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

Comment on Driving in the dark by Steven Mosher


Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by schitzree

0
0

I thought a neo-skeptic was someone who didn’t believe in the existence of the Matrix

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by jim2

0
0

Good to see you too, David.

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by GaryM

0
0

A new take on the Pope’s encyclical. And one with which I agree, in part.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420058/laudato-si-forces-climate-challenge-activists-consider-tradeoffs-oren-cass

“The encyclical says that ‘for poor countries, the priorities must be to eliminate extreme poverty and to promote the social development of their people.’ Developed countries, meanwhile, owe an ‘ecological debt’ to developing ones and ‘ought to help pay this debt by significantly limiting their consumption of non-renewable energy and by assisting poorer countries.’

These statements only compound the difficulties awaiting diplomats in Paris, entrenching the position of the developing world and driving up demands that would not have been met anyway. They are the equivalent of building momentum toward a Mideast peace summit with a declaration that Israel has no right to exist. Yes, it is a solution, but not one likely to improve the tenor of talks.”

Restated, the author’s point is that the encyclical is not just rabidly pro-decarbonization, but so honest about it that it will pose more problems for warmists than skeptics. I agree that honest debate about how the planet is to be decarbonized would require progressives to advocate for the very type of political changes about which skeptics sound the alarm.

His only error is in thinking progressives will even acknowledge the parts of the encyclical they find problematic. You will see cherry picked quotes galore, with no mention of the more problematic aspects of the encyclical. How many here even have even seen that the Pope wrote that environmentalism requires opposition to abortion (other than my previous comment here on the issue)?

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Willard

0
0

> You are right that statistics can be used to analyze group decisions.

I’m glad you seem to agree with what seems to be the 3rd point I said, RichardS:

(1) A consensus is inter-subjective, not subjective

(2) There’s no such thing as an objective consensus.

(3) There’s no dichotomy between statistics or evidence and a consensus.

(4) The very idea of having an consensus determined by statistics or evidence is a bit abstruse.

There are three other points upon which you have yet to opine.

***

> [T]he IPCC is inaccurrate when it states “More than half of the observed increase in Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) from 1951 to 2010 is very likely due to the observed anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations.” That is a statement is about the planet, not about what the group of attribution experts concluded.

Your last sentence is a bit obscure. Are you suggesting that the IPCC did not intend to make a statement about an indicator of the climate, i.e. GMST 1951-2010?

***

> To my knowledge, the recommendations of the IAC 2010 have largely been ignored by the IPCC and the statements I made stand.

To my knowledge, the IAC 2010 did not publish neither its review procedure, nor the draft manuscript of the IAC report. Do you have access to them by any chance?

***

Since you advocate traceability, please rest assured that everything Denizens (go team!) say on Judy’s is traceable. This includes our current exchange. Usually, traceability costs money, but not here. That’s one advantage of ClimateBall over more formal meetings.

This implies that our exchange is not exactly like a management meeting. You’re not a boss here, and every single thing you say remains here for all eternity. Therefore, you might be advised to revise your technique to manage conversations. Unless you wish to become the perfect example as to why we should either oursource our management teams to countries with better formal training and lower salaries, or simply replace them with expert systems and other algorithmic devices.

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by richardswarthout

0
0

Jim D

The acceptance of evolution is a long established catholic tradition, unrelated to Pope Francis. It is amusing when the left tries to get into the heads of others they disagree with; like there’s got to be something wrong with them because they disagree with me. Would it occur to you that skeptics may not all be set in their ways against chosen areas of science? If you are now broadening the meaning of skeptic there is a risk of confusing things. How would you describe the many liberals who are opposed to childhood vaccinations but also catastrophists regarding climate change?

Would it occur to you that, regarding the skeptics of CAGW, we are not skeptical of science. I think it would accurate to say that we are skeptical only of CAGW.

Richard

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Steven Mosher

0
0

Jim D

What is really funny is that skeptics who argue that we cant know the future, skeptics who demand absolute proof about every damage,
rather blithely forecast that going from 400-700 will necessarily have benefits for plants growth.
Ya, sure there are some lab experiments showing that more c02 benefits plants in the same way that there are lab experiments that show c02 blocks IR.. but there isnt any science that shows these lab results of growth benefits will actually translate to benefits outside a lab environments. They got zero science on the global effect increasing c02 on plant growth and no falsifiable predictions

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Jim D

0
0

TE, global CO2 per capita has been increasing. It is the developed world that can and has been trying to reduce this mainly by moving off coal, which is a partial measure only and far from all that is needed. China and India continue to dominate the per capita increase which reflects in the global increase. Later Africa may become significant too. Global agreements alone can accomplish what you are assuming will happen which is a global per capita reduction, and these agreements can go a step further to keep us below 500 ppm by 2100. As you seem to surmise, this is not very difficult, and it just needs more people on board with it.


Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by AK

0
0

[…] going from 400-700 will necessarily have benefits for plants growth.

Weeds are plants.

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Jim D

0
0

timg56, no the science has given you several ways of relating emissions to future temperatures, so now the discussion is which emission scenario are we going to be following. The “skeptics” have avoided the scenario discussion because they have not yet even considered that the science is possibly correct. They call themselves “skeptics” which allows for possible truth in the science, but actually they are the d-word when they do this, and you can tell by their refusal to even discuss future CO2 levels. They seem to know that defending 700 ppm would look crazy, so that way lies grief for their argumentation in the op-eds.

