that its effects would be felt farther in the future than he previously thought.

“We will have global warming, but it’s been deferred a bit,” Lovelock said.

Various blogs, on both sides of the debate, are trying to spin this to claim that Lovelock is saying that anthropogenic global warming has gone away. He is clearly not saying that!

He used to say that the IPCC was “too conservative” but doesn’t seem to think that any longer. However, I don’t think his “half-way to frying” quote is based on IPCC.

Cheers

Richard


Comment on Week in review 4/27/12 by cui bono

0
0

Presumably, we of a sceptical bent are supposed to welcome Lovelock’s partial recantation, and hope that goodwill towards him will encourage others to step into the light. Magnanimity, after all.

However, I don’t feel an upwelling of goodwill towards him. His rhetoric was absurdist, hyperbolic and almost hysterical from the start, and he must take his share of the blame for the alarmist claptrap which now surrounds us. If he didn’t know what he was talking about ten years ago, or now fears he was ‘overconfident’, he should have kept his mouth shut back then.

Here is the CAGW mentality from start to end for all to see and visible in advance: “We’re all going to die as Gaia dispenses with the troublesome human race. I’ll write a book. Oh, hang on, we’re not. I’ll write a book.”

Pass the sick bag.

Comment on Week in review 4/27/12 by kakatoa

0
0

To your- “Climate change bingo, or roulette, or monopoly, the possibilities are endless” comment there is some big news in regards to monopoly as the biggest PV facility in the world was just turned on : “Largest Solar PV Plant in North America Comes On-Line, Agua Caliente is now the biggest PV plant around. And there’s more to come. Utility-scale solar will rule in 2012″ http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Largest-Solar-PV-Plant-in-North-America-Comes-On-Line/ The output of this facility is being purchased by PG&E for it’s CA customers via a 20 year Power Agreement with the current owners of the facility- NRG.

The federal governments economic risk in regards to ” a $967 million loan guarantee from the U.S. Department of Energy for the project is pretty low as the PPA transfers risk (actually it’s fixed costs at this stage of the monopoly game) to the rate payers at PG&E.

Comment on Perils of apocalyptic thinking by Scott

0
0

Kim, Don”t understand what u mean

Comment on Week in review 4/27/12 by lolwot

0
0

Hi Dr Curry,
I notice this post isn’t at the top of the blog, I think it’s got the wrong post date.

Comment on Week in review 4/27/12 by lolwot

0
0

I never took lovelock seriously, I just didn’t get the whole gaia thing. Seemed a bit sci-fi.

Comment on Perils of apocalyptic thinking by WebHubTelescope

0
0

jim2, I don’t see how I can put words in your mouth when you type those very words in yourself!

All I have to do is copy & paste a quote of yours.

“Jim2 | April 27, 2012 at 8:59 am | Reply

Joe – the socialistic watermelons controlling the US government are the culprits who ruined the economy. “

You say I am twisting your words. How exactly do you untwist a metaphor that says that the government is RED=communist and that something as massive as an economy is ruined, which borders on gloom, doom, and apocalypse.

The projection just oozes out. You are the true apocalyptic fantasist.

Comment on Week in review 4/27/12 by climatereason


Comment on Perils of apocalyptic thinking by lolwot

0
0

A sudden rise in temperatures could be catastrophic. I think each, eg 0.2C rise, in temperature carries some risk, mainly because so much on earth is somewhat sensitive to temperature and no-one understands everything in order to know where the limits are.

Comment on Week in review 4/27/12 by NW

0
0

“I am especially a ‘cheesburger-hating’ liberal.”

Oh you should see some of the s–t they have in China. I was especially taken by “duck lips” (their translation to Engrish): Chewy, almost jerky-fied duck bills served on a plate surrounded by quail eggs. Very delicious, I thought, even as I assumed they were deadly. Then there were the street vendors with pyramids of roasted rabbit heads. Those were very tasty too, though a little goulish in their presentation–like some awful Indiana Jones scene. The fish head hot-pot was a show-stopper. Do you know: As in a top-shelf Western steak house, the top-shelf fish head hot-pot restaurant brings the fish heads to tableside, for the diners to inspect prior to hacking them up for the soup. Just to make sure they meet with the approval of the diners you see. You can tell a lot from a decapitated fish head you know. The smell, the glossy eyes, the red gills… it all adds up to a judgment.

I loved Chengdu!

Comment on Week in review 4/27/12 by Punksta

0
0

o/t warning !

The argument has been made (eg by Tamino) that although global surface air average temperature trend has been flat since 1997, this does not mean global warming has stopped. The reasoning behind this seems to be that that net effect of natural forces are known to be having a downward effect for all this time, that has offset the hypothesized CO2 effect.

Well if natural forces are now so really well understood, it must mean
- the debate is over, since any departure from what (by assumption well-understood) natural forces would do, must be down to man
- climate science and the models can now reliably predict future temperatures.

Comment on Week in review 4/27/12 by Wagathon

0
0

Sounds better than Icelandic sheep’s head.

