Not sure of your 2nd sentence in para 2, but w/r/t the first in para 2
Karl vs. Nieves? Sure looks like two differing trains of thought.
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Danny Thomas
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Jim D
We wouldn’t even have allowed power lines under that logic. Perhaps cars and trains too, and aircraft would be out of the question for all their bird shredding.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Editor of the Fabius Maximus website
Danny,
Sounds interesting, but what comment are you referring to?
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by AK
Looks pretty Good.
You dont need iron clad science to stop people from spewing stuff into my air !!
Maybe. Is the data available for replication? If so, regulations based on it could be sunsetted and re-applied with little trouble. If not…
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jungletrunks (@jungletrunks)
The EPA uses “peer review” in its communication to legitimize to the public its reasons for heavy handiness towards policy enforcement. This isn’t necessarily bad unless it’s contracted or collusive research tailored to rally a desired politically contrived outcome; say to legitimize severe enforcement actions for AGW.
Todays political communications are more sophisticated than ever. Two In particular; push polling and the manufacturing of “peer reviewed research” to shore-up and bolster political activism. The obvious power from this messaging comes from portraying targeted programs as having an unassailable pedigree of “can’t touch this” research and feigned public support to justify whatever action is deemed necessary to garner public support.
Cooks paper serves up an example of this sort of corrupt communication in action. When our higher institutions have become dominated by one political persuasion, it’s no longer a question of if, but one of how much process manipulation is going on. The EPA fails the smell test with its lack of transparency, just as the IRS; DOJ; basically government in general.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Danny Thomas
Poor shorthand on my part. Apologies.
This: “I have wondered if there are two groups in NOAA? One giving the public a dispassionate rational view of science, the other seeking to terrify the public.”
↧
Comment on The beyond-two-degree inferno by Mike Flynn
John Carter,
You wrote –
“Cherry picking out misconceptions of the past is NOT an argument for why a multi million year shift upward in earth’s insulation layer is impacting earth.”
I didn’t say it was. I am unsure what your “multi million year shift . . . ” is all about. Man hasn’t been around for all that long. Also, from Scientific American – March 2015 –
“February is one of the first months since before months had names to boast carbon dioxide concentrations at 400 parts per million.* Such CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have likely not been seen since at least the end of the Oligocene 23 million years ago, an 11-million-year-long epoch of gradual climate cooling that most likely saw CO2 concentrations drop from more than 1,000 ppm.”
So who is right? CO2 rising or falling for millions of years? You or Scientific American! Or is it totally irrelevant, anyway?
Once you have chosen rising or falling CO2 levels for the past few million years, get back to me.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Danny Thomas
Disregard. Noaa vs. Nasa. My fumble.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Don Monfort
It’s not your air, Steven. If someone has sold you title to some air, call the police.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Editor of the Fabius Maximus website
Danny,
I agree, but was not referring to anything as specific as two recent studies. We were discussing NOAA’s frequent alarmism in descriptions of weather — my favorite: description of weather as “greatest in 5 years” — vs notices like above urging calm about extreme weather.
There are many possible explanations, but there might be two “cultures” in NOAA.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by AK
I’m not sure about NIH […]
My take is simple: if they promulgate regulations, those regulations ought to be subject to the conditions. If they just fund “science”, then it’s more complex, but any “science” they fund that’s used for any other bureaucratic regulations should have that condition. And, come to think of it, why should any “science” funded by tax money be allowed to evade such requirements?
Still, I’m much more open to “government funded” science being allowed to evade such requirements than I am to “government regulations” being allowed to be justified by “research” that evades such requirements.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jim2
True that.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Editor of the Fabius Maximus website
Danny,
I am impressed that you admit it. IMO that puts you in the top tier of commenters.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jim2
From the article:
…
Global oil demand will slow in 2016, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said in its latest monthly report, as it warned that the rebalancing of supply and demand in oil markets “has yet to run its course.”
Crude oil prices fell to their lowest point in nearly three months in early July, pressured by “ever rising supply” and not helped by the financial turmoil in Greece and China which has unsettled world markets, the IEA said Friday.
…
On the back of this volatility, the IEA forecast that global oil demand growth would slow to 1.2 million barrels a day (mb/d) in 2016, from around 1.4 mb/d this year.
