Ohhh, JimD. Really? Really?
Comment on The Siddhartha heuristic by thomaswfuller2
↧
↧
Comment on The Siddhartha heuristic by Mike Flynn
Jim D,
If he made a series out of it, the first part might be called Dumb and Dumber, don’t you think?
It sounds like a good name for a movie, come to think of it.
↧
Comment on Decision strategies for uncertain, complex situations by AK
<blockquote>There is a lot of overthinking going on here with this type of post. It is not that complicated.</blockquote>Yup: <b>The sky is falling! No time to think!</b> The climate con <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_trick#Stages_of_the_con" rel="nofollow">"Hurrah".</a>
↧
Comment on Decision strategies for uncertain, complex situations by Steven Mosher
we are making a decision to put C02 into the air.
U are always making a decision.
there is no “no decision” path
↧
Comment on Decision strategies for uncertain, complex situations by Steven Mosher
“You may be referring to “critical path analysis”.”
Nope.
Your prediction is wrong. try again
↧
↧
Comment on Decision strategies for uncertain, complex situations by Steven Mosher
yup
↧
Comment on Decision strategies for uncertain, complex situations by jungletrunks (@jungletrunks)
“Like Seimens and GE…”
True, there’s plenty of greased palms to go around. Immelt has probably made as many trips to visit the administration as Goldman Sachs.
↧
Comment on Decision strategies for uncertain, complex situations by AK
"We" made a decision 18 years (&9.5 days) ago: <a href="http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00205" rel="nofollow">dump Kyoto</a>.
↧
Comment on Decision strategies for uncertain, complex situations by Willard
> If you disappear the MWP, the estimate of sensitivity to CO2 since 1880 goes UP.
It would have been hard to go lower than 0.
Nevertheless, that answer conflicts with Richard Alley’s:
If […] scientists had somehow underestimated the climate change between Medieval times and the Little Ice Age, or other natural climate changes, without corresponding errors in the estimated size of the causes of the changes, that would suggest stronger amplifying feedbacks and larger future warming from rising greenhouse gases than originally estimated. Any increase in our estimate of the natural climate responses to past forcings points to a more variable future path with larger average changes.
↧
↧
Comment on Decision strategies for uncertain, complex situations by Willard
> TCO (PolyIsTCOIsBanned) disapproved
Citation needed.
↧
Comment on The Siddhartha heuristic by micro6500
I don’t think the US is unusual in this, and until the Eurozone, you had to go through border check points between countries there as well.
Why is it that the US is singled out for having the best interest of our citizens in mind when we allow others to come here? Would you allow just anyone into your home, let them take up residence in your yard or living room?
IMO in general our ancestors did the work of building our country, that’s why being born here makes us citizens. and I’m not suggesting that the rules don’t need revisited, but until then we have rules and limits to coming to the US.
↧
Comment on Decision strategies for uncertain, complex situations by Steven Mosher
“I can’t tell if we’re getting to the same answer by different paths, or just saying the same thing different ways. But when it comes to making decisions about how severely to attack actual emissions, the more we know about how much it’ll cost to remediate (capture ambient CO2), the better position we’re in to make those decisions.”
yup
↧
Comment on The Siddhartha heuristic by micro6500
And before someone says anything, I’m 1/8 American Indian.
↧
↧
Comment on Decision strategies for uncertain, complex situations by thomaswfuller2
“For what: waiting for Godot while raising over and over again the same absurdist concerns?”
If concerns are not adequately addressed, why wouldn’t someone keep bringing them up?
Certainly some flying the skeptic banner are obsessed over matters that are not a significant factor in potential climate change impacts. Just as some climate activists are. I would say in roughly equal percentages.
But that shouldn’t obscure the reality that the range of possible values for sensitivity has not been narrowed in 30 years, while observation-based calculations come in with far lower values than trumpeted by the Climaterati.
When a paper published 6 days ago trumpeting 20 feet sea level rises produces hundreds of articles in the media with the same quote from the same person, but doesn’t show that the projected sea level rises won’t occur for a minimum of 1,000 years, can you blame skeptics for thinking that the search for truth has disappeared from climate conversations?
If you don’t want skeptics to bring up the same concerns, you might try not doing the same thing that raises those concerns.
↧
Comment on Decision strategies for uncertain, complex situations by bedeverethewise
You are completely wrong Jim D.
