Change = fundamental nature of existence.
Comment on Pre-traumatic stress syndrome: climate scientists speak out by genghiscunn
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Mike Flynn
Salvatore,
Can I add one or two?
Three dimensional chaotic movement of the crust, and probably mantle.
Unknown, but probably chaotic temporal and spatial redistribution of energy within the core.
Unknown, but probably chaotic energy production by mass conversion within the core.
That’s about enough to justify outbreaks of depression and sobbing amongst climatologists, all by itself.
Cheers.
↧
Comment on Pre-traumatic stress syndrome: climate scientists speak out by beththeserf
Sea-change rich and strange.
https://beththeserf.wordpress.com/
↧
Comment on Pre-traumatic stress syndrome: climate scientists speak out by angech2014
Right now you are dumping C02 into MY FRICKING AIR.
As are you. We all “dump” CO2 into everyone else’s air .Note It is not your air, it is air you share with everyone else. Tell me you never smoked and blew your particulate matter on others. I am very happy for people to stop smoking, not because of cancer risks [their choice] but because it is nasty having smoke in your face.
“There is an unknown risk associated with that”.
corollary There is an unknown good associated with that. If I could prove that it was really good, then keep going forever
Where did you get the crazy notion that you could willy nilly dump crap into every one else’s air?
No it is CO2 , not crap. Crap is what you are speaking as in
“You burning coal.. what the hell.. rough 15% of all deaths in china are due to pm2.5″
You see most people die of heart attacks , cancer and stroke, accidents and illness. Particulate matter can be associated with disease that causes death but it certainly does not directly cause 15% of all deaths which is what you are trying to imply when you use the word “due”.
Your choice of temperate swearing, Fricking, as opposed to our host’s quotes from Gavin, shows how strongly and passionately you feel about this subject. People who swear to make a point though show they have lost objectivity and are acting purely emotionally.
So your argument is lost before it starts. Asimov said “Violence … is the last refuge of the incompetent.” People who swear to make their arguments, heart on sleeve, are saying I do not have enough evidence to convince you but you must believe this because I believe it.
So drop this 15% business or qualify it properly..
You have lived all your life on pm 2.5, coal fired power stations giving you light to read your textbooks by. Energy to print those textbooks and deliver them.Food delivered, kept fresh in fridges , Medicines to make you healthy and power to be able to move around in cars and deliver goods and services.
We now live nearly twice as long as pre-industrial, and healthier.
I agree no fossil fuels would be fantastic but we have no good choice at present. Fossil fuels will deliver the ability to become independent of the in the future. But all hail fossil fuels for the good that they have done are doing and will do in future.
↧
Comment on Pre-traumatic stress syndrome: climate scientists speak out by patmcguinness
“That would surely bring the end of their academic careers”
OK, so they supposedly worry the world will end by 2100 or something … but they worry about their careers more. What a farce.
↧
↧
Comment on Pre-traumatic stress syndrome: climate scientists speak out by patmcguinness
I was thinking it was more deliberate, like Munchausen by proxy (but abusing statistics not children, to make the earth look sick, for the attention).
↧
Comment on Pre-traumatic stress syndrome: climate scientists speak out by angech2014
Pre traumatic?
if it is pre trauma there can be no stress.
↧
Comment on Pre-traumatic stress syndrome: climate scientists speak out by schitzree
If even one tiny thing does not come true exactly as they said it would, that person is to be immediately executed.
Wouldn’t this mean you could only make predictions that couldn’t be prevented? The whole reason Jonah ended up in the whale Is that he tried to avoid being the one to give a prophecy that he knew God wouldn’t fulfill when the people he gave it to changed their way.
↧
Comment on Pre-traumatic stress syndrome: climate scientists speak out by genghiscunn
“The solution, as I believe, is that modified offspring of all dominant and increasing forms tend to become adapted to many and highly diversified places in the economy of nature.” (Darwin’s autobiography, quoted by bts.) Nothing is constant, nothing continues, the environment always changes and creatures within it adapt or perish. It were ever so. The real denialists are those who can not see this, nor see that we are the most adaptable of creatures with our innovativeness, ingenuity and ever-increasing technological and engineering capacity. Faustino
↧
↧
Comment on Pre-traumatic stress syndrome: climate scientists speak out by genghiscunn
Sorry, last para of On the Origin of Species rather than biog.
↧
Comment on Pre-traumatic stress syndrome: climate scientists speak out by Mike Flynn
Steven Mosher,
You wrote –
“Right now you are dumping C02 into MY FRICKING AIR.
There is an unknown risk asssociated with that. cut it out as soon as practical. If I could prove that it was critically dangerous, then cut it out immediately. Where dd you get the crazy notion that you could willy nilly dump crap into every one elses air?”
You are sounding a tad deranged to me. Firstly, every time you exhale, you are dumping CO2, H2O, and a number of other chemicals, including possible carcinogens, into your air. So do we all. Added to that, farts amount to roughly 500 ml. per day per person, and contain a variety of compounds from the benign to the quite toxic.
