Tony b,
Join our epiphany club!! Life’s too short for apocalypse *&^%$
Comment on Climate change and moral judgement by Beth Cooper
↧
↧
Comment on Climate change and moral judgement by Jim Cripwell
Brandon Schollenberer writes “I’m curious just what you think the climate sensitivity is.”
Obviously you have not read my postings on Eductaion and the Age of Uncertainty, and the latest Week in Review, where I lay out precisely why I know that the climate sensitivity of CO2 added to the atmosphere from current levels is indistinuishable from zero. There are there for anyone to read, and challenge the science I presented. No-one has, in my opinion, challenged this science.
To recap, Girma’s graph shows conclusively that adding CO2 to the atmosphere from current levels has absolutely no effect whatsoever on the long term temperature/time graph. So the observed data proves CO2 has no effect on temperature, and, according to the scientific method, we always believe observed data over hypothetical estimations and the use of non-validated models, as proposed by the proponents of CAGW.
If you disaree witrh my conclusion, please address the science I have presented.
↧
Comment on Climate change and moral judgement by Girma
Thank you!
↧
Comment on Climate change and moral judgement by jim
David Appell— IMO, the best evidence is the measurement of an increasing greenhouse effect:
JK—————-How does that implicate man’s CO2 emission? Where is the connection between CO2 and radiation balance? Especially since water vapor causes much more “greenhouse” effect than CO2. And since clouds have been shown to be created as a result of galactic & solar effects.
And if you argue that it is only CO2 causing the radiation unbalance, where is the proof that it is man’s CO2 and not nature’s CO2 (which is 95% of the CO2 emission).
If you drag up that old tired carbon 14 argument, then explain how we know that man’s CO2 is the ONLY conceivable source of “old” carbon.
So, David, as I have been asking you for several years, where is the real proof that man’s CO2 is causing dangerous global warming.
Thanks
JK
↧
Comment on Climate change and moral judgement by Considerate thinker
I was reading David Appell’s attempt to link costs and benefits as estimated it seems by one or other of the agenda pushing urgers messing about with this whole issue.
The thought struck me, can a similar process of cost and benefit be applied to Climatology “science” and the cost/waste calculated over the past 20 years, and the likely cost to be borne if we continue to follow the rabbit holes created, in pursuit of something, that is increasingly looking like a failed strategy, built on blind acceptance of some shaky modeling projections.
Now, what is the benefit to defunding that branch of science and shifting money to innovation and invention providing low cost clean and abundant energy of the future. Those diverted funds would create one hell of a sought after prize/incentive (Hat tip to CH) to fund well targeted and beneficial science, like actually providing upgraded forecasting of weather and accurate weather warning to save lives. (remember that noble objective)?
I am sure that someone could come up with other beneficial prizes and compelling cost benefit in making this change. Once that is done and dusted, the precautionary principle would add weight to politically and urgently bringing in this complete solution. There would be many potential spin off benefits.
Might even lead to scientists opening their research to a new peer scrutiny as they vie for the pragmatic prizes.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate change and moral judgement by jim
BTW David,
Do you have any analysis of the latest Henrik Svensmark (peer reviewed even!) paper which Nigel Calder described on his blog (calderup.wordpress.com/):
Today the Royal Astronomical Society in London publishes (online) Henrik Svensmark’s latest paper entitled “Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth”. After years of effort Svensmark shows how the variable frequency of stellar explosions not far from our planet has ruled over the changing fortunes of living things throughout the past half billion years. Appearing in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, It’s a giant of a paper, with 22 figures, 30 equations and about 15,000 words.
(Read the blog of the editor of “ New Scientist”, during its days as a credible source of science information, for a lengthy shredding of Appell style “science”)
If this long time science writer is correct, its pretty close to game over for “the man is guilty” Gore/Jones/Hansen/Jones school of pseudo science.
Thanks
JK
↧
Comment on Climate change and moral judgement by durango12
We should be aware that this psychobabble is another step toward pathologizing dissent, as it happened in the old Soviet Union. It has been going on for several years. See for example http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/6320 The new “field” of “ecopsychology” has even sprung up.
Pathologizing dissent, along with plain old intimidation, are the tools of totalitarians.
↧
Comment on Climate change and moral judgement by Joe's World
There are many, many incentive programs. They always in in a catch that you need a company to back you no matter what new innovation is created.
Pretty hard to find a company when most love the subsidies they are receiving. Free money for bad technology.
↧
Comment on Climate change and moral judgement by Joe's World
Interesting how AGW scientists are trying to use psychology to force people into following a really bad theory and so called science behind it. No actual physical proof needed, just trust.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review 4/27/12 by Mydogsgotnonose
It’s religious fanaticism to claim that a computer modelling process in which imaginary work is done by creating an imaginary heat source is able reliably to predict that we will all burn from CAGW!
