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

August 23, 2015, 11:17 pm

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

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by bedeverethewise

$

0

0

SS

“PA makes more strawman arguments and ubiquitous claims that certainly people like MIT, the U.S. DOE (and its labs like NREL), and EPRI very much disagree with — as unlike PA, they site “hard” engineering data.”

NREL? Doesn’t the National Renewable Energy Lab have a vested interest in the promotion of “Renewable Energy”? Don’t you even suspect there might be, in the best case, confirmation bias?

It can be difficult to distinguish the naive from the corrupt, since the corrupt are often so good at faking naïveté. If they weren’t, they would be exposed sooner. Once you can fake sincerity you have it made.

It reminds me of a Yogi Berra quote.

Teacher to Yogi: “Don’t you know anything?”

Yogi: “I don’t even suspect anything!”

---

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

August 23, 2015, 11:24 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by beththeserf

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

$

0

0

Heresy! The High and Low Priests of the Consensus will see to it that you don’t go to Heaven, Ron. Only four more days to save the earth! You better repent. Does that check from Big Oil mean more to you than the children, Ron? And the polar bears?

Comment on Week in review – science edition by beththeserf

August 23, 2015, 11:45 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Peter Lang

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

$

0

0

‘I’ll be judge,
I’ll be jury,’
said cunning
old Fury.
)

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Peter Lang

August 23, 2015, 11:49 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by bedeverethewise

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by beththeserf

$

0

0

erikemagnuson,

Sorry, for my misunderstanding. I agree with all the statements in your comments but would qualify “nuclear has to be a part of the solution” to nuclear has to play the dominant part of replacing fossil fuels for electriciyt generation. Hydro will lose share of electricity generation as there is insufficient new hydro site available globally. Biomass for electricity is even more limited. Wind and solar cannot do the job. Thye cannot produce sufficient electricity to power modern society and reproduce themselves: http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/

This also shows why renwables are not viable except at low of penetration: http://euanmearns.com/the-renewables-future-a-summary-of-findings/

Eric, are you from Norway? If so you might find the last of 24 posts listed in the above link interesting: http://euanmearns.com/how-much-wind-and-solar-can-norways-reservoirs-balance/

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

August 23, 2015, 11:52 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by climatereason

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Peter Lang

$

0

0

In Fairness to Jerry Brown, He was not responding to Carly Fiorina, He was responding to Chuck Todd’s interpretation of what he thought Carly’s position was. So Brown’s insulting and nonsensical response was not directly to Carly’s thoughtful and reasonable comment. That may explain why he came across so poorly.

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

August 23, 2015, 11:56 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by stevenreincarnated

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by bedeverethewise

$

0

0

jimd

Surely the greatest problem in California is the phenomenal surge in population who then want loads of water for gardens, agriculture etc.

tonyb

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

August 24, 2015, 12:12 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by peter3172

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by climatereason

$

0

0

We weren’t discussing the accuracy of the projection. We were discussing the accuracy of the presentation in depicting the accuracy of the projection.

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by peter3172

August 24, 2015, 12:12 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Peter Lang

≪ Previous: Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by stevenreincarnated

$

0

0

Would mitigating climate change be guaranteed to stop prolonged droughts, wildfires etc?

Answer: No

Therefore you still need dams.

---

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Peter Lang

August 24, 2015, 1:29 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Peter Lang

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by peter3172

$

0

0

PA,

Not only will RE never be cost competitive with coal. It can never replace it either.
“The catch-22 of energy storage” http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/

“The Renewables Future – A Summary of Findings>/i> http://euanmearns.com/the-renewables-future-a-summary-of-findings/
If you want more, see the last two posts linked at the end.

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Peter Lang

August 24, 2015, 1:39 am

≫ Next: Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by Punksta

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Peter Lang

$

0

0

PA makes more strawman arguments and ubiquitous claims

Segrest keeps saying others are not debating in good faith. This is projecting. The quote is an example of not debating in good faith. He wants to argue about hos down-in-the-weeds, network engineering, instead of contributing constructively at a level that is relevant to GHG emissions policy. He keeps dodging what’s relevant.

It is Segrest that doesn’t debate in good faith and continually tries to divert the discussion to irrelevant points to argue about – instead of debating in good faith what’s relevant.

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

August 24, 2015, 2:43 am

≫ Next: Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by physicistdave

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Peter Lang

$

0

0

Sidles –

Once again you have failed to even glance at your own references, which again show no evidence of ROBUST MEASUREMENTS of the energy budget.

And again you try and cover up your evasiveness with mindless five-year-old-style cheerleading drivel, plus many patent falsehoods (eg implying we have ROBUST MEASUREMENTS of ohc.)

The question is about MEASUREMENTS John. MEASUREMENTS. You know, taking readings from instruments. Repeat that to yourself a hundred times (should suit your five-year-old mentality here), lest you again just evade the question amidst yet more vaccuous pomposity.