Demanding that other people cease activities that you cannot or will not, sounds a bit antisocial, to say the least.
You appear to be implying that that CO2 is “crap”. I agree with you, in the sense that “crap” has been used since the dawn of farming to improve plant growth. Why are you so fanatically opposed to more plant growth, and the reduction of desert areas, accompanied by the more amenable climate which results?
Demanding that people bend to your will may not be as effective as you would like. Maybe wearing an oxygen rebreather set equipped with a CO2 scrubber would overcome your CO2 phobia. Not trying to be snarky, but additional CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere would seem to fall into the GaiaApproved™ category.
↧
Comment on Pre-traumatic stress syndrome: climate scientists speak out by David Springer
You are dumping your crazy into MY FRICKIN’ BRAIN.
↧
Comment on The beyond-two-degree inferno by John Carter
Anything to reinforce the skeptic position. Its human nature, sure, but only up to a point. On climate change it has become near religion. (completely with projecting that religion outward, and giving climate scientists that label, under the guise of self reinforcing and often circular logic.)
Bethserf writes “”””Poor analogy by u John C, I ‘d argue. Galileo presented…..”‘”””‘
Good argument. Especially since it was your analogy. You made a Galileo analogy, and I responded to it, since your analogy was misleading in multiple regards, inflammatory, as well as largely backward. http://judithcurry.com/2015/07/05/the-beyond-two-degree-inferno/#comment-716042
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Jim D
Yes, why stop at sunsetting all of medical science until they can reprove it? Why not all of science too including Einstein until they can reprove his results with new data? Good idea or just loopy?
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Mark Silbert
Mosher,
We do need iron clad science before we mandate, at great cost, the overhaul of our entire electrical power infrastructure so that you can breath imperceptibly improved air that will not materially improve your quality of life.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Jim D
captd, OK, maybe you can give that paper at Harvard. They probably will have some comments for you to think about.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by justinwonder
“…external costs…”
Yes, we should consider external costs, like frying birds in flight. We should also consider endangered species like the desert tortoise and Solar panel induced UHI in the desert. Don’t forget bird shredding wind turbines.
Here’s a little article about bird frying in that right-wing publication “Spectrum” from the IEEE.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jacksmith4tx
Thanks AK,
You’re a pretty rational guy. I’m not against these new rules for the EPA. I just have no respect for the others here that single out and demonize the EPA because the rest of the government uses the same type of statistical research and peer reviewed studies to justify their actions.
I’m not sure about NIH but since they provide the funds for this type of research I would include them too. Actually I would insist they have to follow the same rules since tax money is involved
↧
Comment on Which climate change papers ‘matter’? by Mike Flynn
Vaughan Pratt,
I assumed we were talking about the Earth, but . . .
If Venus originally had a surface temperature of say 5000 K, it too has cooled. Therefore there is no “energy in = energy out”, so beloved as a Warmist starting point. Otherwise, the planet would never have cooled, would it?
I will say again, nothing has prevented Venus from cooling from its original molten state, if indeed it was created as a molten blob.
Are you trying to propose a theory that all the planets were created at absolute zero, and have since heated up by some miracle of heat transport to the interior over time? If this is so, why does the Moon have such an apparently thick crust, and such an apparently tiny molten core?
Do you need more epicycles, perhaps?
Just as a matter of interest, Warmists generally are confused about the difference between energy, heat, and useful work.
For example, an iceberg at 270 K is radiating about 293 W/m2. This will warm you not at all. You may endeavour to accumulate, trap, or concentrate this heat, but you will not be able to warm one thimbleful of water above freezing with it, no matter how hard you try.
Even if you face two icebergs towards each other, and endeavour to double the radiation intensity by using the miracle of back radiation, all you will do is get annoyed and depressed, not to say cold.
So yes, if you believe that Newton’s Law of Cooling, and the Laws of Thermodynamics don’t apply to poorly thought out Warmist thought experiments, good for you! If you ever manage to demonstrate the Wondrous Warming abilities of that wonderful and most beneficial plant food, CO2, then I’m sure that someone will find a use for it.
With any luck, you might get the “Greenhouse Effect” renamed the “Pratt Effect”, in your honour. Wouldn’t that be neat?
↧
Comment on Pre-traumatic stress syndrome: climate scientists speak out by Mark Silbert
This from the Quadrant:
“Credulous journalists have found a new genre of stories: climate scientists on the verge of a nervous breakdown. If you go by a recent spate of reports detailing the near-suicidal despair afflicting the warmist elite, something called ‘pre-traumatic stress disorder’ is prompting climateers to set aside their computer models and report for treatment. It seems that working long days tweaking temperature records and cherry-picking data to conjure apocalyptic scenarios takes a dreadful toll — especially with the real-world halt to warming now stretching to 18 years and beyond.” It gets better from here.
This Aussie site is well worth following.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
