Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by jim2

September 12, 2015, 9:17 am

≫ Next: Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by jim2

≪ Previous: Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by David Springer

$

0

0

Most people don’t give a flip about global warming. From the article:
…
Last modified: 08/06/2015 07:38 am

President Obama recently told the graduating class of the U.S. Coast Guard Academy that denying global warming undermines U.S. national security Concern about global warming is up from recent months, but voters still aren’t totally convinced that humans are to blame.

Sixty-five percent (65%) of Likely U.S. Voters view global warming as at least a somewhat serious problem, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. That’s up from 59% last December and is the highest level of concern over the past year. Thirty-one percent (31%) don’t consider global warming a serious problem. These findings include 38% who say global warming is a Very Serious problem and 15% who say it’s Not At All Serious. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
…
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/content/search?SearchText=climate

---

Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by jim2

September 12, 2015, 9:39 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Week in review – energy and policy edition | Enjeux énergies et environnement

≪ Previous: Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by jim2

$

0

0

Where can you find any truly scientific information about global warming? It’s all just a guess gussied up to look like it might be scientific.

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Week in review – energy and policy edition | Enjeux énergies et environnement

September 13, 2015, 7:53 am

≫ Next: Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by Willard

≪ Previous: Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by jim2

$

0

0

[…] http://judithcurry.com/2015/09/13/week-in-review-energy-and-policy-edition-12/ […]

Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by Willard

September 13, 2015, 8:02 am

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

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Week in review – energy and policy edition | Enjeux énergies et environnement

$

0

0

> Hume never said philosophy is BS.

Indeed, he rather says, among other things, that it (i.e. metaphysics) comes from “the fruitless efforts of human vanity”:

[T]his obscurity in the profound and abstract philosophy, is objected to, not only as painful and fatiguing, but as the inevitable source of uncertainty and error. Here indeed lies the justest and most plausible objection against a considerable part of metaphysics, that they are not properly a science; but arise either from the fruitless efforts of human vanity, which would penetrate into subjects utterly inaccessible to the understanding, or from the craft of popular superstitions, which, being unable to defend themselves on fair ground, raise these intangling brambles to cover and protect their weakness. Chaced from the open country, these robbers fly into the forest, and lie in wait to break in upon every unguarded avenue of the mind, and overwhelm it with religious fears and prejudices. The stoutest antagonist, if he remit his watch a moment, is oppressed. And many, through cowardice and folly, open the gates to the enemies, and willingly receive them with reverence and submission, as their legal sovereigns.

http://www.davidhume.org/texts/ehu.html

This passage might suffice to show that it would be quite fair to say that Hume said that the philosophy of his time was mostly BS, if the word “to say” can refer to the content of the words said, and not only the to the words.

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

September 13, 2015, 8:04 am

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

≪ Previous: Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by Willard

$

0

0

Impeaching McCarthy would be interesting. As I vaguely recall, the Democratic House did something like this during the Reagan admin.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by AK

September 13, 2015, 8:05 am

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

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

$

0

0

'We've got to keep those horrible people with their selfish “<i>availability cascades</i>” from influencing Congress or the courts so we can influence Congress and the courts with <b>our</b> selfish “<i>availability cascades</i>”'

Comment on Week in review – science edition by ordvic

September 13, 2015, 8:07 am

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

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

$

0

0

As far as public policy goes the skeptics lost any ‘debate’ a long time ago. The other thing is is that skeptics are all over the map, have no real strategy, and have no credibility. The only thing that keeps policy in check is that there is no credible energy alternatives being presented and just saying no to fossil fuels has lead to a strain on energy resources that will eventually lead to a breaking point. Natural gas has filled the gap for coal but that wont be a satisfactory solution. Eventually oil prices will go up again and Politians will be blaming big oil for price gouging just like they always have. Until people and politians realize the only true solution, at least in the short term, is nuclear, as Hansen came to find out, public policy will just be more feel good wastes of money. Now if you believe that CO2 is not a problem and that fossil fuel will last forever I suppose you can laugh at perceived ignorant policy and fume over wasted money. The next election will probably determine which path we go down.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Ian Wilson

September 13, 2015, 8:10 am

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

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

$

0

0

Yes – while WHUT work is a great addition to the existing knowledge (and so should not be downplayed in any way) it is really just confirming much the work that has already been done by N. Sidorenkov (et al.), Roger Tallbloke, Paul Vaughan, Claire Periguad (et al.) and myself [amongst others].

