Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148511 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by AK

$
0
0

Potemkin Laureate

As for the vast Koch-Scaife CDM (Cabal of Disparagers of Mann), Dr Mann is right. The untold billions from the Koch Brothers, the Scaife Brothers and the Koch-Scaife Brothers have funded all kinds of sinister “front groups” and “hired guns” to discredit Mann. One thinks of hired gun “Hendrik Tennekes” of the obvious Potemkin organization “the Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute” and former member of the notorious front group “the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences”, who attacked Dr Mann as “a disgrace to the profession”.

Or paid hitman “John Christy”, frontman “lead author” of the transnational Potemkin village “the IPCC”, who said Mann “misrepresented the temperature record of the past 1,000 years”.

Or hired assassin “I T Jolliffe” of the Koch-funded Potemkin tract “Principal Component Analysis” in the Scaife-funded Potemkin reference work “The International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science”, who said Mann’s science is “a piece of dubious statistics”.

Or lavishly remunerated covert operative “Hans von Storch” of the Potemkin-peer-reviewed Potemkin journal “Annals of Geophysics” and winner of the Potemkin prize “the IMSC Achievement Award” awarded by the Potemkin judges of the totally bogus “International Meetings on Statistical Climatology”, who described Mann’s hockey stick as “rubbish”.

[…]

Or hired double-agent “John Cook” of the Koch-Scaife Climate Denial Machine undercover website “Skeptical Science” and front man of the denialist tract “Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand”, who wrote, “Stay away from Mann’s 2008 paper… It has actually been invalidated.”

Or Koch-funded infiltrator “Wallace Smith Broecker”, who in 1975 was given untold billions by the Scaife Brothers to invent the Potemkin term “global warming”. Following further billions from the Koch Brothers Fund for Mild Disparagement, “Broecker” dismissed Mann’s data as “sh*tty”.

As you can tell from the above list, the vast Potemkin Village of Denialism is growing faster than the almost as vast Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. Because it takes a Potemkin village to raze a Mann-child. Remember anyone who says anything mildly critical of Michael E Mann is only doing it because he or she is in the pay of the Denial Machine. Matter of fact, just to be on the safe side, assume that everyone is in the pay of the Koch-Scaife Brothers except Dr Mann, the Queen, both presidents Bush, Lady Gaga and the other blood-drinking shape-shifting space lizards.

Global Warming in Hot Water

As you know, Mann is suing me for describing his famous scary “hockey stick” graph as “fraudulent”, which it is. The graph shows a straight-line “shaft” of the stick representing 900 years of stable global temperature, followed by a sharp upturned blade representing the 20th century temperature rocketing up and out the top right-hand corner. The “message” (which Mann and his colleagues were concerned not to “dilute” with any subtleties or qualifications) was simple: We’re all outta graph paper. This thing’s off the charts with nowhere to go but up through the ceiling at an unprecedented rate. Give us all your money or the planet’s gonna fry.

Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by Steven Mosher

$
0
0

“• On 28 April 2014 the National Center for Science Education announced that its first annual Friend of the Planet award had been presented to Mann and Richard Alley.”

All mann’s awards received after Steyn’s defamatory statements indicate one thing:

Sticks and stones.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Salvatore del Prete

$
0
0

Brandon , are you in agreement with me on the post I am sending in reply to you (below) and the post I sent over this web-site at 4:16pm Aug.15?

Just curious, thanks.

As I read the various post I have come across one common denominator which is everyone is trying to come up with a one item cause and effect for the explanation as to how the climate may change.

If one looks at my post sent at 8:49 am Aug 15 , I showed all the different factors that are involved that play a role in why/how the climate may change to one degree or another.

Milankovitch Cycles are definitely in the mix and like solar variability how effective they are or not depends on the 9 other points I had presented in my post sent at 8:49 am Aug 15.

For example why did Milankovitch Cycles only start to cause inter-glacial /glacial cycles for only the past 2.5 million years or so and not prior to this time?

The reason most likely was the land/ocean arrangements and the initial state of the climate being far from the glacial/inter glacial threshold.

It was not because Milankovitch Cycles did not play a role in the climate back then as they do now , but the role they played was obscured by other factors not acting in concert with the Milankovitch Cycles.

This is the point I keep trying to make (mostly in vain), that it is a combination of factors that have to phase in the right way, at the right time to give that big climatic impact and why many times when one item is being used to be associated with the cause as to why the climate changed gets lost in noise and or gets obscured. The reality being however, it does still play a role but is being obscured by other forces at play at the same time.

