Correctshun ‘Great *leaps* forward.’
* Hi Fan.
Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by beththeserf
↧
↧
Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by beththeserf
‘ Monday evening, government and industry continued to pore
over the hefty, 1,560 page document.
‘
Such a waste of productive time ( and energy,) tsk!
↧
Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by Paul Matthews
… and again on BBC Radio’s “thought for the day”, the daily god slot, except that the god worshipped today was Obama.
“The president’s policy has been called a game-changer, and many hope it may lead the way for other countries”.
↧
Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by Science or Fiction
Steven Mosher
Which test has falsified random variation (internal variability, natural variation)?
This what IPCC did:
They relied on the model under test to say that what they observed was not compatible with the simulated result of natural variation.
“The spatial pattern of observed warming differs from those associated with internal variability. The model-based simulations of internal variability are assessed to be adequate to make this assessment.”
(Ref: contribution from Working group I to the fifth assessment report by IPCC, page 869)
This method is both logically and scientifically flawed.
↧
Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by Science or Fiction
Willard | August 4, 2015 at 10:44 pm |
“> Demonstrating a theory to be incorrect does not require an alternate theory.
In that sentence, the concept of incorrectness is undetermined. Too bad it sounds like the operative word. This claim therefore fails functional correctness.”
What are you talking about?
Are you trying to tell us that statement A can only be wrong if there is a statement B and B is right?
Hence statement A can be either right or wrong depending on whether there exist a statement B and statement B is either right or wrong.
You seem confused.
↧
↧
Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by climatereason
Paul
Did you hear Quentin Letts piece on Radio 4 at 9 on the Met Office?
Julia Slingo was being rather more equivocal on climate change and its causes than I have heard from her before.
tonyb
↧
Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by KenW
Vaughn Pratt,
Yes, CO2 is beneficial to plants in general.
And how many plant species do we have on earth?
And why do we have extra studies about Poison Ivy and Ragweed?
Maybe because those plants are disagreeable to humans and the authors are looking for scary headlines???
Shill Science.
↧
Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by Peter Lang
Harrywr2, could you please explain for other readers on “Energy Matters” the rule of thumb for Pacific NW that the ratio of hydro to wind capacity needs to be at least 2 hydro to 1 wind. Were the units GW or GWh? The blog post is titled “How much wind and solar can Norway’s reservoirs balance?” The blog site is called “Energy Matters”. It is run by two academics and they have excellent posts and excellent comments. I can’t post the link because I don’t know how to copy and paste with this I pad thingy I am trying to use.
↧
Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by Peter Lang
PA,
“2. Every year it is the same disaster claim.”
It Changes every few years. Now it’s asthma! :(
↧
↧
Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by AK
<blockquote>That explains why economists agree with it.</blockquote>Nope. There are plenty of other approaches that are equally stupid (or more) and would cause just as many (or more) problems that they don't/wouldn't agree with.<blockquote>If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.</blockquote><b>That</b> “<i> explains why economists agree with it.</i>”
Partly.
IMO.
↧
Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by Barnes
VP – Maybe spend a little time studying this site as well – http://www.co2science.org/. You appear to follow the typical progressive mindset that there are only negative aspects to increased levels of Co2, and likely that using coal and fossil fuels in general is net negative despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Are there negative aspects to using fossil fuels and increasing levels of Co2? Absolutely, but the pros far outweigh the cons and that this fact is so blindingly ignored by progressives, the media, gollywood, teachers, etc. is simply appalling and a good reason why they are not to be trusted.
↧
Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by bedeverethewise
perhaps you should look at the asthma rates among the Amish, they are exposed to the same CO2 levels as the rest of us, and they are probably exposed to more poison ivy and ragweed, yet their asthma rates are lower. This supports the hygiene hypothesis and not some desperate reach for a “possible causal connection between CO2 and allergens.”
I find the Amish lifestyle very interesting. For all those who believe that CO2 is evil and who desperately want to “take action now”, the solution is right there in front of them. The Amish show the way to live a healthy, sustainable, peaceful lifestyle. The only downsides are that the lifestyle is probably only sustainable for millions and not for billions and it is really, really hard work. And another downside is that the lifestyle leaves little time for non-farming types of activities like doing scientific research, medical research, climate blogging, etc.