Just for a moment then, forget about being politically correct, and imagine you’re actually interested in finding out what is really happening, and how much/little we know about it. See too physicistdave’s comments on the technical challenge this presents).

—

And why might this be an important issue?

Because even if turns out the planet as a whole is in fact warming, that doesn’t mean man is the cause. But if the DIRECTLY MEASURED radiation budget is seen to closely track CO2 levels, that would suggest man is implicated.

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

August 24, 2015, 2:50 am

≫ Next: Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by Recent Energy And Environmental News – August 24th 2015 | PA Pundits - International

≪ Previous: Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by Punksta

$

0

0

Y’know, John, I do not hate James Hansen. Although I think Hansen dramatically jumped the gun in publicizing his results as settled science, has been far too uncritical towards his own work, and has let publicity go to his head, yes, I have seen indications that Hansen is trying to be honest: for example, his recent advocacy of nuclear power to reduce carbon emissions is what an honest believer in CAGW would propose.

So, you see, John, sometimes you and I can find a small point of agreement.

However, you are the one who has kept referring to Hansen as if he were God, and we should all bow down before his wisdom. I view him as simply a man who has some all-too-human weaknesses (how many of us are always as self-critical as we should be?).

I am reluctant to cut the same slack for Michael Mann: the lawsuit against Steyn is the breaking point for me: lawsuits are not the right way to settle either scientific or political disputes. I realize that Steyn can be an incredible jerk, as well as, sometimes, being funny or insightful — think of him as the illegitimate offspring of Lenny Bruce and Richard Pryor (somehow, I think Steyn might even like that comparison!).

But a lawsuit? No. The solution to bad speech is more speech.

Dave

Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by Recent Energy And Environmental News – August 24th 2015 | PA Pundits - International

August 24, 2015, 9:02 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by Barnes

≪ Previous: Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by physicistdave

$

0

0

[…] Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann […]

Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by Barnes

August 24, 2015, 9:03 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by JCH

≪ Previous: Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by Recent Energy And Environmental News – August 24th 2015 | PA Pundits - International

$

0

0

So, jimd, we should believe all the alarmist claims about all kinds of coming catastrophies despite the fact that all predictions have failed to materialize, yet, the predictions of pending doom continue, just like the pastor who predicts a new date for the apocalypse each time the date of his last prediction passes.

Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by JCH

August 24, 2015, 9:03 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by Barnes

$

0

0

Too funny…

+.80C and rising. PDO is positive. August hot as hades so far. SLR rate spiking.

All you have to do to laugh Karl into oblivion is write a freaking scientific paper. Crickets. Tough talking blog posts don’t cut it.

---

Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by Jim D

August 24, 2015, 9:17 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by JCH

$

0

0

AK, there are PoS journals willing to publish “skeptical” papers, and from what we have seen of them, we have not missed much. Rest assured, there is no genius out there trying to get a good idea into publications or being suppressed from getting a video posted on the Web. We’ve seen it all here, and that really is all they’ve got.

Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by Jim D

August 24, 2015, 9:21 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by Horst Graben (@Graben_Horst)

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by Jim D

$

0

0

All I know is that policies can make the difference between 4 C and 2 C increases, and a lot of people prefer the current climate to either of these alternative climates.

Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by Horst Graben (@Graben_Horst)

August 24, 2015, 9:21 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by angech2014

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by Jim D

$

0

0

Steven: It’s not about saying “I don’t Know”, that’s a given in all human endeavor, e.g. we know no one knows. It’s another way of admitting all models wrong, yet some are useful.

The issue is that for most people commentating on granola worming multiverse, *they* cannot leave their ego in the dumpster and therefore be free to really truly operate in a multiple working hypothesis environment.

Oscar Wilde said it best. The core malfunction is pride, vanity is the event horizon.

Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by angech2014

August 24, 2015, 9:25 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by sciguy54

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by Horst Graben (@Graben_Horst)

$

0

0

Jim D | August 24, 2015 at 11:51 pm |
” Both the hockey stick and CRU temperature record were confirmed independently, therefore no cheating, and science moved on.”

Correction The hockey stick has never been confirmed independently.
All so called confirmations were in a very tight circle of Mann supporters and one was a redo by Mann himself.

Put up the names of any 3 support articles and I will track you through the connections to Mann himself. Only 2 degrees of separation exist in all studies.
Not up to speed on CRU temps but you are doubtless wrong since you have linked it to a dodgy statement this statement must be dodgy also.

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by sciguy54

August 24, 2015, 9:32 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by angech2014

$

0

0

Stephen Segrest wrote on August 24, 2015 at 8:43 am:

“For example, we’re to believe that Texas is leading the U.S. in wind energy because of their concerns of CAGW?”

No, they are doing it because it is cost effective for the investors, given that federal policy has distorted the marketplace for the explicit purpose of making investments in wind energy profitable. Of course the investors make money, but the profit margin comes from somewhere else, not from the wind generators.

Warren Buffett: “I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire’s tax rate. For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”

From: http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/06/warren-buffett-i-build-wind-turbines-to-lower-my-corporate-taxes/