…
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/10/global-oil-demand-to-slow-in-2016-iea.html
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by AK
<blockquote>Yes, why stop at sunsetting all of medical science until they can reprove it?</blockquote>I'm not talking about sunsetting <b>science</b>. I'm talking about sunsetting <b>bureaucratic regulations</b>. Which ought to happen anyway, but while we're at it, we ought to require up-to-date science when renewing it.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3
JimD, then I guess I would show them this.
http://www.revespcardiol.org/en/las-particulas-ultrafinas-son-un/articulo/90024395/
Now you have ultrafine particles or specific gases. So you could eliminate all anthro above PM1.0 and still have the same situation if you don’t find the right substance and the right source. If you eliminate those, you are still not going to eliminate cardiovascular death just approach some undetermined baseline.
If you like you could get into the French Paradox, I think we are past red wine and cholesterol and up to eat mo cheese about now or is it grain feed cow’s milk butter? I liked the chocolate thing myself.
Now what the EPA is doing is estimating how many lives they will save by regulating PM2.5, but PM2.5 doesn’t look like the main cardiovascular causative agent. So if you spend a crap load of money and don’t get much in return, just another let’s try something else, why bother with science?
↧
Comment on The beyond-two-degree inferno by John Carter
@Curryja
You write: “Some seem to think that I advocate for public policies (but they can’t really say which policies)”
It doesn’t bother you that you can’t see that how to address the issue of (geologically) radical long term atmospheric alteration is a public policy issue, and that speaking out against many suggestions of redress (while simply disparaging ideas of relevant redress most of the time) is part of policy advocacy?
In this case, you also continue to shed doubt about action because you conflate the inability to fully and exactly know the future, with a reason to not act, nor reasonably and objectively assess what we do know; so you instead find things to support doubt under the guise of “reasonable and objective” when there’s little of either about your posts here. Not to mention a fully reversed application of the “uncertainty monster” idea – you need to check out the real relevance of uncertainty here, as well as the massive presumption about what’s “good” for real healthy long term economic growth, that’s driving much of it.)
I guess to bother you would have to see it first.
Just like this: (emphasis added) “By stating ‘the time for debate has ended,’ she appears to be [impugnment of McNutt]…….The IPCC doesn’t think the time for debate has ended.” Namely, the ludicrous conflation of ongoing science learning – of the continued existence of the IPCC – with the notion that therefore debating whether to act (and thus NOT acting) has to be the appropriate course of action. To wit; Mocking the “debate being over” (which merely means it’s time to address this based on what we do know) because, to wit, “The” IPCC still exists, etc.
A much more illogical reasoning path could not have been possibly followed. Yet your piece does it – which apparently all your commenters, like almost all mistakes, missed.
I don’t like McNutt’s phrase because I’m not sure there has been an actual debate this millennium, but that’s nitpicking. And meanwhile we’re not having the debate and discussion we need to be; how best to mitigate net emissions, which in turn is only worsening rhetoric across the board
You want to argue we shouldn’t, you can do that. But others have the same right to not agree with you or state that that doesn’t create a “legitimate” debate over whether our actions are very likely significantly impacting our long term climate. And the editor of a science magazine certainly has the right to express that belief in an editorial, particularly when her basic assertion regarding what it’s time “to debate” happens to also represent the overwhelming consensus view of professional, practicing climate scientists. (Though skeptics have self deceiving tricks to convince that’s not true also.)
Sensible redress to mitigate net emissions or a widespread understanding that right now the overwhelming consensus – slowly growing for 30 plus years even while being attacked and picked apart and misrepresented from all angles and then some – is that there is no real debate as to whether our sudden multi million year atmospheric increase is impacting earth and ultimately its climate, and that this is likely being heavily amplified and the risks increasingly radicalized by continuing to pile on even more – also does not mean learning stops.
