Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148687 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by jungletrunks (@jungletrunks)

$
0
0

Perhaps it’s wishful thinking, but if desperation is an indicator the consensus edges may start falling to the wayside out of embarrassment sooner rather than later. The media messaging has moved from climate models of doom to extreme messaging of dire health consequences. This evening WP published a piece that the U.S. will need to take in 25% of the refugees displaced from small island nations going under water in the coming decades; this based on the U.S. contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere. You can’t make this stuff up. Politics and media have pushed the persuasive arguments to the edge of reason in the effort to acquire public consensus, that’s the only way to unlock the purse. The U.S, public is pretty much tone deaf now though I believe.

I think all it would take for scientists who have differing ideas to come out from behind the blinds is for a Republican to be elected president, If there was an indication of more diverse funding.


Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by Jim D

$
0
0

That may work for politicians, but it doesn’t work for science. First you need to get two skeptics of AGW in the same room agreeing what they think the alternative is. That hasn’t happened and won’t happen. And I don’t mean just chiseling away at the temperature record, which is a full-time preoccupation for some of them.

Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by Ragnaar

$
0
0

Ulriclyons:
I agree at those latitudes it is probably negative because of water. High latitude oceans without ice, don’t store a lot of heat.

Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by jacksmith4tx

$
0
0

Taking a cue from Dr. Curry above… If we get a republican pope next time he can just annul this climate change encyclical – problem solved.

Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by Jim D

$
0
0

It means that if you increase CO2, you increase the temperature at which this balance occurs. Will it be 450 ppm and 2 C or 700 ppm and 4 C?

Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Vaughan Pratt

$
0
0

@PA: the temperature of the southern hemisphere before the 21st century isn’t any better than a guess.

In that case all reliable observations show SH temperatures being always been well below NH.

And although NH appears to be turning down (the hiatus), SH appears to be turning down too, and by about the same amount, suggesting that hell would have to freeze over before they’re in synch.

And since the IPCC doesn’t seem to be projecting any low temperatures for hell, they’d be wildly wrong at the first opportunity to judge them.

Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by Jim D

$
0
0

Ironically the best single source for the really alarmist stuff is WUWT. The mainstream media has hardly any of it, but that is one-stop shopping. They are very diligent about finding it all, but I think it is a distortion of the media and gives their denizens the wrong impression of the media that the general public sees.

Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Vaughan Pratt

$
0
0

Why do those preaching to the choir assume the others can’t carry a tune? It seems to go with the territory.


Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by jacksmith4tx

$
0
0

jungletrunks,
“U.S. will need to take in 25% of the refugees displaced from small island nations going under water in the coming decades; this based on the U.S. contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere. You can’t make this stuff up.”

Of course we would. Remember how well we treated all those native americans and slaves. If there is one thing americans are proud of is our deep sense of responsibility when a race of people have experienced injustice as a result of our actions.

Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by thomaswfuller2

$
0
0

There are 60 million refugees in the world today. The combined population of Vanuatu and Tuvalu is 350,000. The two islands are not sinking–land area is increasing. But if worse came to worst, the island nations would be an asterisk in the refugee count.

Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by NOAA’s peak rubbish …| pindanpost

$
0
0

[…] Judith Curry: Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? […]

Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by thomaswfuller2

$
0
0

Every survey of climate scientists I have seen (von Storch/Bray et al 2008, Pielke et al 2009, Verheggen et al 2012) has reported that 66% of published climate scientists working in the field believe half or more of current warming is human caused (In Storch) or more specifically by human emissions of CO2 (Verheggen).

Solid majority. Even consensus. But plenty of room for a minority report that needs to be taken seriously. Lindzen, Christy, Curry and others, respected, intelligent scientists with both pedigree and chops.

The literature reviews are self-serving garbage with holes big enough to drive a truck through. They were not meant to show the diversity of opinion on climate change. They were designed to conceal it.

Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by ordvic

$
0
0

If natural variability added up amounted to a COOLING of temperatures then CO2 would have to add up to more than100% to offset the natural cooling that should have taken place.

Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by Mark Silbert

Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by aplanningengineer

$
0
0

I thought of what might be another countered example. Many within the general public were very wary of seat belts, long after “expert” opinion concluded that individuals were safer belted in. This seems a strong example of n instance where many disputed expert concensus such that it served to work against their own self interest. Was the internal mechanism whereby personal judgement took precedence over expert opinion? Did the imagined risk of being belted in during a crash took precedence over their experience of driving belt less? Do some of us fear mitigation more than we fear temperature rises?


Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by Mike Flynn

$
0
0

Stanton Brown,

Unfortunately, it looks like the fools control the money. We’re all doomed, if that’s the case.

Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by willard (@nevaudit)

$
0
0

> fish, forest, and food alone is an over $2.6 trillion industry

These are benefits from fish, forest, and food, PA. You talked about benefits of more CO2. I doubt more CO2 brings more fish, more forest, and more food in such a linear fashion.

To connect CO2 with these industries, we’d need cost-benefit analyses that would take carbon sinks into account.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Wagathon

$
0
0

“Solar minimum could bring cold winters to Europe and US, but would not hold off climate change.” But, are we looking out to 2060?

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Fred Pickhardt

$
0
0

Might the reduction in the AMOC be tied to the process of switching from the warm phase AMO to the cold phase AMO?

Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by Vaughan Pratt

$
0
0

@tonyb: When I link to a more modern one you then start chuntering on about the British Empire. Here it is again;

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2015/solar-activity

What do you mean by “again”? I was responding to a remark by you about weather, which mentioned neither climate nor that link nor anything related to another Maunder minimum. I can read your mind, but not that accurately.

That the link is “modern” is not exactly a plus here—it places the Met Office three years behind Stanford:

http://www.leif.org/research/Another-Maunder-Minimum.pdf

But I do apologize for inferring from your scepticism about rising sea levels that you would disapprove of spending a third of a billion pounds on measures against rising sea levels, which your regional director gave as his justification for the expenditure:

The agency said that, since 2002, £357m had been spent in the South West (including Devon, Cornwall, Somerset, Dorset, Wiltshire and South Gloucestershire) on flood risk management, including £44m in 2009/10.
The regional director for the agency in the south west, Richard Cresswell, said: “The latest UK climate change data shows that the risk of flooding and coastal erosion will continue to increase in future due to rising sea levels and more frequent and heavy storms.” (Bold mine.)

It’s nice to know the vote was unanimous even if the committee members’ respective justifications for it weren’t. ;)

Viewing all 148687 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images