Poor darling.
Comment on Climate change cartoons by Michael
Comment on The Future of Natural Gas by Rutt Bridges
Sunshinehours1,
I had heard mention of LNG locomotives, but hadn’t followed up. Thanks for the links, and thanks for helping broaden the discussion.
Rutt
Comment on Climate change cartoons by Latimer Alder
@pokerguy
Comment on Climate change cartoons by Chief Hydrologist
A favorite site of the moment – sympatico.
http://thepeoplescube.com/current-truth/pascal-s-global-warming-wager-amen-and-hallelujah-t1140.html
Comment on Climate change cartoons by Joy Black
Latimer, that Hans Rosling link is terrific!
Regarding “funny”, it’s not clear to me that even immortal cartoons like Calvin & Hobbs and The Far Side are “funny”. Rather, the truths these cartoons show us are so profound as to compel us to laugh … even when these truths are disturbing!
So what I look for in a cartoon is not “funny”, but rather courage, compassion, and a big-hearted love of all the world and all the creatures in it.
Comment on Climate change and moral judgement by mike
Maybe I’m the only one, but I’ve found the history of this blog’s trolls to be an interesting example of Darwinian evolution.
In this blog’s early days, smug, obnoxious, truly unpleasant, self-important, smarty-pants jerk-offs dominated this blog’s troll scene. But as these first-wave trolls consistently got handed their over-confident, not-quite-ready for the Darwinian prime-time doom-butts, “The Team” adjusted.
And there then ensued a second-wave assault on this blog by a new breed of troll–greenshirt “living-dead” types–littering this blog with hundreds of non-stop, zombie-bot comments utterly lacking in wit, interest, or worth. But this last contingent, used to performing their relentless, zits-for-brains, wear-you-down stunts within the context of lefty controlled, censorious, protected speech forums were totally unprepared for the Darwinian rigors of this blog. And, so, through some world-class, satirical rough-and-tumble, “The Team’s” second batch of creep-out weirdos were sent packing, just like their evolutionary loser predecessors, by this blog’s worthies.
Which brings us to “The Team’s” latest flash-mob tactic–flood this blog with “smiley-face” trolls. And, by that I refer to the this blog’s recent infestation by squirrely, goof-ball, screw-lose, overly-friendly trolls modeled on those persistent, unwanted, can’t-take-a-hint, tag-along pests we all remember from childhood; those annoying, whiny, little dorks the teachers always made us other kids play with because they felt sorry for the little suck-ups; and those nerds with really serious personal hygiene issues who used to always stand way too close to you when they breathlessly related their latest, stupid, filthy little jokes that no one laughed at but themselves.
So I don’t have any real point to this comment, except, like, to say that I hope it adds to the discussion of Darwinian evolution in this sub-thread.
Comment on The Future of Natural Gas by Rutt Bridges
Peter,
The only nations I know that don’t over-debate issues are dictatorships, though I’ll pass on giving up my country for one. Churchill was right, democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others.
My CCS article was in First Break, published by the European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers, Vol 29, January 2011, but is also on Judy’s blog… with some great comments and criticisms.
Comment on Climate change cartoons by David Wojick
Comment on The Future of Natural Gas by Rutt Bridges
Brent,
Great input! It appears that you’re been pretty engaged on this subject, while my knowledge is thin… but I can be taught! If I decide to write more on this subject at some future time, I hope you’ll be willing to review and advise. Meanwhile I’ll look into your links. Thanks, Brent.
Rutt
Comment on Climate change cartoons by Joy Black
Chief, your cartoon pessimistically denies — even as a logical possibilitynbsp;— a world in which:
ª AGW is real, and
• there are liberty-respecting responses to it.
For me and many, that’s a *great* outcome. So who needs gloomy, narrow-minded, cartoon realities? When there are *terrific* realities heading our way.
Comment on Climate change cartoons by John from CA
“The Swedish Institute is proud to present an international selection of the hundreds of amusing and alarming contributions submitted by these cartoonists over the past 18 months as the exhibition toured the world.”
