Hulme reminds us what the capitalist attitude should be to climate change. There are opportunities to make money from change. Buy that future arable land that does not look so good now. Get into the business of urban drainage systems or coastal flood protection. Many opportunities for those who think ahead a bit. Fossil fuels, not so much.
Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by Jim D
↧
↧
Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by justinwonder
Smart people, being skilled at creating and maintaining clever narratives, are even more vulnerable to bias than the average schmo. I just love your posts – they are so interesting and different.
↧
Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by justinwonder
Btw, my message was intended for tumbleweed…
↧
Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by Willard
I like your argument, Don Don. You may then approve of this platform:
Ah, the good old days when Rinos knew that taxation was OK because it returned to the consumers. There’s a bleeding heart beating in every troglodytes, after all.
***
We were talking about power, Don Don. Do you still stand by your fistful of powerless freedom fighters, or you want me to continue to show how suboptimal it is?
Another link:
Right-wing media’s big con: Why privileged, powerful conservatives pretend they’re underdog insurgents
Wait, Don Don. Aren’t you trying the very same stunt?
↧
Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by Jim D
Different surface locations would have different effects. That is about the expected effect for that location. In the tropics you would see much less because of the H2O dominance at the surface. The often quoted numbers are just global averages, not a value to be expected at every point on the earth’s surface, but they are also more often given at the top of the troposphere where water vapor above plays less of a role in local variability.
↧
↧
Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by Joseph
Who controls Congress in the US, Don? All the power, eh?
↧
Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by Dan Pangburn
PA 8:36 PM – I wonder if you grasped the first paragraph. The deduction employs existing data and the computational mandate that temperature change is in response to the time-integral of the net forcing; not proportionately to the instantaneous value of the net forcing itself. Application of this analysis methodology to CO2 levels for the entire Phanerozoic eon (about 542 million years) (Berner, 2001, shown with AGT at http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html ) proves that CO2 levels up to at least 6 times the present will have no significant effect on average global temperature. There are other refs which agree close enough.
↧
Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by David L. Hagen
Jim D. The climate change market is created by politics plus high scientific uncertainty.
Far greater probability of oil fields production declining and needing to be replenished plus to meet global economic growth. Far greater need to keep our economies afloat.
↧
Comment on Driving in the dark by Vaughan Pratt
@PD: <i>I would be interested in his take on it.</i>
As soon as I get out of moderation. (No idea what I did wrong.)
↧
↧
Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by Don Monfort
So that’s your excuse for lying about Judith. Pretty sad.
↧
Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by Dan Pangburn
This deduction employs existing data and the computational mandate that temperature change is in response to the time-integral of the net forcing; not proportionately to the instantaneous value of the net forcing itself. Thus exact determination of temperatures and CO2 level are not needed. It is not necessary to know the “energy content of the Earth system”. Rough assessments of average global temperature and atmospheric CO2 level, irrespective of how determined, are all that are needed and there are plenty of them in the literature. It might all be in understanding the ‘computational mandate’.
↧
Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by freedomfan
ATTP: I’m pretty sure that chaining yourself to the WH fence in protest of fossil fuels as Dr. Hansen, father of Global Warming Alarmism, did…might be considered “advocating” for a position.
↧
Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by Jim D
Don, you picked out a statement I made and said it was wrong with no evidence why you thought that and I still don’t know.
↧
↧
Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by Don Monfort
Right wing media? That’s a good one, willy. How does the media fly with the left wing outweighing the right, by about 9 to 1. The answer is: in a continuous left turning downward spiral.
That’s all the time I have for your foolishness today, willy. You really should get yourself checked out. Does kenny know you are over here?
↧
Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by PA
Well….
The truth seems to be somewhere in the middle. How do people in the middle change sides?
We have about 2795 GT of fossil fuel reserves. There are some people who contend there is about 3000 GT of additional coal reserves (2100 GT carbon) that could be burned. We have Indonesia and China to test whether the reserve estimates or the “we have way too much carbon” estimates are right.
http://www.edf.org/blog/2015/03/18/2014-year-we-first-cut-link-between-emissions-and-economic-growth
Further – global emissions are flattening and it is hard to identify a major player to drive an increase.
There are no-warmers and CAGWers. But the actual GHG forcing doesn’t appear to be zero or 3 times its actual value (the IPCC TSR position).
There are some “CO2 increase” is natural and some “it is all emissions” people. Neither seems to explain the actual trends.
Any fact in the global warming debate is neither fish nor fowl.
Perhaps we should figure out what is happening before we try to mitigate it by policy.
↧
Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by Don Monfort
↧
Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by Don Monfort
I said it’s a lie, yimmy. Judith didn’t say that and you have no basis to claim she will say it. You made it up. It’s a lie. Case closed.
↧
↧
Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by PA
Well…
You might be right that CO2 doesn’t have any effect on climate but it does make it a little warmer at ground level.
↧
Comment on Driving in the dark by Rob Starkey (@Robbuffy)
Vaughan
Imo it is more than semantics it seems to be an attempt to intentionally deceive.
The process by which the IPCC reports were generated were not based on reaching a consensus of qualified contributors. You know this to be true but falsely claim that there is a consensus of scientists/engineers.
The IPCC reports overstate the certainty of future warming associated with additional CO2, and definitely overstate the certainty of net harms that may result from any warming that does occur.
If asked whether people (qualified scientists) agreed or disagreed to the question(s)
1. Do humans contribute to warming- I’d agree there is a consensus
2. You are confident that over 75% of warming since (pick a timeframe and vary the percentage) is due to humans? (see how the numbers of positive responses will vary)
3. You confident that any warming that does occur will lead to net harms for humans in 10 years, 25 years, 50 years, 100 years, 200 years?
4. You are confident that CO2 mitigation actions will result in a more favorable climate for humans
When someone claims that there is a consensus they should be more specific about what, or they are most likely trying to deceive.
↧
Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by Willard
The poster comes from that site, Don Don. The link points to thei it SDN. You should read that page.
As for who controls the media:
http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart
You don’t represent a fistful of freedom fighters, Don Don. You could own your schtick and become a Big Dog, I mean the new “sheriff in town”. No, you prefer these ridiculous spats of a mediocre troglodyte.
You can do better than that.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
