anyone? yes.
anything? yes.
arguing with questions doesnt work.
you need to make the case that no one should trust them .
much harder than merely asking questions.
doable, but harder.
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Steven Mosher
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by brentns1
The Great Debate
The reality of global warming: We’re all frogs in a pot of slowly boiling water
But that’s not at all how scientists meant it, Professor Camille Parmesan, an expert in biodiversity at the University of Plymouth in the United Kingdom said. Climate risks don’t begin at 2C, she said; it’s more like where they go from high to intolerably high.
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/08/07/before-the-century-ends-it-may-be-too-hot-for-people-to-work-outside/
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by ristvan
The Georgia energy future article illustrates what a conflicting mishmash energy policy is. New EPA rules give no credit for the only two new nucs under construction in the US. State mandated PV. EV sales drop 90% when $5k state credit is eliminated. Distortions everywhere.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by David Wojick
Michaels is a lukewarmer, so he indeed believes in AGW. But not CAGW. Since I do not believe in AGW we avoid that issue when we work together.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by nickels
It is very important to remember (in light of the clean power plan) that the science based regimes (Ill go ahead and not use communist) are indifferent to the suffering influcted in the pursuit of their ideological goals. If it destroys our economy, that is just another blow against capitalism, a benefit.
http://www.distributedrepublic.net/archives/2005/05/01/communist-cannibalism/
↧
↧
Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by Willard
> Just because the second step of a staircase is essentially indistinguishable from the first doesn’t mean you can’t use it to climb to the second floor.
The staircase explains why it’s a tired fallacy:
↧
Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by Steven Mosher
c-5
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jim2
It’s not a matter of trust, so much. It’s a question of how much power the EPA should have. Congress should be able to veto any EPA rule with a simple majority, IMO.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by nickels
Why is Apple lying about powering its data centers with renewable energy? [link]
“Nicki Lisa Cole, Ph.D. is a research fellow at the Institute for Advanced Studies on Science, Technology and Society in Graz, Austria. A sociologist with expertise in global capitalism and consumerism, she is currently writing a book about the popularity and hidden costs of Apple products”
Left devouring itself. Just a demonstration how they will never be satisfied.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by John Carpenter
MSNBC article ‘Obama’s climate policy is practically worthless says expert’ poll question at the end is funny…
Do you support President Obama’s clean power plan?
Yes, its long overdue
No, the plan falls short on climate needs.
Consider what could have been other ‘No’ choices….
No, the plan falls short on completely destroying our power generation abilities for the future
No, the plan falls short on ridding my western climate guilt anxieties
No, the plan falls short on increasing the cost of living for those most vulnerable
No, the plan falls short on the reach the EPA should have on national power planning policies
No, the plan falls short on achieving faux environmental justice for the down trodden
No, the plan falls short on….
↧
Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by Jim D
1940 was already, with a perturbation of +0.2 C, at the upper end of millennial natural variability. What has happened since then is the addition of another 0.5 C. It is another step of an entirely unprecedented nature.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Jim D
Congress are bought by industry, so we can see how that will go.
↧
Comment on Will the President’s Clean Power Plan save consumers money? by bigterguy
Let’s see, by restricting supply to the market Obama expects to save money. Supply – demand. How does that work again?
↧
↧
Comment on Will the President’s Clean Power Plan save consumers money? by Arch Stanton
If you were to call everyone in your address book and ask them the same question the poll answer would be an overwhelming, no.
↧
Comment on Will the President’s Clean Power Plan save consumers money? by Peter Lang
Dave Rutledge,
Excellent post, thank you and thank you Judith for posting posts like this.
The final decision on policy will ultimately be on the basis of rational economic factors. Irrational policy may last for a while, but eventually it fails as those wo apply rational economics gain economic advantage over those that don’t. So posts like these are very valuable for educating scientists and others who have little understanding of financial and economic matters and their effect on human well being.
↧
Comment on Will the President’s Clean Power Plan save consumers money? by Arch Stanton
Are things like this still included in the mix?
↧
Comment on Will the President’s Clean Power Plan save consumers money? by Peter Lang
Obama is clearly an economic illiterate. Worse still he has surrounded himself with economically illiterate advisers.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by John Plodinec
Bureaucracies tend to be self-perpetuating. I think people are forgetting Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy. As formulated in Jerry Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy: In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely. In other words, in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for the organization itself. Examples in education would be teachers who work and sacrifice to teach children, vs. union representatives who work to protect any teacher including the most incompetent. The Iron Law states that in all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions.
In this case, it seems rather clear that the Clean Power Plan was developed in response to pressures from above in the Executive Branch. Evidence: keeping much of the data used secret; for the first time ever using global impacts rather than domestic impacts (appears that the plan couldn’t be justified on a domestic basis); the over long time period; the mess associated with nuclear power; and others. And don’t forget that the health impacts touted in the President’s statement have nothing to do with CO2 abatement. In other words, this plan was cooked up by those working to advance the EPA and not in response to some environmental crisis. Frankly, EPA’s mucking about in electric utility regulation in this way infringes on FERC’s mission and may well lead to contradictory guidance to generators.
↧
Comment on Will the President’s Clean Power Plan save consumers money? by omanuel
No, Obama’s plan will cost consumers more money.
The good news is yesterday, 70 years after the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the people of Japan were finally told the truth:
After WWII, public knowledge of composition (neutrons) and energy (neutron repulsion) was forbidden in cores of
1. Heavy atoms like Uranium
2. Some planets like Jupiter
3. Ordinary stars like the Sun
4. Galaxies like the Milky Way
5. The expanding Universe
Neutron-repulsion in cores of U and Th atoms melted deep-seated rocks that became the islands of Japan.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by justinwonder
Kip
“Thus the “may” in the title is true but improbable — multiple, simultaneous failures would have to take place to skew results of large studies.”
I suspect the title of the article fits the nyt narrative, which is why they report this as news in the first place. Handled cleverly, editorial content can be dressed up as news. The MSM is good at that.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