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by davideisenstadt

0
0

Mosh:
I believe if you perform even the most cursory of searches regarding photosynthesis and CO2 levels, you will find that you are incorrect.
In your comment we find the rare twin straw man, as you distort and misrepesent two arguments in one paragraph.
That commercial growers throughout the world find it profitable to enrich the atmosphere of their greenhouses to 1000 ppm (roughly) should be a hint to you.
What I find interesting is that you, who rely on lab studies regarding the effects of CO2 on terrestrial temperatures, have difficulty accepting the same type of evidence regarding plant yield and CO2 levels.

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by davideisenstadt

0
0

Mosh:
I believe if you perform even the most cursory of searches regarding photosynthesis and CO2 levels, you will find that you are incorrect.
In your comment we find the rare twin straw man, as you distort and misrepesent two arguments in one paragraph.
That commercial growers throughout the world find it profitable to enrich the atmosphere of their greenhouses to 1000 ppm (roughly) should be a hint to you.
What I find interesting is that you, who rely on lab studies regarding the effects of CO2 on terrestrial temperatures, have difficulty accepting the same type of evidence regarding plant yield and CO2 levels.

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Jim D

0
0

Richard, I don’t confuse AGW skeptics with Creationists. In fact, according to polls slightly more people in the US believe in AGW than in evolution, which I find interesting. CAGW is a meme that is not actually the science itself. The science just gives probabilities of temperatures for emission scenarios (WG1), and even this is denied before you get to impacts where you would add the C in WG2. They have not accepted the science of AGW as in WG1 which is the whole IPCC sensitivity range including its uncertainty.

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Bad Andrew

0
0

“Mosh: …In your comment we find the rare twin straw man”

What do they call it when the twin straw man is presented by a clown?

Cirque du Moshaire?

Andrew

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by mosomoso

0
0

Gary, I’m fine with a papacy (though not with this sly mediocrity, Francis), I’m fine with church (and secular) opposition to abortion, and I’m fine with ever-increasing population in a world where people just can’t die fast like in the good old days. Since the only population control that’s any good is the growth and eventual dominance of a middle class, I can hardly object to assisting others to get what I have, especially since their benefit can be mine.

Now, how does this airhead pope (or whoever writes his material) expect those third world bills to be paid “by significantly limiting their consumption of non-renewable energy” in the developed world? GHG-spouting Asia already makes all that affordable stuff we (and Francis) like to buy and use. The developed world is already assisting the formerly impoverished world by being its customer. Should we make ourselves poorer customers as well as shrinking our capacity to give aid? The richest country in the world, Norway, was utterly impoverished after WW2. Did we help it, or Japan, by limiting our consumption or incomes in the 1950s?

One good bout of volcanism in an underpowered world could thin population the old-fashioned organic way. Have these meddlesome priests even thought about real-thing climate change? They think we should pay an “environmental debt” by “decarbonising”? We need to get richer in the least wasteful ways while reducing energy dependency and costs. That means no more white elephants or goat-sacrifices to Gaia. And – never mind the scandals – elect George Pell pope. (Can be done. Papal elections are a bit like climate data. Where there’s a will…)


Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by richreilly

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by brentns1

0
0

Carbon week: The church of climatism
Nigel Lawson, Special to Financial Post | June 17, 2015
Climate scientists and their hangers-on have become the high priests of a new age of unreason

How is it that much of the Western world, and Europe in particular, has succumbed to the self-harming collective madness that is the climate change orthodoxy? It is difficult to escape the conclusion that climate change orthodoxy has in effect become a substitute religion, attended by all the intolerant zealotry that has so often marred religion in the past, and in some places still does so today.

Throughout the Western world, the two creeds that used to vie for popular support – Christianity and the atheistic belief system of Communism – are each clearly in decline. Yet people still feel the need both for the comfort and for the transcendent values that religion can provide. It is the quasi-religion of green alarmism and global salvationism, of which the climate change dogma is the prime example, that has filled the vacuum, with reasoned questioning of its mantras regarded as little short of sacrilege.
http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/carbon-week-the-church-of-climatism

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by jim2

0
0

It’s good to know Mosh doesn’t believe climate lab experiments are meaningful. Often, they don’t correlate with the real world. Recently, there was a study of a reef in the real world that contradicted lab studies of coral. This reef was in a region where the ocean was less alkaline than usual. The reef was flourishing.

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Turbulent Eddie

0
0

TE, global CO2 per capita has been increasing.

Well, there was a bump when China achieved most favored nation trading status. However, CO2 emissions were flat from 2013 to 2014 while population grew a little, so for 2014 anyway, CO2 per capita fell and CO2 absolute was flat. India is still young and growing, but that too will end in a few decades. Will it be enough growth to offset the declines in China? We’ll see.

<It is the developed world that can and has been trying to reduce this mainly by moving off coal, which is a partial measure only and far from all that is needed.

No.

The developed world has moved to natural gas because it’s cheaper and has falling emissions because for many nations, population is already falling. This will continue.

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by richardswarthout

0
0

Jim D

Thank you for responding.

Richard

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images