I don’t get the tendency of denizens on all sides of the debate here treating this blog like some virtual game of capture the flag, with Dr. Curry playing the part of the flag.
Comment on Climate change and moral judgement by GaryM
↧
↧
Comment on Climate change and moral judgement by Jim2
Too late, Rob. Al Gore has four children. On top of that, I can’t find any evidence he gives a tinker’s damn about his carbon foot print.
↧
Comment on Climate change and moral judgement by Joe's World
If using another planet as a scare tactic and say Venus Co2 will be our result misses the fact that gases on Venus weigh 400 times more than our do to the velocity difference. Velocity has a direct relationship with gravity . The slower the planetary velocity, the greater the gravity. Our oceans can show this with the greater weight as you go deeper also has less and less planetary velocity.
↧
Comment on Climate change and moral judgement by Jim D
It is the emission that causes OLR. Emission at higher levels due to having more GHGs has a lower effective temperature and less OLR. Which part don’t you agree with?
↧
Comment on Perils of apocalyptic thinking by Peter Smith
Granted there was a shakedown period- the truly apocalyptic part was relatively short lived (mainly whilst Luther was in hiding), but after that things settled down, much as they had after the Catholic/Orthodox split.
In spite of some claiming the other side represented the Anti-Christ, it was not truly apocalyptic mentality because it was not looked at as a doomsday scenario- which is what the thrust of the article was about.
The real impact of the reformation can be measured in the explosion of art and science and freedom of thought and religion that it spawned.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate change and moral judgement by Jim D
The actual optical depth using all wavelengths is nearer 0.5. His 1.8 is due to neglecting the important part of the spectrum that comes directly from the atmosphere.
↧
Comment on Climate change and moral judgement by kakatoa
J,
I printed out a few pages from the database earlier this week- I sorted things this way AC rated, year, cpi adjusted, residential market for PG&E
The following data is for a 5.0 Kw (AC) residential system over time. Note PG&E has a progressive rate structure for electricity- see the Andy Black reference above for the details.
2007= $10.06 per watt, n=346
2009= $8.95 per watt, n=573
2011= $7.32 per watt, n=732
2012=$6.67 per watt, n=42
Let me know what your interested in and I’ll see if I can answer your question(s).
To get a feel for prices for commercial: 2011 (n=192, 15 Kw AC= $6.88 watt), the largest single commercial size system installed this year was 450 Kw- price was $4.65 watt. All costs are installed before rebates and tax credits. I am not sure if permit fees are included or not.
K
↧
Comment on Climate change and moral judgement by Jim D
It is the part he calls St (transmitted surface flux), not Eu.
↧
Comment on Climate change and moral judgement by Brandon Shollenberger
lolwot:
There’s no hope for you if you deny the CO2 rise is human caused. The evidence for that is overwhelming.
I see comments like this on a fairly regular basis, but so far, I’ve never gotten an answer to my response to them: What percent of the rise in CO2 levels should be attributed to anthropogenic influence? What percentage should be attributed directly to anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions?
Would you care to give me an answer?
↧
↧
Comment on Climate change and moral judgement by omanuel
There are frightening indications today of seething anger starting to erupt in San Francisco:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/05/01/BAQF1OBH55.DTL
Peaceful resolution may require world leaders to correct the deception that it has promoted since Hiroshima was vaporized on 6 Aug 1945:
↧
Comment on Climate change and moral judgement by timg56
Surpassed in their effort only by those who choose to check out completely.
I’m still waiting for Paul Erhlich to lead by example, as he’s been saying for decades there are too many people on this planet.
↧
Comment on Climate change and moral judgement by Wagathon
The most significant issue that employers face today is pollution:
<strong>The biggest polluters are global warming alarmists’ delusional fear mongers are spewing misinformation, blackening business and capitalism and destroying opportunities. Their misguided and self-defeating ideology is polluting ethics and morals and wrecking havoc upon the economy while China, Brazil and India become more robust.</strong>
↧
Comment on Climate change and moral judgement by Scott
Bart, Same tyype of comment as Timg56. You seem smart so what about clouds? Optical depth changes in artic vs tropic. As temps warm some feedback changes sign. As clouds get thicker harder to measure properties let alone extrapalate to models. We dont’s have a good handle yet. So be polite to people you disagree with. Not so snide.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate change and moral judgement by timg56
OK,
I’ll give 100 to 1 that the Ocean City condo my brothers and I still own will not become beach front property in the lifetime of our grandchildren.
(it’s a block back from the beach.)
↧
Comment on Climate change and moral judgement by David Wojick
Just over 3000 comments until we hit 200,000 comments, which should be in a week or so. A historic moment. Anyone want to guess a date and time?
↧
Comment on Climate change and moral judgement by timg56
lolwot,
RE this statement: Lets say the country has no military and everyone is wondering how to solve the problem of national defense. I propose a top-down solution: the government will tax everyone and use those taxes to fund a military to defend the country.
For the record, we (the United States) have been in exactly this situation for a large part of our history. In fact it is how we started out. And the answer was not a top down solution. Nor was it taxation. The government borrowed money and depended on volunteer citizens.
↧
Comment on Climate change and moral judgement by hunter
Andrew,
AGW is not about proof or evidence and certainly not about morals. It is a very dysfunctional social movement, and feeds on its echo chamber and the loot that its believers manuver into the cause.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate change and moral judgement by goodspkr
This article is a fool’s errand. It blurs the line between science and opinion assuming that their opinion is correct and then tells the other side why they don’t see what is so obviously correct.
This article is not designed to get to the truth, because they feel they already have it. But it certainly shows us how similar the AGW crowd is to a religious sect.
But I did find this which I think explains how this article is intended to influence us.
↧
Comment on Climate change and moral judgement by Brandon Shollenberger
Nick Stokes:
Brandon,
You should read that post you linked to.
The ever pathetic rhetorical tricks never stop flowing out of Nick Stokes. He doesn’t like what you say about something? He’ll claim you didn’t read it. Because obviously, the only way you could disagree with him is if you were talking about things you hadn’t read.
Because hey, rude comments are how reasonable people start discussions!
↧
Comment on Climate change and moral judgement by goodspkr
The seven prin¬ci¬ples of human behav¬iour that con artists exploit, accord¬ing to the article:
• THE DIS¬TRAC¬TION PRIN¬CI¬PLE: While you are dis¬tracted by what retains your inter¬est, hus¬tlers can do any¬thing to you and you won’t notice.
• THE SOCIAL COM¬PLI¬ANCE PRIN¬CI¬PLE: Soci¬ety trains peo¬ple not to ques¬tion author¬ity. Hus¬tlers exploit this “sus¬pen¬sion of sus¬pi¬cious¬ness” to make you do what they want.
• THE HERD PRIN¬CI¬PLE: Even sus¬pi¬cious marks will let their guard down when every¬one next to them appears to share the same risks. Safety in num¬bers? Not if they’re all con¬spir¬ing against you.
• THE DIS¬HON¬ESTY PRIN¬CI¬PLE: Any¬thing ille¬gal you do will be used against you by the fraud¬ster, mak¬ing it harder for you to seek help once you real¬ize you’ve been had.
• THE DECEPTION PRINCIPLE: Thing and people are not what they seem. Hustlers know how to manipulate you to make you believe that they are.
• THE NEED AND GREED PRINCIPLE: Your needs and desires make you vul¬ner¬a-ble. Once hus¬tlers know what you really want, they can easily manipulate you.
• THE TIME PRINCIPLE: When you are under time pres¬sure to make an important choice, you use a different decision strategy. Husslers steer you towards a strategy involving less reasoning.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