Fossil fuels have made our human lives much better and easier than ever before. They have enabled us to make extraordinary technological advances. There are about 7 billion people on the planet, about 3 billion enjoy this fantastic standard of living. The others desperately want it. And there is no easy or obvious replacement for fossil fuels.
The extraordinary benefit provided by fossil fuels is at the heart of the whole problem. You think people are overthinking, I think way to many are under-thinking by making ridiculous statements like “we need to act now” or “we need to do something” or “the solutions are simple”
Saying the solution is simple, we just need to cut CO2 emissions by 80% or some fantasy number, is a dullard’s answer. We need to spend the next hundred years or more inventing, engineering and building new efficient ways of generating and distributing energy. No need to panic, no need to protest and demand that other people do the hard work, no need to pass laws that require someone else to invent something new by a certain date, no need to give tax money away to “green” start-ups. If you are not able to contribute, just sit back and watch it happen, because it needs to happen with or without AGW.
↧
Comment on Decision strategies for uncertain, complex situations by Mike Flynn
Steven Mosher,
No prediction, merely a question. I’m not sure what you think I need to “try again”, so I will try to get an answer to your apparent incomprehensible statement. Maybe your comprehension of the English language is not very good.
You wrote –
“I see the continued release of c02 to be critical path.” It’s no wonder you abandoned your PhD degree – if indeed you ever attempted one.
Could you let me know what your proposed area of research was, and which educational establishment accepted your PhD application, if any.
I normally trust people’s academic claims, but in your case, I am wondering whether you are claiming achievements you don’t actually have, in an endeavour to appear superior and scientific.
It might help to clear the air.
↧
Comment on Decision strategies for uncertain, complex situations by tomdesabla
I’m sorry, but we just aren’t sure that your first two points are true as stated, so the rest of your conclusions are questionable.
We do not know for sure that adding CO2 causes climate change to an extent that it is distinguishable from that natural variations that are already occurring.
All we have is the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. And we know that without the greenhouse effect, and our atmosphere, our planet would be too cold for us to live here. That does not prove that CO2 determines climate at the resolution we are discussing. Further underscoring that, all the records we have show that CO2 follows temp changes, and does not lead them.
I also don’t follow the claim that a changing climate, increases uncertainty in and of itself. Climate has always changed, first off, and second off, we have a pretty good idea that there is a pattern of ice ages and deglaciations, and we know roughly where we are in those patterns.
So, the warming we are experiencing is well within normal bounds, and is entirely predictable, so I don’t see it as being a source of uncertainty. The large CO2 increases don’t seem to be having much of an effect on our climate, and certainly not the effects that our best science had predicted, so I must question the assumption that CO2 is the main force driving the climate – natural variations and known patterns seem to be still firmly in the drivers seat, as always.
↧
↧
Comment on Decision strategies for uncertain, complex situations by Steven Mosher
Yes Don,, Nic Lewis shows you how, anthony, troy masters, Odonnel, heck willis, briggs, jeff condon.. here is the question: what would have if more skeptics followed Their example?
simple question.
↧
Comment on Decision strategies for uncertain, complex situations by mosomoso
I had noticed the odd squirt or lump of fossil fuel supporting the odd civilisation. In fact, I’d noticed that the alternatives to fossil fuels and even protests against fossil fuels were fuelled by fossil fuels. Along with just about everything else.
I’ve also noticed what participants do immediately AFTER Earth Hour.
I can understand whining about capitalism where you don’t get much for what you shell out: Coca Cola (but you get some caffeine and sugar at least), re-christened tap water (I hate that one), energy drinks, health food, the cheap fertiliser the organic people want to sell me at a rip-off price so I can get a classification from them, De Beers shiny rocks (Shiny Rocks Are Forever), consultancy from the likes of Decision Strategies Inc…and carbon credits, of course.
But a whole bloody industrial civilisation? I call that a good deal.
↧
Comment on Decision strategies for uncertain, complex situations by Mike Flynn
Jim D,
First you might have to establish what a reduction in “climate change” would look like. A reduction of what, precisely?
Then you might have to indicate why more “certainty” of the California drought continuing for 1000 years, is a benefit.
There is no CO2 “problem”, and therefore no need to reduce it. I note you might also need to define “emissions”, in terms of both “climate change” and CO2. You might like to tell everyone what happens if you manage to stop the climate from “changing”.
Is your fervour overcoming your common sense?
↧