Comment on Week in review 4/27/12 by Chief Hydrologist

0
0

So the webfuscator has found a new word of the day. Dialectic however requires understanding, humility, good faith, good humour and implies empathy and 2 way communication. Qualities sadly lacking in some benighted corners of the blogosphere.

NW was speaking in some sense about asymmetric knowledge. Knowledge that is in some way transformative. Threshold concepts in pedagogy. ‘Threshold Concepts’ may be considered to be “akin to passing through a portal” or “conceptual gateway” that opens up “previously inaccessible way[s] of thinking about something” (Meyer and Land [9]). – http://www.ee.ucl.ac.uk/~mflanaga/thresholds.html

The teacher and the student can inhabit a different universe and use a different language. Some may never make the transition for whatever reason. ‘Sometimes the convincing force is just time itself and the human toll it takes, Kuhn said, using a quote from Max Planck: “a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.’

Comment on Week in review 4/27/12 by Wagathon

0
0

But, only reliable in the long term, right?

Comment on Ignorance: the true engine of science by Bart R

0
0

kim | April 26, 2012 at 11:13 am |

You are simply deluded, Bart. You can say ‘eight full inquiries’ and call criticism of that remark ‘snark’?

Ah, kim. But you misunderstand, and it is my fault.

I do not call anything you’ve said ‘snark’, as that would be attributing motivation to you. I allude to the snarkiness I expect many would perceive in “How can someone that bright be so dim? ‘Eight full inquiries’. Pretend I’m from Missouri, and show me.”

The Internet is full of flame wars begun because of perception of slights never intended. I accept that you meant what you said in good earnest, and perhaps with generosity of spirit (which you are notable for).

I’m not going to try to defend ‘full’, as different people mean different things by full. I meant that each inquiry fully covered (and in some cases exceeded) its terms of reference and jurisdiction. All handed down judgments and recommendations that by objective standards fully completed each inquiry’s terms of reference. They were so far as I can say held by fully competent and reputable persons in appropriate forums for what they were.

There is on the other hand always going to be room to complain that there was something no inquiry touched. Partly, this was the fault of the hacker, for releasing their files in pieces over time and not coming forward to explain their actions as an honest whistle-blower ought. Mostly, it was what the laws allowed, even for the Imhofe inquiry. No one suspects, I think, Imhofe is secretly supporting anyone even remotely associated with the CRU or its work.

Keeping in mind, I have no sympathy with the laws or lawmakers who defined what whistle-blowers ought, nor do I think laws or lawmakers seriously protect whistle-blowers. So I can understand why almost any outcome might be plausible to the hacker and the hacker’s fans. And, I recognize I’m flagrantly begging the question about six ways here, which is likely snarky-sounding.

It’s not intended, it’s just inevitable, when you come down to the pragmatic upshot: the inquiry route is done. It has no credibility. Those who argue for it, or rehash it, or belabor it, or try it out for themselves online as they wish it would have gone merely make themselves look absurd, with little hope of payoff.

It’s as absurd as arguing _for_ the conduct of the CRU as uncovered by the Climategate emails and testimonies. As scientists, the people involved were frequently acting not in the spirit of science. As public servants, at least one person was found to have contravened the rules and was dealt a reassignment of duties as a result.

But this making a show of it Tom’s doing?

Considering my own view of the standards of conduct of data handling — which it appears Tom is unaware of or cannot grasp — so far exceed what Mosher or McIntyre or any of the inquiries have called for, in that I want cradle-to-grave open data and open code and open methods in an online forum with full metadata for all research public or private, plus a fully integrated and radically realigned publication system, I don’t see the point of Tom’s by comparison feeble ‘why did PJ do it?’


Comment on Week in review 4/27/12 by Chief Hydrologist

0
0

And he refuses to join any club that will accept him as a member.

Comment on Week in review 4/27/12 by Chief Hydrologist

0
0

That can’t be right – in the longer term climate is non-linear.

Comment on Week in review 4/27/12 by peterdavies252

0
0

I had a look at the Delingpole interview and find much of it to be true. The fact that Palmer was on the panel with Minchin was a distinct plus as far as I was concerned.

While I can’t speak for Australians generally I don’t think that we really care what foreigners think of us but there is a bumper sticker going around that says to immigrants in general that if you don’t love us then you can go back home where you come from. The language on the bumper sticker was more direct ;)

Comment on Perils of apocalyptic thinking by Bart R

0
0

WebHubTelescope | April 28, 2012 at 2:16 am |

No worries. The medium is imperfect, and I’m notably incomprehensible at my best.

Though, the smiley was NW’s.

Comment on Perils of apocalyptic thinking by NW

0
0

I could have some emoticons backwards. I thought :) meant ‘hey I’m being light-hearted but basically straightforward and friendly.” Then there is the “winky,” ;) , which I thought meant “This remark is to be taken with salt, or sarastically, or ironically, or maybe all three.”

We MIGHT all be speaking different emoticon languages. That would expalin… well not a lot, but some things.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images