↧
Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by Danny Bloom (@clifi)
Climate denialists have their own version of ‘cli-fi’
When NPR produced a short radio segment on April 20, 2013, a new buzzword was was born and the English-speaking media took notice. Everywhere you look via Google searches, from the New York Times to the Guardian, with dispatches from Reuters and the Associated Press also chiming in, the cli-fi term that NPR reported has found a niche among headline writers and literary critics.
But the cli-fi meme didn’t really begin in 2013, although that’s when the mainstream media first took notice via NPR and subsequent follow-ups in the New York, the Guardian, and The Washington Post.
One must go back to March of 2009, when a rightwing blogger and climate skeptic going by the pen name of Paco, first posted a scathing, sarcastic look at what he deemed as “cli-fi” — the climate fiction of people like Al Gore and James Hansen.
Paco (a pen name) of Paco Enterprises, who by himself coined his iteration of the ‘cli-fi’ term on his blog as a humorous and gently mocking term to describe the books and essays and documentaries of climate activists such as Al Gore and James Hansen, does not hate climate activists or scientists who say they believe in global warming. He just find them good and ripe fodder for satire and sarcasm.
For Paco, cli-fi means ”climate fiction” and by ”climate fiction” he means to say that the facts and figures and charts and arguments in Gore’s work and Hansen’s work are pure ”fiction” and not ”scientific” at all.
http://pacoenterprises.blogspot.tw/2011/08/one-would-have-thought-it-impossible.html
Just as sci-fi is a term that Paco understands to mean “science fiction” movies and novels about space travel and gigantic squids wrestling on the Moon, he has turned his coinage of cli-fi into a mocking term to tear into the science-based work of Gore and Hansen and mock their work as mere fiction about climate, since as Paco maintains, global warming is a hoax and pure hogwash.
So from March of 2009 to sometime in 2011, for three years, Paco blogged about cli-fi as a mocking term, even posting a photoshopped photo of Al Gore and calling him ”Cli-Fi Man.” Paco created such phrases as “The Church of Cli-fi” and “Cli-Fi Thuggery.” And each time he posted a blog about these terms, his fellow denialists posted comments applauding the way he was mocking climate activists like Gore and Hansen.
Paco’s blog fell silent on the key word of ”cli-fi” in 2012 and he has not posted anything new using the cli-fi term since then.
But if you follow his blog in the coming weeks and months, especially as the Paris climate talks are set to begin in late November, I am sure Paco will do some more “cli-fi” posts soon. In fact, in a recent email to me, after I spent years trying to find and contact him, he sent me a very nice “nice to meet you” letter and he noted that will very likely be posting more about his version of “cli-fi” soon. Stay tuned.
↧
↧
Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by beththeserf
:)
↧
Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by Punksta
Question to all politically sussed Americans :
What are the chances of Obarmy’s scheme actually happening ?
↧
Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by AK
IMO there’s a good chance something similar, but with a few key changes, will be implemented by Congressional action.
↧
Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by Peter Lang
Life thrives when the planet is warmer, and thrives when the climate is warming. Furthermore, the planet is in a cold-house phase – and well below its normal temperature of the past 0.5 billion years. Those who believe in catastrophic human caused global warming haven’t made a persuasive case that GHG emissions are more likely to do more harm than good. There is no persuasive case to implement policies that will raise the cost of energy.
↧
↧
Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by Peter Lang
What does “climate denialist” mean?
↧
Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by beththeserf
‘Climate denialist’ is
as ‘life jest don’t exist.’
↧
Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by Willard
> What are you talking about?
The concept of correctness. You know, Fiction, the operative word in Turbulent’s purported “demonstration” that AGW is “incorrect.” Demonstrating incorrectness sounds cool, but means very little unless the concept of theory correctness gets specified.
Unless you know what Turbulent’s talking about, Fiction?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
