“The Clean Power Plan will also avoid up to 3,600 premature deaths”. Scareware.
According to UK reports, at the cost of 20,000 to 40,000 excess annual deaths due to increased energy costs (in a smaller population).
Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by Pooh, Dixie
↧
↧
Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by justinwonder
Horst,
I have made a good faith effort to help the anti-vaxers, GMO fwaidycats, chemtrail kooks, and Fed Reserve fearful to no avail. I just let it go.
My main concern is the impact of SLR on local fishing. So far, my favorite, by default, fishing rock has been in the same place for forty years. Big, chunky stripped surfperch love to jump in my bucket. What will happen when the sea rises 6 meters. Will your house become a new reef?
Do you have a boat?
↧
Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by Ken Denison
I believe what you mean Mosher is this:
2. Here is my argument: If skeptics want to be taken seriously BY ME they need an alternative theory.
———
That’s cool. Doesn’t imply that everyone believes the same way you do.
You know, for someone who demands so much of others you are very sloppy at times.
When talking about CO2’s effect, for example. You keep forgetting the “ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL” piece of the statement.
Why is that?
↧
Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by Ken Denison
Hey Mosher, why only “…and why it has, warmed”. Hasn’t the climate warmed, cooled, gone quiet, etc. in the past? Shouldn’t the theory explain it all?
Sloppy.
↧
Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by Willard
> antonym of skeptical is gullible
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/27-appeal-to-definition
What are the antonyms to contrarian?
↧
↧
Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by Steven Mosher
Clearly you agree that having a theory would be better.
Thank you for admitting I am right.
Without that theory skeptics are not taken seriously by those in power
Obviously if skeptics cared more about winning they would have developed a theory. This means that they
Don’t fear the solutions imposed by the pen and the phone.
They only did half of the job.
They did what was necessary but that is not sufficient.
Question why did skeptics do half a job.
Answer. The full job was too hard and they really don’t fear obamas climate policy
↧
Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by Willard
↧
Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by Willard
Here you go, Bad:
https://contrarianmatrix.wordpress.com/lots-of-theories/
You’re welcome.
If you have another contrarian theory, I’d be glad to acknowledge your contribution.
↧
Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by Richard Arrett
I don’t agree that skeptics need a theory to be taken seriously.
But who cares?
This is all he said, she said stuff anyway.
Either global warming is happening or it is not.
Either humans are contributing to global warming or they are not.
We will run out of hydrocarbon based fuel someday or we won’t.
If a skeptic invented a baseload energy solution which was cheaper than nuclear, solar, wind, coal, natural gas and oil, and it doesn’t produce CO2 – that would be a win win – even if I couldn’t provide an alternative theory of global warming.
If global warming is happening and humans are contributing to it or even if it is not and we are not – but we are going to run out of hydrocarbons at some point in the future – it makes sense to try to invent energy solutions which are cheaper than all of our current energy technology and which don’t produce CO2.
If I (a skeptic) invented a way to generate power which was 1/2 the cost of coal, totally clean, didn’t take up much space, wasn’t ugly and was easy to roll out – believe me I would be taken seriously – whether I could provide an alternative explanation for global warming or not.
Because none of that would matter – the world would naturally switch to my new power source and we would naturally decrease CO2 emissions and everybody would be happy.
Now all we have to do is invent this new, non-carbon emitting, baseload cheaper energy source.
Go.
Meanwhile go nuclear – this is a no brainer.
Or go CC as PE recommends – at least until we run out of natural gas.
↧
↧
Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by Bad Andrew
Is your name Mosher, Willard?
Anyway, you already discovered upthread that there’s no such thing as AGW.
Thank you for that excellent contribution.
Andrew
↧
Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by Willard
> you already discovered upthread that there’s no such thing as AGW.
That’s not what I discovered upthread, Bad. What I discovered upthread relates to PeterL’s claim.
Another list of memes:
↧
Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by Pooh, Dixie
The cure is worse than the disease?
