Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by jacobress

0
0

Seneca Indians and the Amish don’t count as ‘real’ off-griders because they lack the token of virtue: solar panels.


Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by jacobress

0
0

mosomos and Rud – if you don’t have solar panels you should no boast about your off-grid credentials.

Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by genghiscunn

0
0

Revkin: “Ultimately what is needed are not more scenarios of Anthropocene Apocalypse but more ideas of how a “good Anthropocene” might emerge with the help of new societal values, new economic rules, landmark political decisions, individual behavior changes and, yes, new technologies. … has brought us over-industrialized agriculture with zero regard for the planet and the people around it.”

Well, many of us would think that the so-called Anthropcene has been extremely good for billions of people, and even for the environment, one in which few have “zero regard” for the planet and the people around. “What is needed is less, not more hubris and boastfulness in the face of daunting problems.” Indeed, even if the problems aren’t as daunting as Revkin and those on whom he comments believes.

“Conscious coupling with nature”? We are part of nature, the reality of the universe manifests in us as with everything, and, like all forms of energy, we interact with other energy around us. We are not separate.

Judith: “My personal desire is to leave the city and live a life that is more connected to nature. Whether or not this is ‘rational’ in context of planetary health, I don’t know.” Well, fine, do as you wish, many others have chosen to do that. But we are always connected with nature – gravity, weather etc – you would just be connecting with different aspects of nature and in a different way. Those in wealthy societies have that choice, those in poor societies have far fewer choices, the warmist agenda would maintain that poverty of choice.

Faustino

Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by genghiscunn

0
0

I seem to be getting into moderation a lot recently. Is this a WP flaw?

Comment on Risk assessment: What is the plausible ‘worst scenario’ for climate change? by AK

0
0

So the tides induced by the Sun are on a cycle that is nearly 120 times slower than on Earth.

Tides are a nit. Try geostrophic effect.

Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by genghiscunn

Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by AK

0
0

AK you have never heard me invoke a creator in an argument about science.

Maybe not. But plenty of IDi0ts do. By implication if not explicitly.

Therefore when considering a machine or abstract code where the origin is unknown the null hypothesis is it is yet another product of intelligent agency.

Nope. Science as it’s currently constituted can’t work with explanations that depend on intelligent activity with unknown purpose. So it can’t be part of Science. That’s a limit in Science.

Thus, Science has never “disproven” ID, any more than it’s ever “disproven” psychic phenomena. It just assumes they don’t exist, so it can work with what it can work with.

For that matter, Science has never “disproven” YEC, just that if “Someody” created the Earth 6000 years ago, they did it with fossils and carbon-14 already in place.

Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by genghiscunn

0
0

Nature is everywhere, and we are part of it. What we do is natural.


Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by genghiscunn

0
0

You need good skills at quickly identifying and moving on from the dross – there are often very long sub-threads which I quickly determine to skip over; worth the cost of perhaps missing the odd gem – and picking up things of merit and interest to you. Vrrooom vrroooom. Faustino (without a dross filter)

Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by AK

0
0

http://judithcurry.com/comments/feed/

It’s not actually HTML, so you’ll see a few formatting differences, and it doesn’t go back that far, but much more than the 10 in “recent comments”, and you can see enough of the text of the comments to see whether you care.

Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3

0
0

AK, “For that matter, Science has never “disproven” YEC, just that if “Someody” created the Earth 6000 years ago, they did it with fossils and carbon-14 already in place.”

Earth “as we know it”. The beauty of religion and climate change is the vagueness.

Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by David L. Hagen

0
0
Vaughan Pratt and AK ID practioners address the observed evidence and comparing opposing models to explain that. While the results may be parallel to John 1:1, ID does not depend on or appeal revelation, nor is revelation discoverable from the observed facts. <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2015/07/22/eco-post-modernism/#comment-720044" rel="nofollow">I gave you links above to scientific papers, and mathematical models.</a> Those show that creative evolution is “incredible” in the technical sense – not quantitatively believable and contrary to evidence based on known laws of chemical interaction and probability. See <a href="http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1203" rel="nofollow">William Dembski's Explanatory Filter</a> Complex specified information in the genome and biomolecular systems cannot have its origin in the 4 laws. <a href="http://evoinfo.org/publications/" / rel="nofollow">Dembski and Marks show quantitatively </a>that it cannot be arrived at by stochastic processes, aka “chance”. The evidence fits what we know of intelligent agents designing and developing factories, information systems etc. Consequently mathematically the observed evidence fits design as the cause, not law or chance. <a href="http://arn.org/eyw.htm" rel="nofollow">Howard Glicksman MD in his Exercise Your Wonder </a>series graphically describes biological systems and evaluates the arguments used by evolutionists. If you like novels, see a skilfull depection of the issues by Frank Peretti in <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=frank+peretti&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-Address&ie=&oe=#q=frank+peretti+monster" rel="nofollow">Monster.</a> Similar arguments can be made on morality. The four laws of physics provide no basis for moral codes. Neither do stochastic processes. Evolutionary handwaving is seen to be quantitatively lacking and cannot quantitatively explain moral codes. There is historical evidence for the origin of the Judeo-Christian moral codes, which corresponds to causative agents. The 20th century evidence of 100 million dead shows that world views based on atheism / evolution happily murder those who do not agree with them. Back to the main topic, that is part of the problem with Eco-Modernism – in itself it has no moral compass. While more positive than climate alarmism, it relies on the cultural heritage of the Judeo Christian tradition in Western civilization for its moral arguments.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Danny Thomas

0
0

Ragnaar & JCH,
And it states most in in the West “As indicated by the red area in the map, most of the loss was found to be occurring in West Antarctica’s Amundsen Sea region” (http://www.livescience.com/46194-volcanoes-melt-antarctic-glaciers.html)
“According to Simons, this study conclusively shows that the Antarctica ice sheet is melting, and while the study can’t prove the cause, global warming is certainly suspect. “With the rapidly accelerating rates at which the ice is melting, and in the light of all the other, well-publicized lines of evidence, most scientists would be hard pressed to find mechanisms that do not include human-made climate change.”

Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by Don Monfort

0
0

“Don I’m always willing to yield to contrary evidence.”

You haven’t presented any evidence for intelligent design, David. That the universe is complicated and intricate and stuff fits together is not evidence for ID.

What is your theory for ID of the universe, David? Who done it and why? If I had the power to create something that big, I would make myself a very big fine woman built like a brick …. house:

Comment on Week in review – science edition by kcom1

0
0

Yes. Although I’m sure the specifics vary from place to place.

I’m certain, though, that in no place is fist fighting part of the official program. It’s basically about children learning the ways of a farm.


Comment on Week in review – science edition by kcom1

0
0

And, of course, he didn’t actually answer your question as to why he’s here. Only why he doesn’t run away. Not the same thing.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by bobdroege

0
0

It seems he has backed off of the doubling time for both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets being between 5 and 10 years and now think it is in the 10 to 40 year range, but closer to 10 than 40.

Is non linear, so estimates based on current linear rates may not be supported by the evidence.

If the current rate of sea level rise is sustained to the end of the century, it is one foot or so, but it does not take much acceleration to get to 1 meter.

Even if it is true that the doubling rate is 10 to 15 years, it still will take a few decades to see the increase, but by the end of the century, it could be quite impressive.

weasel words and all.

That is my opinion just from the abstract, may take a bit longer for a deep dive.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Danny Thomas

0
0

Bob,
I’d actually give much credit and more respect should the uncertainty be acknowledged along with the acceptance that “THE SCIENCE” isn’t settled after all. From my view, I don’t find it settled at all.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Joshua

0
0

–snip–

The Fifth Assessment Report six years later admitted this has not been happening: since 1998, it revealed, the increase, at 0.05C per decade, has only been a quarter as great.

–snip–

Dan David Rose get through an article without spinning it that when climate scientists speak of the full range of data, they are “admitting” something?

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Joshua

0
0

Two interesting talks about antibiotic resistance, both of which make reference to climate change:

The first speaker talks of taxing antibiotic use in a way that’s similar to the idea of taxing carbon emissions.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images