Like I said, 700 ppm. Good or not? They just ignore this discussion even though non-mitigation leads there. How can they do that?
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Jim D
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by AK
[…] this view of being too uncertain to do any mitigation at all.
Actually, that’s a “bait&switch”. That phrase is commonly used for anybody who doesn’t demand the entire socialist agenda in the name of “climate change”. All sorts of “low-regrets” options are dismissed as “[not] any mitigation at all.”
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by AK
<blockquote>[...] even though non-mitigation leads there.</blockquote>Why do you think that? Really doing <b>nothing</b> might, but doing other things besides what your agenda demands could easily solve the problem even better than your favored approach.
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by AK
It’s called a “straw man”, Jim D.
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by mosomoso
Ah, peak charcoal! I’m sure some paleo-alarmist’s warnings fell on deaf ears, back in the day.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by catweazle666
I find it somewhat ironic that after all these years when one of the biggest slurs that the Warmists have used to belittle AGW sceptics was to liken them to Creationists, all of a sudden the World’s most pre-eminent Warmist is the biggest Creationist of all.
Strange times…
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Willard
Dear Don Don,
I have some time this evening, and will take Jim D’s place for a while. RichardS’s claim:
The statements of extremely likely, etc. are determined, not by statistics or evidence, but by a few scientists coming to a subjective consensus.
is misleading at best.
A consensus is inter-subjective, not subjective. Besides, there’s no such thing as an objective consensus.
There’s no dichotomy between statistics or evidence and a consensus. For instance, the IPCC consensus is based on an evidence basis.
Finally, the very idea of having an consensus determined by statistics or evidence is a bit abstruse.
***
Since giving links is not your forte, here’s the link to the technical summary of the AR5 WG1:
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
Now, which one do you want us to check?
Thanks for playing,
W
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by ordvic
Who dat?
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by climatereason
Mosomoso
If your bamboo makes good charcoal perhaps we can recreate the good old days of charcoal burning and really boost the co2 in the atmosphere. It’s vital that we live up to the traditions of neo scepticism which, as oldman rivers points out , is a very very bad thing. Jimd obviously thinks e te all evil.
Tonyb
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by jim2
Here’s the email address of the lead author in case anyone is interested.
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by jim2
This journal belongs to a certain organization, and it explains a lot.
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by jim2
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by jim2
OK, the images didn’t work. The journal belongs to AAAS, apparently.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by RiHo08
Sorry folks. By my putting quotes around link made the link inaccessible to just clicking on the link. You can copy and paste or use:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr076.pdf
Give it a try.
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Peter Lang
Jim2,
The more I read and think about “global warming,” the more I believe the argument that warming is bad may be stronger than trying to argue the science.
Could you please summarise the main points that are persuading you that warming is likely to be bad?
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Don Monfort
You and yimmy can carry on with your foolishness, willy. Enjoy. I don’t have time for your games.
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by jim2
Thanks for catching that Peter. That should have been “warming is good.”
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by jim2
Apologies that this is a bit OT. But this is why I see petroleum E&P as high tech. From the article:
…
Remember the mission of drilling for shale oil: You’re going to drill down vertically for about two miles below the earth’s surface in the shale resources of the Bakken or Three Fork formations, and then you’re going to start drilling laterally for up to three miles in a roughly horizontal direction, guided by sophisticated computer equipment that “geo-steers” the direction of the lateral drilling to stay in the optimal areas of the shale reservoir! Each drilling site has one or more professional, certified geologists, along with petroleum engineers, who help supervise the directional drilling, based on 3-D seismic imaging of the subterranean structure that helps identify and target the fluids-rich shale reservoirs.
In the same way that computer technologies have revolutionized industries like ride-sharing transportation, special effects in movies, surgery and medical procedures, motor vehicles, architecture and engineering, medical and diagnostic procedures, smartphones, computers and devices, advanced manufacturing, 3-D printing, etc., advanced computer technologies have revolutionized oil and gas extraction, which is one of 50 industries identified by the Brookings Institution that constitute America’s Advanced Industries Sector. As I mentioned in Part I of this series, the general public is probably unaware of the fact that the oil and gas business is a very, very high-tech industry that uses cutting-edge, advanced engineering, geological and drilling technologies that continually advance and improve. The technological innovation that unlocked the nation’s oceans of shale resources hasn’t stopped but instead has actually intensified in the Bakken, Permian Basin, Eagle Ford and Marcellus regions. New ideas, technologies and ways of cracking the shale code emerge daily, and the oil and gas industry is now entering a new wave of innovation and advances that is being called Shale 2.0.
In contrast to the advanced technologies involved in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, the technologies involved to produce renewable energies like wind and solar power are relatively low-tech and primitive – centuries-old technology in the case of windmills.
…
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3272015-top-10-things-i-learned-on-my-summer-trip-to-the-bakken-oil-fields-part-ii
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Mike Flynn
Jim D,
You asked – 700 ppm, good or not? Of course it’s good!
Why would it not be? Combined with extra water (the other combustion product of hydrocarbons), we might regain some of the plant life lost in the past.
Who wouldn’t want to see the deserts bloom?
Even Svante Arrhenius hoped global warming would occur. Better and more equable climate, more plants.
Warmists decry any desires or projections that don’t lead to doom, gloom, or despair. Why is that, do you think?
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by catweazle666
ordvic: </i>Who dat?"</i>
The Pope of course.
Who else?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
