I think congress just read Mark Steyn’s book about Mann.
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by fulltimetumbleweed/tumbleweedstumbling
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jim2
From the article:
…
Detailed understanding about what causes CO2 emissions to rise or fall in individual countries is complex. This post does not provide a unique and quantitative answer, but it does provide many pointers.
Claims made about CO2 abatement by renewables advocates are likely overstated because they ignore system effects such as provision of load balancing services. The amount of CO2 abated by wind power in a country like the UK is also inconsequential in the bigger picture.
The countries that have cut their emissions the most since 2008 are those stuck in recession. The strong economies have barely cut their emissions at all. Economic growth is likely the main driver in Europe that determines whether or not emissions will rise or fall.
Improved energy efficiency is not expected to reduce emissions. On the contrary, efficiency is good for economic growth. Therefore, improved energy efficiency may actually cause emissions to rise and not to fall. Wind and solar are intrinsically inefficient. The negative impact this may have on economic growth may actually result in a greater fall in emissions than can be attributed to substitution of fossil fuels.
…
http://euanmearns.com/co2-emissions-reduction-renewables-and-recession/#more-9962
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Ragnaar
Exxon and Chevron are partially commodity/hard asset plays. Owning oil and gas in the ground is owning a hard asset which can be an inflation hedge. It also hoped to have value in extremely distressed times same as with real estate. But there are other aspects of these stocks. A lot of what they do is transportation and exploration. They supply necessities same as grocery stores whose products are linked all the way back to farms. We could say they are farming energy and moving it towards the final consumers. Their good dividend yields position the stocks as somewhat steady profit makers. I wondered of the time frame of the study. From another study from around early 2013:
http://www.energytomorrow.org/blog/2013/january/~/media/EnergyTomorrow/blog/earningspng.ashx
The 10 year time frame lessens the chance of a cherry picked time frame.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jim2
Another twist in what may become a Trump juggernaut. I’d like to see someone ‘splain the black response, Ricky. From the article:
…
For all the talk about Donald Trump allegedly driving minorities away from the Republican Party, could he actually bring people in?
trumpA SurveyUSA poll released Friday shows in a hypothetical matchup with Hillary Clinton, Trump is ahead 45% to 40%.
But digging into the racial breakdown of the respondents is revealing. For example, the poll finds 25% of black respondents say they would vote for Trump over Clinton.
How impressive is that? Let’s look at the last several presidential results for Republicans.
When President Obama was running for re-election, despite a sputtering economy that was impacting blacks the worst, Mitt Romney was able to only muster 6% of the black vote, according to the Roper Center at the University of Connecticut.
…
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jim2
My guess is that blacks’ perception might be that illegal immigrants are taking jobs they should be getting.
↧
↧
Comment on Ins and outs of the ivory tower by Danny Thomas
Joseph,
That’s certainly your choice, but I’m not wired that way. I question, offer supposition (helps me think things through), what/if scenarios. I’m not much of a sheeple, I guess. Too much life experience has taught me that that’s not the best approach for me. I don’t trust mouthpieces. C’est la vie!
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by jim2
From the article:
…
Climate change is wreaking havoc on the Arctic faster than anywhere else on earth, melting permafrost, scrambling wildlife, releasing carbon into the atmosphere, and creating the perfect conditions for some of the most devastating forest fires parts of the region have ever seen. But the breadth and depth of this havoc is something that scientists still don’t completely understand.
With that in mind, NASA is kicking off a decade-long effort to figure out just how bad things in northern US and Canada really are—and how much worse things might get in years to come.
Called the Arctic Boreal Vulnerability Experiment, or ABoVE for short, the large-scale study will combine on-the-ground field studies as well as data from remote sensors—such as satellites and two season of “intensive airborne surveys”—to improve how scientists analyze and model the effects of climate change on the region.
…
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-ten-year-mission-to-study-all-the-ways-the-arctic-is-doomed
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by jim2
From the article:
…
A Major Surge in Atmospheric Warming Is Probably Coming in the Next Five Years
…
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/we-may-see-a-supercharged-surge-in-warming?trk_source=recommended
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH
Every time I see the AMO cited in one of these articles I cringe. The AMO can’t mask anything. It’s a meek little pretender ocean cycle.
The PDO, on the other hand, is the beast.
↧
↧
Comment on Ins and outs of the ivory tower by Vaughan Pratt
@mwg: It is important to note that pressures in various forms also may go the other way—-from the scientists directed at the policy makers.
Given that the UN set up the IPCC in 1988, the pressure you’re claiming from scientists would need to be earlier. Can you point to specific examples of such pressure? (I’m not saying there was none, I’m merely asking what there was at the time.)
I[t] also would be a good idea to revisit the role of the IPCC.
Yes, that was my question to you, which instead of answering you’ve simply re-asked. I was hoping for something more constructive.