Nor that suddenly papers that would get more attention than any other by the nature of what science is and the fact that in particular it wants contrary (and “good” news) analysis – “Yay, some good news on climate change” – would get less attention; and your conflation and inflammatory insinuations otherwise is best case a full blown case of projection, since you seem unable or unwilling to objectively assess anything that conflicts with your view, and seem to cherry pick, misinterpret, and see out all that “appears” to support it – only further reinforced by the multitude of lopsided and often egregiously issue misconstruing comments that follow each of your posts – and perhaps wouldn’t even be able to even when it was specifically your job as editor of a magazine.
My response to your piece is here. You should read it.
↧
↧
Comment on The beyond-two-degree inferno by John Carter
Sorry for the html mistake. They happen, and there isn’t a way to fix in the original.
Here is the comment:
@Curryja
You write: “Some seem to think that I advocate for public policies (but they can’t really say which policies)”
It doesn’t bother you that you can’t see that how to address the issue of (geologically) radical long term atmospheric alteration is a public policy issue, and that speaking out against many suggestions of redress (while simply disparaging ideas of relevant redress most of the time) is part of policy advocacy?
In this case, you also continue to shed doubt about action because you conflate the inability to fully and exactly know the future, with a reason to not act, nor reasonably and objectively assess what we do know; so you instead find things to support doubt under the guise of “reasonable and objective” when there’s little of either about your posts here. Not to mention a fully reversed application of the “uncertainty monster” idea – you need to check out the real relevance of uncertainty here, as well as the massive presumption about what’s “good” for real healthy long term economic growth, that’s driving much of it.)
I guess to bother you would have to see it first.
Just like this: (emphasis added) “By stating ‘the time for debate has ended,’ she appears to be [impugnment of McNutt]…….The IPCC doesn’t think the time for debate has ended.” Namely, the ludicrous conflation of ongoing science learning – of the continued existence of the IPCC – with the notion that therefore debating whether to act (and thus NOT acting) has to be the appropriate course of action. To wit; Mocking the “debate being over” (which merely means it’s time to address this based on what we do know) because, to wit, “The” IPCC still exists, etc.
A much more illogical reasoning path could not have been possibly followed. Yet your piece does it – which apparently all your commenters, like almost all mistakes, missed.
I don’t like McNutt’s phrase because I’m not sure there has been an actual debate this millennium, but that’s nitpicking. And meanwhile we’re not having the debate and discussion we need to be; how best to mitigate net emissions, which in turn is only worsening rhetoric across the board
You want to argue we shouldn’t, you can do that. But others have the same right to not agree with you or state that that doesn’t create a “legitimate” debate over whether our actions are very likely significantly impacting our long term climate. And the editor of a science magazine certainly has the right to express that belief in an editorial, particularly when her basic assertion regarding what it’s time “to debate” happens to also represent the overwhelming consensus view of professional, practicing climate scientists. (Though skeptics have self deceiving tricks to convince that’s not true also.)
Sensible redress to mitigate net emissions or a widespread understanding that right now the overwhelming consensus – slowly growing for 30 plus years even while being attacked and picked apart and misrepresented from all angles and then some – is that there is no real debate as to whether our sudden multi million year atmospheric increase is impacting earth and ultimately its climate, and that this is likely being heavily amplified and the risks increasingly radicalized by continuing to pile on even more – also does not mean learning stops.
Nor that suddenly papers that would get more attention than any other by the nature of what science is and the fact that in particular it wants contrary (and “good” news) analysis – “Yay, some good news on climate change” – would get less attention; and your conflation and inflammatory insinuations otherwise is best case a full blown case of projection, since you seem unable or unwilling to objectively assess anything that conflicts with your view, and seem to cherry pick, misinterpret, and see out all that “appears” to support it – only further reinforced by the multitude of lopsided and often egregiously issue misconstruing comments that follow each of your posts – and perhaps wouldn’t even be able to even when it was specifically your job as editor of a magazine.
My response to your piece is here. You should read it.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Jim D
They looked at the science on PM2.5 decades ago and decided to regulate it. Same with ozone and countless toxins that you would now deregulate pending a House science commission telling us whether it is OK to have arsenic in our drinking water and mercury in our air, for example, or if it just too expensive to stop according to their industrial experts. Where would this madness stop?
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by dougbadgero
Do you have a link with more info? Hydro is near zero marginal cost, if available, just like wind and solar. Is this a case of Minnesota not paying its share of fixed costs?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