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by ulriclyons
“New paper finds “large” natural climate cycle of ~17 years in the North Atlantic”
17 years is the strongest string that I have found in monthly CET, followed by 13 and 23 year strings. For example look at July’s 2006, 1989, 1972, 1955 etc until 1853, add 1yr and restart at 1852 and continue…
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/tcet.dat
(Cicada brood cycles come to mind)
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by ulriclyons
And I can show that these monthly CET anomalies are solar forced and not internal.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by oldfossil
Thank you David Springer. And for the excellent links.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Willis Eschenbach
Editor of the Fabius Maximus website | August 7, 2015 at 5:34 pm |
I don’t know if this qualifies for your “science” list of links, but it’s nicely written: “The Perfectly Nasty Ocean Storm” by Robert Hunziker at CounterPunch, 3 August 2015. Opening:
The oceans of the world are currently experiencing a “perfect storm” that is nasty, real nasty with too much warming, too much acidification, too much CO2, too much fishing, too many chemicals, too much Ag runoff, too much radiation (Fukushima), and too little ice (Arctic Ocean) bringing on too much methane (CH4). Whew! How much can the oceans handle?
The answer to that question may be coming to surface. According to ABC News, May 19, 2014, Mysterious Mass Animal Deaths All Over the World: “Millions of birds, fish, crabs and other small marine life have been turning up dead in massive numbers from the United States, through Europe and down to South America.”
There are several points about this that set my urban legend detector ringing like crazy.
First one is the title. Too well calculated for effect, too well designed to appeal to the lowest emotions.
Next, he mixes real threats (overfishing, ag chemicals) with things that might have an effect in fifty years (“too much acidification, too much CO2″), as well as with things that are just fantasy (globally, ocean warming is tenths of a degree, and Fukushima will only have local effects).
And then to top it all off, he claims that all of that is “bringing on too much methane” … say what? There’s no evidence of some big jump in methane levels, he’s just making that up.
Finally, I’ve been a commercial fisherman a good chunk of my life, as well as being both a commercial and a sport diver, and a lifelong surfer. Like tonyb I live by the ocean, and I’ve followed the oceanic news in various ways throughout my life.
Periodically over the years I’ve seen this “the ocean is dying” claim come up more than once … with about as much effect as Paul Ehrlich’s warnings about the population bomb.
To summarize: Is the ocean overfished? Most definitely, particularly for certain species and certain areas. This is overwhelmingly the biggest threat to the ocean for a number of reasons. In addition to the amount removed, we’re preferentially targeting the top predators, which is generally not good for ecosystems. Overfishing has also led to things like wiping out parrotfish in many coral atolls, the very parrotfish who chew up the coral and make (or used to make) the lovely white coral sand beaches … the health of the reef controls the emergence, the ongoing persistence and the disappearance of the coral atolls.
Next threat to the ocean is inshore pollution. While the open ocean is large enough to dilute even Fukushima to a meaninglessly low level, inshore near the pollution source it’s a different matter. One big problem around the globe are shrimp farms whose effluent often goes out through the mangrove swamps to the ocean. These mangrove swamps are fish nurseries, so any problems there have far-reaching effects. And unfortunately, shrimp farms are far from the only agricultural runoff which is causing inshore damage.
Compared to those real threats doing real damage today, the possibility of slight neutralization of the ocean in fifty years due to CO2 is a meaningless threat.
Is the ocean in good health? Nope. But the threats are not those listed by Robert Hunziger, and he mis-states relative importance. That’s just the National Enquirer version of the truth, everything in hyped headlines with 48-point type …
Regards to you,
w.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by aplanningengineer
In my early days as an engineer I spent a lot of time in DC and would gravitate to the natural history museum, prompting a great interest and course of self study . I stumbled onto epigenettics some years back and was quite captivated by how it tied to what we knew, but turned some things on their head,. Some of our knowledge is very strong and likely immutable, but then within that immutable framework, there are ways for things we think cant be to have merit. Unfortunately I can’t remember half of what I read but I do remember articles on a tie between environment and depression. Here’s a link on that subject http://www.whatisepigenetics.com/the-epigenetics-of-depression/
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by aplanningengineer
My major point above is that experience is a big reason why I cringe at notions of “settled science” Granting the basic point that it’s time for action based on strong evidence and high likelihood of future catastrophic harm as correct, it would be far better to use language that spoke of a high degree of certainty, abundant evidence, or the like. People who refer to settled science make me very suspicious as to whether they know anything about science, or if they are just talking politics (whether their job description says scientist or not).
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by climategrog
I have show evidence to suggest that it is probably the LACK of volcanoes that is the reason for the “pause”.
https://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=902
The effect on lower stratospheric temp is clear. The last two major eruptions produced a clear 0.5K drop in TLS and a stratospheric “hiatus” since 1996
Since the effect on lower climate is generally complementary ( initial warming of TLS and cooling surface temps ) this motivates a comparison of the two:
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by climategrog
Aren’t there any Black Sea Bass in the Black Sea ;)
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
