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

Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by Don Monfort

0
0

Check this out, willy:

http://247wallst.com/special-report/2014/01/08/companies-paying-the-most-taxes/

Exxon is our biggest tax payer and the effective tax rate is 44% of net income. And when the profit gets distributed to shareholders in the form of dividends and capital gains, it get’s taxed again. The money the shareholders invested was taxed when they earned it. When they spend the money they made from their investment, it will be taxed again. What do you jokers want, blood?


Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by Dan Pangburn

0
0

Atmospheric CO2 has been identified as a possible climate change forcing. Forcings, according to the ‘consensus’ and the IPCC, have units of J s-1 m-2. Energy, in units J m-2, divided by the effective thermal capacitance (J K-1 m-2) equals average global temperature (AGT) change (K). Thus (in consistent units) the time-integral of the atmospheric CO2 level (or some function thereof) times a scale factor equals the AGT change. When this is applied to multiple corroborated paleo estimates of CO2 and average global temperature, the only thing that consistently works is if the effect of CO2 is negligible and something else is causing the temperature change.

The cause of climate change since 1610 (R^2=0.97+ since before 1900) and proof that CO2 has no significant effect on climate are at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by catweazle666

0
0

Jim D: “timg56, no the science has given you several ways of relating emissions to future temperatures”

No it hasn’t.

Stop making stuff up.

Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by miker613

0
0

timg56, ATTP posts under the name ATTP/And Then There’s Physics. Presumably he prefers to leave his name out of it, which is his right. What is the justification for those who use his name in their discussions? I think it’s shameful, and if I were the hostess I would forbid it.

Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by Don Monfort

0
0

They were intimidated into taking that down pretty quick, weren’t they willy? Show us the one with schoolchildren getting exploded for not being proper little greenies?

Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by PA

0
0

Dan Pangburn | June 22, 2015 at 8:36 pm | Reply

The cause of climate change since 1610 (R^2=0.97+ since before 1900) and proof that CO2 has no significant effect on climate are at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com

I would love to be in the “no warming” camp… but the following graph seems to need some explanation:

Now, as I read it the forcing is about 2/3 the 5.35 ln (C/C0) no water assist IPCC forcing level (or 1/3 of TSR). So the warmers have overshot by a factor of 3.

But it isn’t zero either.

Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by Jim D

0
0

By the time it gets to these congressional panels, everyone knows what their invited scientist is going to say, which the politicians can then use for rubber-stamping their own advocacy. Judith is going to say everything is uncertain and that no policy has any effect on temperature anyway. She is not going to say that the IPCC is possibly right about 4 C warming by 2100, so they are safe with that choice. Most other scientists would reflect an IPCC view that is more in the middle and give credence to some large temperature rises and the consequent effectiveness of mitigation. It’s not so much advocacy as being used for a purpose and not doing anything to disappoint the hosts, Some scientists are reliably not going to go off message even if pushed by cross-questioning. That is why they are invited. It is a predetermined outcome that the politicians are comfortable with, because they already know which way they are voting on policies due to their own funding sources and just need someone to come along with a rubber-stamp statement to quote. Bonus points if they can also put it in a WSJ op-ed. That is the way it works in the US, and the panels are just for show.

Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by Don Monfort

0
0

“Judith is going to say everything is uncertain and that no policy has any effect on temperature anyway.”

You know that’s a lie, yimmy. She never said that and she has given zero indication that she will say it in the future. You really need to apologize, yimmy. Or she should kick you butt out of her house.


Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by Mike Flynn

0
0

Dan,

It would be nice if anybody could even measure the energy content of the Earth system at a given point in time. Given present technology though, this is completely impossible.

Anyone who claims to be able to do so is either a fool or a fraud.

Even the surface temperature of the Earth eludes us. Measuring the supposed air temperature at a point above the surface is an exercise in futility, if the idea is to use that temperature as a proxy for the Earth’s heat content. It is just as bizarre as using the surface temperature of a column of water 10 km deep as a similar proxy, and the majority of the Earth’s surface is overlain by water of varying depths.

Satellite remote sensing is better, but it only reads the emitted radiation from what overlays the surface. Forest canopy temperature may tell you nothing about the surface temperature of the solid crust, some distance below.

