Heh, you and your hiatus. It’s dawning on a few alarmists that in order to maintain their faith in high sensitivity, they have to argue that we’d be cooling now without anthropogenic CO2. What’s really funny is to watch the ones who so argue without the dawning.
=============
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by kim
↧
↧
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by kim
Houseplants and unhousebroken plants. Anthropogenic CO2 is feeding an extra billion people. Too bad we can’t get much warming from CO2.
===================
↧
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by Vaughan Pratt
Sorry, Tony. Had it occurred to me that what I wrote could somehow be taken negatively by you I wouldn’t have written it.
So is anyone here interested in anything other than disproofs of global warming, great poetry from kim and beth, and the negative in everything else?
↧
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by kim
Avast there rounded filer binned
Watching legends in their own wind.
========================
↧
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by climatereason
Vaughan
Just jo*hing with you, as you well know. (Hope mentioning the J word wont put me in moderation so to be on the safe side have substituted a letter…)
The Saussure family were very clever weren’t they?
PS The Hot chocolate was very overpriced.
tonyb
↧
↧
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by Vaughan Pratt
<i>I think <b>what is left now</b> is to see which direction the climate goes in and try to pinpoint the reason behind that direction.</i>
Reminds me of the 19th century assessment of physics: <b>what is left now</b> in physics is to estimate the physical constants to ever higher precision.
The molecular theory of gases then being promoted by the likes of Maxwell, Reynolds, Boltzmann and Gibbs was by no means universally accepted in the 19th century.
And 18th century physics clung steadfastly to Newton's corpuscular theory of light, which was not displaced by Huygens earlier wave theory until the 19th century.
What will be left in 2100 is the phrase <b>what is left now</b>. Likewise in 2200. Its referent in each case will be very different, as also for 2300.
↧
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by kim
Vaughn, don’t miss your chance
To sign up with Shukla;
Finest creased pants
And boatloads of mooklah.
====================
↧
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by Vaughan Pratt
Kim, Picasso depicted us as variously blue, rose, cubically shaped, and crystalline. You seem to be trying to depict climate scientists, but so far you don’t seem to have found any poetic depiction requiring fewer than ten words.
Tighten up. wannabe poet.
↧
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by Vaughan Pratt
<i>The Saussure family were very clever weren’t they?</i>
Most impressive. Prompts one to ask about Horace's ancestors.
<i>PS The Hot chocolate was very overpriced.</i>
Say what?
↧
↧
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by Vaughan Pratt
@kim: don’t miss your chance To sign up with Shukla; Finest creased pants And boatloads of mooklah.
Even in the 20th century blogs with adult supervision were in short supply. It hasn’t gotten any better since. Kids learn by testing how far they can push adults.
↧
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by Punksta
Quoting Ioannides
the greater the financial and other interests and prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true
What then are the chances of this government-funded alarmist Consensus that so favours government expansion, being true ?
“Very unlikely”, in the official terminology (<10%).
And considering the widespread contempt for the scientific method revealed by the deafening silence and official coverups following Climategate, and general ostracism of dissenters, maybe even "Exceptionally unlikely" (<1%).
↧
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by beththeserf
‘Guv-uh-mint funded conn-sen-suss favouring guv-uh-mint
expansion?’ Correction -not guv-uh-mint but public funded,
however unwittingly or unwillingly. Serf’s up!
https://beththeserf.wordpress.com/
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Jim D
The ICN series hasn’t reached the part about the transition to naysayer thinktanks yet, but I think Exxon was a pioneer in their industry in setting those up.
↧
↧
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by Vaughan Pratt
In that case I have no idea what comment you’re referring to, since I haven’t written anything bearing on either specific countries or negative impact on humans.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by justinwonder
FUBAR. We’ll have to keep our heads if we want to solve this problem.
↧
Comment on Carbon mandate: an account of collusion, cutting corners and costing Americans billions by Danny Thomas
JimD,
You’re gonna have to provide sources.
EPA (which is what Dr. C’s statement was based) says reduce by 30% by 2050:
UNFCCC is a 2025 plan, but not part of what is seen as an EPA commitment: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/03/31/fact-sheet-us-reports-its-2025-emissions-target-unfccc
And hope, but no plan (needs congressional action) for 80% by 2050.
“While ultimately we believe that bipartisan Congressional action is vital to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% of 1990 levels by 2050, we applaud the Obama Administration for this monumental first step.”
http://fcnl.org/issues/energy/EPA_carbon_rule_101/
Are you possibly providing Jim D’s ‘wishful thinking’?
Looks to me like Dr. C and Cato are right on target with this one, Mr. D.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by mosomoso
So a junta pope who advanced his career while conservative Archbishop Romero lost his life to a right-wing junta, along with a community organiser POTUS who was one of the guys pressing for unsustainable loans before GFC, have opinions on how I should live now and what life will be like for later generations?
Let’s start with no more junta popes or community organiser presidents.
↧
↧
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by JCH
I grew up in the 6th coldest city in the USA. I have no fear of cooling. Lol. My mother made a rule, no rides to school until it got to 15 below zero. And then the Edsel would never start, so we walked anyway.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Peter Lang
I strongly disagree with Nordhaus that the bureaucratically invented and imposed “market mechanisms” – like carbon pricing – are in fact real market solutions. And certainly not the least cost way to reduce global GHG emisisons.
However, I do believe China is being very smart. they see the west has adopeted a new religion – the eco religion- it is swallowing us, and they are going to sell us all the goodies we think we need. Irt will also make cheap nuclear power and power the developing world. The USA is leading the dumb western world into economic oblivion.
The best solution is explained in my last section “a better way” here: http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/10/27/cross-post-peter-lang-why-the-world-will-not-agree-to-pricing-carbon-ii/
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by john321s
The contention that “the trends of pristine stations match the trends of all the bad stations” is sheer rubbish. Look at the trend of the discrepancy between urban and neighboring pristine small-town stations in the USA.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