Nikolay Sidorenkov has been pointing this result out for decades and I have alluded to it on multiple occasions over the last five years:

N. Sidorenkov, Astronomy Reports, Vol. 44, No. 6, 2000, pp 414 – 419, translated from Astronomischeskii Zhurnal, Vol. 77, No. 6, 2000, pp 474 – 480

2013: http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/linking-orbital-configuration-of.html

2010: http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2010/03/why-do-long-term-periodicities-in-enso.html

and Rog Tallbloke has his own take on this important topic.

I will be citing Paul Pukite’s work in my next paper coming out in early 2016:

“Evidence that the Lunar Tides Trigger El Nino Events
Via Pacific-Penetrating Madden Julian Oscillation.”

---

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

September 13, 2015, 8:12 am

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

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

$

0

0

“Middle East Faces Water Shortages for the Next 25 Years [link] …”

Well blow me down! the majority of the highly water stressed regions in the study, are those where precipitation is less during *reduced* forcing of the climate.
http://www.wri.org/blog/2015/08/ranking-world%E2%80%99s-most-water-stressed-countries-2040

Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH

September 13, 2015, 8:15 am

≫ Next: Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by Willard

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

$

0

0

+1, a real one.

Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by Willard

September 13, 2015, 8:15 am

≫ Next: Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by David Springer

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

$

0

0

> Popper did not use those terms [falsifiability, Modus Ponens, and Modus Tollens].

He actually did, e.g. in section 6 of chapter 1:

My proposal is based upon an asymmetry between verifiability and falsifiability; an asymmetry which results from the logical form of universal statements.* For these are never derivable from singular statements, but can be contradicted by singular statements. Consequently it is possible by means of purely deductive inferences (with the help of the modus tollens of classical logic) to argue from the truth of singular statements to the falsity of universal statements. Such an argument to the falsity of universal statements is the only strictly deductive kind of inference that proceeds, as it were, in the ‘inductive direction’; that is, from singular to universal statements.

http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/popper-logic-scientific-discovery.pdf

There are seven other occurences of “modus tollens” in LSD.

***

Also note the title of the 1956 Preface, Science Fiction.

Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by David Springer

September 13, 2015, 8:16 am

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

≪ Previous: Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by Willard

$

0

0

Pieter – you seem to be saying that the judiciary branch of government can order the legislative branch to enact a law. It might work that way in Holland but that’s not how it works in the U.S. In the U.S. the judiciary may nullify a law but it cannot craft new laws. Likewise the legislative branch cannot order the court to reach a certain verdict. This is referred to as “separation of powers” and/or “checks and balances” which prevent any one branch of government from becoming too powerful. Police powers are granted to a third branch, the executive, which has discretion over which laws it chooses to enforce which is yet another of the checks and balances.

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

September 13, 2015, 8:17 am

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

≪ Previous: Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by David Springer

$

0

0

“Extreme Weather and Food Shocks [link]”
Quote:
“In 2012, the worst drought to hit the U.S. Midwest in half a century sent international maize and soybean prices to record levels.”

Deep negative North Atlantic Oscillation states through the Summer months, the UK gets cool and wet under that regime. The majority of Summers through the next ten years will be much like that, some worse.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by AK

September 13, 2015, 8:29 am

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

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

$

0

0

Go on living in you fantasy world.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by ordvic

September 13, 2015, 8:31 am

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

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

$

0

0

AK, care to elaborate? :-)

---

Comment on Week in review – science edition by David Wojick

September 13, 2015, 8:39 am

≫ Next: Comment on Has the AMO flipped to the cool phase? by sunshinehours1

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

$

0

0

Given that the skeptics control both houses of Congress, how is that a loss?

Comment on Has the AMO flipped to the cool phase? by sunshinehours1

September 13, 2015, 8:41 am

≫ Next: Comment on Has the AMO flipped to the cool phase? by sunshinehours1

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

$

0

0

Comment on Has the AMO flipped to the cool phase? by sunshinehours1

September 13, 2015, 8:42 am

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

≪ Previous: Comment on Has the AMO flipped to the cool phase? by sunshinehours1

$

0

0

So did the 10 years around 1940/45.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by ordvic

September 13, 2015, 8:50 am

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

≪ Previous: Comment on Has the AMO flipped to the cool phase? by sunshinehours1

$

0

0

I was talking about public perception where AGW has steadily gained ground. As far as policy, Obama has effectively circumvented congress at least as far as coal is concerned.

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

September 13, 2015, 8:52 am

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

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

$

0

0

“Most of the authors earned their doctoral degrees in the United States or United Kingdom, and many worked in the same institutions, including the World Bank and the University of California–Berkeley.” Wow an inbred group closed off to other ideas. Going outside the inbred group would make the IPCC harder to write. (Because there would be no consensus.) I am shocked, I tell you, shocked!