“In each country, local cartoonists were invited to add contributions of their own, and these helped to raise awareness of national and global issues relating to the environment and climate.”
LOL, this sounds like the nonsense from the IPCC who, presumably accepts research without fee and judges its “merit” in relation to UN policy intent.
First information missing that needs to be defined:
- who judged the local contributions and edited the entries
- was there any predefined basis for judging
- was there any governance in choosing the judges
- what was the invited statement presented for artistic resolution
The context of the Swedish Institute’s attempt at raising awareness of national and global issues relating to the environment and climate appears to be as slanted and warped as the UN attempt?
Comment on Climate change cartoons by kakatoa
Tom,
PG&E is in good shape near term supply and infrastructure (i.e. grid) wise from what I can tell. I haven’t followed up with an ISO request that we not let a Nat gas plant get shuttered in the northern central valley as we need it in about 2 years for grid stability: for when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow. Long term you need to ask someone a lot more familiar with those really detailed slides then me as far as the lights on side of things. As to costs we already know they have to go up- as noted in the Future of Nat Gas Post: PV cost more (a lot more) and we are adding it to meet the RE standard. Someone has to pay the bill. I asked Joy for help on trying to figure out how to allocate those costs in the moral judgment thread………
As necessity is the mother of many an invention we are going to get to see how well DR is at reducing peak load down in the San Diego area (as the nuc plant is off line until they figure out what is going on with some corrosion). With the summer approaching it sounds like the military is going to help out with keeping their load off line when needed. It’s funny that we are back to the San Diego area being the test area for things. They were at the forefront- 1st area really effected by our botched effort at deregulation a decade and a half ago.
Back to weed eating. And yes, I will be getting a back up power system in place.
Comment on Climate change cartoons by Tom
What a joker.)
Comment on The Future of Natural Gas by WebHubTelescope
From what is said here, communism is apparently responsible for the nonrenewable nature of fossil fuels.
Comment on Energy supplies and climate policy by WebHubTelescope
That’s why I keep up with this site. We get the gem of a guest post by Prof. Rutledge.
Here is the gist of the situation:
We can do book-keeping and bean-counting when it comes to our own finances, yet when it comes to accounting of energy supplies, only a few people are willing to do the grunt-work. Rutledge has done quite a bit of the heavy lifting in analyzing coal reserves in particular.
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~rutledge/DavidRutledgeCoalGeology.pdf
A lot of the data is there, it just takes some digging and application of probability and statistics and one can do some useful projections.
Comment on Climate change cartoons by grumpyoldmanuk
Where’s the balance, Prof. Curry? A selection of cartoons by Josh and Fenbeagle would correct the balance somewhat.
Comment on Climate change and moral judgement by Punksta
Comment on Climate change and moral judgement by Willis Eschenbach
Jim D | May 4, 2012 at 1:02 am |
Willis, the actual conundrum was that it has warmed less, not more, than expected from the changing GHG forcing, which is where aerosols come in. It became clear that their effect modified that of GHGs which have been known since Arrhenius. In your distorted view CO2 was invoked in retrospect to explain the warming when it was not unexpected (see Hansen 1981).
I have no idea what any of that means, Jim. Warmed less than who expected? Who are “they” in “their effect modified”? What kind of modifications? What “effect … of GHGs … known since Arrhenius” is being “modified”? What view of my own is “distorted”, and how? How can CO2 be “invoked in retrospect”? What does Hansen 1981 have to do with all of the above?
In short, I can’t make sense of a single sentence. Sorry to say it, Jim, but from my side of the screen every line of that is unintelligible.
w.
Comment on Climate change and moral judgement by WebHubTelescope
I understand it perfectly. Theory, prediction, interim results, watch and wait.
Comment on Climate change and moral judgement by Chuck Wiese
WebHubTelescope: Well then if you understand, you know the theory. You know the predictions. We have the interim results, and we have and are watching the climate in hiatus and cool. Since this does not equal prediction, the theory has been falsified. It has failed. End of story.