This is why it is so easy to say this item or that item does not play a role in how the climate changes and why it is so hard to show the link between an x item changing and the climate changing.

Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by Canman

$
0
0

That all these outfits gave Mann all these awards shows that they have become politicised and are engaging in propaganda and can’t be trusted. They need to follow Mark Steyn’s advise and denounce Mann and his crappy hockey stick for a fresh start:

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3

$
0
0

I believe most of the recent drop in price is due to the regulation or lack thereof. It will be interesting to see where prices end up after that.

Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by Canman

$
0
0

“• On 28 April 2014 the National Center for Science Education announced that its first annual Friend of the Planet award had been presented to Mann and Richard Alley.”

Perhaps NCSE was hedging their bet picking two winners, just in case Mann’s FOP has to go the same way as his Nobel.

Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by matthewrmarler

$
0
0

John Sidles: Matters of fact

• Mann’s dissertation was awarded the Phillip M. Orville Prize in 1997 as an “outstanding dissertation in the earth sciences” at Yale University.


Nevertheless, the phrase “fraudulent hockeystick” was not defamation; the “fraudulent hockeystick” was based on “Mike’s trick to hide the decline” (said about a different graph, but acknowledging Mike’s priority), and was removed from the IPCC web page because of it. Likewise, the phrase “tortured data” was not defamation.

Your strategy is analogous to pointing out that not everything that Scooter Libby said was perjury or obstruction of justice. Libby’s trial was not about everything else that he said, but about a small number of sentences, and the jury (and I) agreed with the prosecution in that case.

You are correct to note that the outcomes in Mann v Steyn and Steyn v Mann depend on what Steyn and Mann wrote, and on American law. You persistently denigrate the foci of the case and attempt to draw attention away from them. This is analogous to pointing out that Pons and Fleischman did a bunch of other work.

Meanwhile, you have provided no evidence to support your claim that Steyn was willfully ignorant. You have not even shown Steyn ever to have been in error.

Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by Canman

$
0
0

BTW Naomi Oreskes was NCSE’s 2015 FOP winner. Who’s next? … John Cook? … Stephen Lewandowsky? Bill McKibben?


Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by matthewrmarler

$
0
0
Brandon S?: <i> No, it doesn’t. Especially since the phrase “except for” was never used.” The actual phrase was “except that.”</i> I stand corrected.

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by David Wojick

$
0
0

I do not see the confusion, so what is it? As I read it they start off talking about capacity, which is growing rapidly, then ‘switch’ to consumption in the second paragraph. At four billion tons they are clearly burning a lot of coal, more all the time. A decade or so ago they were burning just two billion, as I recall, and that was impressive given our US one billion. This is baseload generation. As for gas it is my understanding that they have a great deal of frackable gas. All capacity is dispatchable, so I do not understand your point.

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by David Wojick

$
0
0

China is laughing all the way to the coal bank.

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Canman

$
0
0

I’m sure these technology options are expensive, but are there any real prospects for battery storage to do better? I’m not sure how many exotic catalysts are used. I believe the carbon comes from CO2 in sea water. It seems like Power plant exhaust plumes might offer a more concentrated source of CO2, but I don’t know the chemistry or technological details.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Salvatore del Prete

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Canman

$
0
0

Bill McKibben is missing link (pun intended).

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Arch Stanton


Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jim2

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Ron Graf

$
0
0

Bill, Thanks. Who is this guy? I am guessing he is a sociopath trying to scare the real Tony Heller, who is a whistleblower, who used a protective alias, presumably as insulation against sociopaths. Is that right?

Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by Don Monfort

Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by John Sidles

$
0
0

Canman wonders  “BTW, Naomi Oreskes was NCSE’s 2015 FOP winner. Who’s next? … John Cook? … Stephen Lewandowsky? … Bill McKibben?”

Gee, with James Hansen and even Wendell Berry having won high-rank scientific awards too, a reasonable candidate for the next high-rank scientific award is Climate Voice spokesperson …

Katherine Hayhoe!

Reasonable prediction  For so long as long atmospheric CO2 still is increasing, the oceans still are heating, the land still is baking, the waters still are acidifying, the mountain glaciers still are melting, the ice-caps still are sliding, and the sea-levels still are rising … while the land and the communities on that land still are suffering ongoing ecological, economic, and social devastation …

… very few mathematicians, scientists, engineers (and thoughtful citizens too) will be paying much attention to angry, hateful, quibbling, dodging, juvenile, willfully ignorant climate-change rhetoric…… or to lawyers’ interminable wrangling in courtrooms about that rhetoric.

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by justinwonder

Viewing all 148511 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images