**That is exactly what the IPCC claims.
↧
Comment on Climate change and moral judgement by Robert of Ottawa
Before they can show us any evidence, they first have to demonstrate any “climate chnages” are abnormal, or unnatural. That is what is difficult for them. If they cannot do that, then we have no reason to listen to them, or hand them billions of dollars.
↧
Comment on Climate change and moral judgement by John Carpenter
“David Appell, you are behaving in a pathetic and ridiculous manner.
From my view, he is behaving exactly like a lot of skeptics that frequent here….. demanding every ounce of proof before he will conceded to the obvious. Changing his mind will never happen…. because he can always ask for more yet impossible information to be brought to him…. thus safe guarding his treasured belief and never having to utter those dreaded words… “I was wrong about that”. My observation of his behavior should not be a mysterious concept for David to grasp, it’s used frequently by the warmist side, no?
↧
Comment on Climate change and moral judgement by John Carpenter
See my comment here
http://judithcurry.com/2012/04/28/climate-change-and-moral-judgement/#comment-196035
that should have been posted here.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate change and moral judgement by omanuel
Tha responses of leaders of nations, scientific organizations, research journals, the news media – even our most trusted organizations like the US National Academy of Sciences, the UK Royal Society, the UN IPCC, BBC, PBS, NYT and the Nobel Prize Committee – point to one unpalatable but inescapable conclusion:
Society is not controlled by trusted servants of the public nor by lovers of wisdom (knowledge) – as recommended in Plato’s Republic – but by lovers of power.
They were probably driven by instinctive fear of “nuclear fire” into hiding information on the source of energy that controls Earth’s climate, sustains life, powers the Sun and the cosmos – neutron repulsion in the compact cores of
a.) Heavy atoms like uranium
b.) Some planets like Jupiter
c.) Ordinary Sun-like stars
d.) Galaxies like the Milky Way
See: omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-31
redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V19N02pdf/V19N2MAN.pdf
↧
Comment on Climate change and moral judgement by Jim D
Look at his definition of optical depth. Few have realized it only includes the photons from the surface to space, i.e. the window wavelengths.
↧
Comment on Climate change and moral judgement by Bart R
So.. a scientist who’s a good communicator, he’s a moralist, not a scientist?
But a moralist who’s also a murderer, he’s just a murderer?
I’m a flawed character all over the place, and acknowledge it; your reasoning, however, is more flawed still, apologizing for the failings of morality itself while hypocritically holding down science, mathematics and engineering after all the far more spectacular positive good they’ve done in the world than all moralism ever has or ever will.
↧
Comment on Climate change and moral judgement by Faustino
“the human moral judgement system is not well equipped to identify … a complex, large-scale and unintentionally caused phenomenon as an important moral imperative” … Either we can do this or we can’t. If we can’t do it for climate change, we can’t do it for anything else; so why focus on this issue rather than any of the many other such issues? And what causes, and who decides, a particular issue to be a “moral imperative” rather than a problem without moral overtones? A lot of question-begging here. The issue is, surely, can sufficient of us grasp the extent to which alleged catastrophic global warming is a real practical issue, what the costs and benefits are, whether or not it is sensible to take action, what priority should this have compared to other issues, e.g. lack of clean water and sanitation for billions of people? Presenting alleged CAGW as a “moral imperative” with which we are allegedly ill-equipped to deal might be an interesting intellectual exercise, but it’s peripheral to the main game of whether or not there is merit in taking costly action to address the alleged threat.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate change and moral judgement by Chuck Wiese
JimD: And this statement shows that you don’t understand radiation basics. You keep treating an absorption as a “temperature forcing” from CO2′s decreasing TOA emission. That doesn’t work in an atmosphere that has a hydro cycle like the earth. The spectrally integrated OLR is the only comparison that can be used to determine whether there is an energy imbalance caused by CO2. It has not been proven and is not likely from the basic physics. You also don’t seem to comprehend that there are no cloud physics involved with any of these changes. They are static and under that assumption, of course, you get a positive feedback from water vapor on CO2. But this is wrong.
↧
Comment on Climate change and moral judgement by Chuck Wiese
It does no such thing. Eu is the emerging upwelled IR that results from the TOA emission by all of the greenhouse gases in his model. You haven’t a clue, Jim.
↧
Comment on Climate change and moral judgement by R. Gates
Arno said:
“That equilibrium response is exactly zero”
_____
This, I would qualify as a perfect example of denial. But it gets better, where he goes on to say:
“Arctic warming started suddenly at the turn of the twentieth century, paused in mid-century, then resumed, and is still going strong. There was no increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide when it started which rules out the greenhouse effect.”
You may want to check your facts a bit more closely. CO2 had already been rising for at least a hundred years or more before the turn of the 20th century, having hit bottom around 1750 or so, and it has been rising ever since.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