To compound the farcical nature of so called global average temperature measurements, the effects of sunlight, clouds, aerosols, precipitation, CO2, H2O, the erratically rotating Earth, atmospheric perturbations (including wind), mean that the instantaneous temperature of the crustal overlay surface vary from moment to moment.

No amount of averaging or estimating will enable the calculation of the Earth’s heat content, which is necessary to establish energy difference between two points in time.

What has this to do with advocacy? Everybody wants to get their own way. If you can convince taxpayers to spend billions of dollars in accordance with your wishes, then good luck to you. More fool them, if it turns out your advocacy was based on complete and utter nonsense.

Let everybody advocate themselves to exhaustion! When the money runs out, or society changes, reality may prevail for a while. History is littered with the disastrous results of strident advocacy, supposedly based on expertise, science or both.

I don’t expect the future to change much in this regard, but who knows? I live in hope.

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

0
0

Here. It is quite a linear relationship. The “skeptics” have not come up with an alternative to this yet which must be very disappointing for their side of policymakers. They’ve got nothing to combat this with. Where is CATO when you need them?

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by catweazle666

0
0

Jim D: {“i>”Millions of years of data shows that 700 ppm is incompatible with polar ice of any kind leading to higher sea levels by 200 ft, for example.”

More drivel.

Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by Jim D

0
0

She can put all the qualifiers she wants on it, but that is the message the politicians take away from it. They are simple/single-minded folk, and they get what they need out of these. Then the go off to vote against the EPA or against the idea the recent climate change is human-caused, which they would have done anyway.

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

0
0

Check out a period called the Eocene.

Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by Ragnaar

0
0

Willard:
Your 3 examples look like state subsidies. We get that all the time. A company negotiates an expansion or new buildings with government. Economic arguments are made for why this makes sense but it doesn’t make sense to me. I suppose they can play one state against others.
“Consider the Times’ example of the largest corporate subsidy in Minnesota — nearly $60 million to Best Buy, which built a sprawling headquarters in Richfield. The aim was to accommodate thousands more employees in the years to come. Instead, Best Buy has been shedding workers and the retailer’s future remains in doubt.” http://www.startribune.com/the-subsidy-bonanza-sunk-costs/189452331/
Best Buy sells electronics in their stores. The clowns in Saint Paul never saw that internet thing changing things. We might say the Oil companies just took all the government subsidies they could. Maybe it’s a little bit the politicians fault. Make that the voters fault.

Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by PA

0
0

Well, I’ve advocated driving temperature sensors about 10 feet deep and tracking whether the globe is actually getting warmer… but there doesn’t seem to be a lot of interest in honestly measuring global warming.

I don’t believe it is lack of technology, it is lack of interest.


Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by Don Monfort

0
0

That is very dishonest, yimmy. You are not doing the cause any good with your bitter BS. You must be very unhappy.

Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by Jeff Id

0
0

Judith,

Your comments are well considered and very even keeled. However, I believe you know that an improved code of behavior will not appreciably change or alter the actions of university scientists. It seems an universally human concept that a new rule is the obvious solution to correct a systematic problem, the problem being of course created by old rules. How will a code of ethics or behavior apply when the true problem we face is one of the foxes protecting the hen house?..

I understand the political and personal advantages that come with declaring uncertainty to be THE main issue, however, uncertainty is not the issue with climate science, nor is communication of uncertainty, nor is it the lack of understanding of climate scientists as to the role they should hold. Uncertainty as an end-game argument, while it may press a few into line, is a scientifically untenable position. The problem we all face is a purely unscientific politically based bias. Bias in the science towards falsely alarming answers, bias in the solutions toward false hopes, and bias in the presentation societal effects of these falsehoods.

While the statement that scientists are ‘shooting from the hip’ is disarming of their arguments, too many government paid advocates have spent their entire lives aimed at exactly that left-side target, for such a statement to hold true.

Still your softened argument may be the most effective approach. Good luck at your meeting, I truly hope they will consider you carefully.

Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by brentns1

Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by Jim D

0
0

I am unhappy with the paid-for politicians. This is all just procedures. Don’t expect a debate in congress.

Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by David L. Hagen

0
0

Thanks PA. Interesting evidence.
Is that CO2 specific radiation only? Or is all downwelling radiation being measured?
What does the theory include?
Any references to the details being measured?
What causes the spikes?

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images