Please say what you think the UN could or should have done in 1988 that would have addressed its concern about future climate in a better way than convoking the IPCC?
Please.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Editor of the Fabius Maximus website
Ragnar,
Stocks in the oil and gas sector trade almost entirely on the basis of oil and gas prices, which account for most of the variation in their profits.
The study covered 2004-2014, which was almost exactly the bull phase of the petroleum price cycle.
No, ten years does not prevent cherry picking. Petroleum cycles are decades long due to long time required for investment in new fields to produce new supply, and for long lag between when investment drops and eventually production falls.
↧
Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by Obama Is Ignoring The Science On Global Warming | Lexington Libertarian
[…] and participant in the International Panel on Climate Change and National Academy of Sciences, writes that when politicians talk about an undeniable climate “consensus” they are brushing over […]
↧
Comment on Ins and outs of the ivory tower by Vaughan Pratt
@ape: I don’t think we will ever agree on everything
Aren’t you being a little pessimistic there, ape? After all, what’s to disagree on besides ideology?
If either of us is an ideologue in any respect, couldn’t the other point out exactly where our ideology is clouding our understanding of the current situation with regard to climate?
I understood you to say “only” climate scientists less credentialed than Mr Gore shared his dire view, which was the sweeping misstatement I was referring to.
Gore’s “dire view” is that if the Greenland ice sheet and half Antarctica melts, the sea will inundate Central Park in NYC, or at least Ground Zero.
This puts me in mind of the following exchange.
Professor Q: We expect that in 1.7 billion years the Sun will supernova and wipe out all life on Earth.
Audience member: Oh no, that’s terrible!
Professor Q: Why the concern? 1.7 billion years is far into the future.
Audience member: Oh, sorry, I thought you said 1.7 million years.
Seems to me we shouldn’t be forecasting the impact on Central Park before we see some impact on Battery Park.
Main point is that I’m all for understanding why you would think it’s inevitable that we’ll never agree on everything, as least as it bears on climate. (We may well not agree on whether to eat fish on Friday, but that’s not so obviously relevant to Climate Etc.)
↧
↧
Comment on Ins and outs of the ivory tower by beththeserf
Say, Joseph, everyone speculates, can’t help it. No such
thing as passive ‘bucket theory ‘ learning, it’s searchlight
learning all the way down … Is this good to eat? Yes or
no? Can I cross here? Yes or no? Who is this coming
out of the darkness? Friend or foe? bts
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Faustino aka Genghis Cunn
Posner refers to covert manipulation by government, or “libertarian paternalism” – leading the populace to a particular understanding, (e.g. that AGW is happening, will be seriously harmful, and can be stopped by government intervention) by artful, deceitful and manipulative means, rather than presenting information in such a way that each individual can determine for themselves what they consider to be the case. He concludes that:
“The government should feel free to use manipulation as long as the manipulative act advances aggregate welfare or achieves other publicly endorsed goals, whatever they might be. The analogous claim about coercion — that the government should use coercion to advance public goals but only for such purpose — is hardly controversial, and there does not seem to be anything different about manipulation, as long as the policy of manipulation is made clear and is open to public debate.
“I believe that criticisms of libertarian paternalism is partly based on this misunderstanding that manipulation is worse than, or relevantly different from, coercion. It’s not. I think that the main source of uneasiness about libertarian paternalism is that it is not actually libertarian; it is just paternalism.”
Having now read the paper, I stand my by assessment that use by government of such techniques and tactics is neither moral nor appropriate, and should not be countenanced either within government or without.
↧
Comment on Ins and outs of the ivory tower by Faustino aka Genghis Cunn
Is btw related to bts?
↧
Comment on Ins and outs of the ivory tower by Vaughan Pratt
@ape: if I were an academic -I think I’d want my students to have the tools to surpass me.
Fully agree. Famous academics at the pinnacle of their career are seriously handicapped in that respect. Where should they look for their superiors?
What would Newton do?
What would Jesus do?
What would Muhammad do?
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jeez
Boy you guys are missing the obvious racial politics. Romney only got 6% because a liberal black man was his opponent. In the last 40 years the black vote has drifted between 85 and 90% Democrat in national elections. The last two elections were outliers, due to straight up identity politics.
Make the Republican candidate Ben Carson and you’ll get above 25% of the black vote, Perhaps even as high as 50%, especially against the wilting old white man or woman the Democrats will likely end up nominating.
Identity politics. It’s what’s for dinner.
↧
Comment on Ins and outs of the ivory tower by beththeserf
Mebbe, Faustino. Heh, are you relater ter the Cunningham’s
of Glencairn?
↧
Comment on Ins and outs of the ivory tower by Faustino aka Genghis Cunn
Beth, very likely, my paternal grandfather’s family were from that area, then he, or perhaps he and his parents, moved across the border to Northumberland, where he met my grandmother. Because my father took off in 1944, I know very little of his family.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
