What do the terms “draconian market forces”, “2020”, “2035” refer to? Give me a break.
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Stephen Segrest
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by mwgrant
For sure.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by matthewrmarler
Jim D: While Inhofe may appear an anachronism today, many take his view on that side, and it is a continuation of the same to him.
Maybe yes, maybe no. Either way, the proponents of the “alarmist” view of AGW (“the time for debate is over”, etc) have a belief that surpasses what can be supported by the evidence.
That reminds me, do you still maintain that 50-100 years is the proper time frame for divesting from fossil fuels? I recall that you answered sort of affirmatively when I asked you before.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by matthewrmarler
PA: I should get credit for being ahead of them.
Indeed. I regularly write to my Congressman, attempting to persuade him to resist importunings of the AGW true believers. More or less along the lines of what I write here. Before long, I shall alert him (well, his letter openers and staff) of the “peculiar sort of science” paper by Spencer Weart, which ought to be required reading for anyone who supports or opposes the recommendations of the IPCC. One must be aware that they are flooded with information.
Should Inhof begin to waver, I’d write to him as well. I think my two Senators are already lost to “the dark side”, but I have written to them also.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by matthewrmarler
Jim D: <i>As they say, it was the Church that repressed the scientists in the time of Galileo. </i>
Another of the ironies is that the legion of government-funded and government-employed advocates of the alarmist extreme of AGW think of themselves as Galileo, while acting as though they are the Church.
↧
↧
Comment on Kiribati crisis: the blame game by popesclimatetheory
People in Poverty need low cost abundant power.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by matthewrmarler
Jim D: <i>saying yes it is warming maybe it is good after all </i>
What is the best interpretation of the evidence of CO2-induced warming to date? Has anything gotten worse to offset the increase in the net primary productivity of forests and savannas?
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by kim
In paleontology, warming always benefits the biome, and the upper limit of that benefit has never been shown. On the other hand, cooling is always immediately detrimental.
The 2 degrees C target is arbitrary and fantastical. Even further warming will be beneficial, not that we’ll get it.
===========
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by Simon Watkins
What I don’t quite follow is the logic that flows from “after 40 years of research we have determined what has caused the slight warming over the last 65 years that has had so little consequence” to “now you must obey our policy diktats for the catastrophe we assure will ensue over the next 85 years”.
As always it’s the erroneous “C” that they attempt to make a prefix of the “A” and that has very little to do with hard or soft science that is the real issue.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by richardswarthout
David
IMO people (all people, regardless of wealth, intellect, position, and profession) form opinions largely from biases. So, to understand why politicians do what they do one must first understand how bias is formed. And, it appears to me, that bias is formed by the social experiences of individuals; related to family, community, schools, work environment, etc. Therefor it is not unexpected a politician from Europe would have biases different from you or I. Underlying all this are the distinctly different cultures of people around the world; the American culture is much different than the European culture.
Richard
↧
Comment on Kiribati crisis: the blame game by Editor of the Fabius Maximus website
ClimtaeReason, thanks for that useful link.
Looking to the future, the current UN forecasts assume that the population in Africa will continue to skyrocket so that Africa’s will reach the same population density as China has today. That’s a probabilistic exercise only. They don’t attempt to estimate the odds that Africa will be capable of supporting such high density — either physically or socially. Details here:
http://fabiusmaximus.com/2015/08/18/un-world-population-forecast-88453/
These high estimates are an essential component in the severe climate change forecasts sold as “business as usual” outcomes, such as RCP8.5.
↧
Comment on Kiribati crisis: the blame game by justinwonder
Excellent post by Willis…very interesting !
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by PA
Well, the biggest problem is that it is crazy to go back to the preindustrial level.
Tossing 42% of our food into the sewer for no good reason is stupid.
The “adjustment time” is pretty short – less than 18 years.
The important thing is to have a plan in place to subsidize fossil fuel production so we maintain a steady 6 GT/Y of emissions to keep the CO2 level at 400 PPM.
↧
↧
Comment on Kiribati crisis: the blame game by aaron
Tony,
We can use a further example with Syria who in the 1960’s had a population of some 5 million and when the recent mass migration started was up to some 23 Million.
Provides some perspective on the “global warming caused extreme, unprecedented drought that lead to civil unrest, war, and current east crisis and refugee problem” meme popular with some frequent commenters. I wonder how much global warming and CO2 may have actually prevented the drought, and water stress in general, from being worse.
↧
Comment on Kiribati crisis: the blame game by rebelronin
pacific islands are beautiful
sandy beaches, blue lagoon
think Gilligan
raising fears that they may disappear makes perfect theater
‘climate change’ is the great manipulative propaganda phrase of all time
↧
Comment on Kiribati crisis: the blame game by ticketstopper
Mr. Eschenbach has written quite a few articles – which seem vindicated by the above.
The key missing difference thus far: Willis also noted that the islands rest on a lens of fresh water arising from rainfall filtered through the island itself, and that increasing populations are draining this lens faster than it is replaced, thus causing island level fall (as opposed to sea level rise).
Still, I doubt we’ll see any of the chest beating furor over this effective retraction of the “sea level rise drowning islands” meme anytime soon.
That’s the Way of the Bullhorn: bullshit 2 steps forward, factual article one step back.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by David Wojick
Richard, why do you call these biases, rather than beliefs? The term bias implies faulty reasoning, but there is no evidence of this. Different people just think differently.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by David Wojick
Nicely put.
↧
Comment on Kiribati crisis: the blame game by ristvan
That level of education and production is unlikely for island nations like Kiribati or Vanuatu. The main ‘industry’ is tourism. Most of the population survives on subsistence level farming and fishing. Hence the egregious overfishing with overpopulation.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by James Thompson
mattthew asks “Has anything gotten worse to offset the increase in the net primary productivity of forests and savannas?”
Fires, for one thing. Higher temps = worse fires. It’s not too mysterious.
There are severe droughts throughout the world now, in South America, Central America, etc. Perhaps you’re unaware of them?
You do know that a huge number of Syrians migrated to the cities due to severe drought, which was one factor in the destabilization there?
You know, with warmer ocean temps, there’s larger storms, like Patricia. Again, it isn’t rocket science.
What I suggest is you actually seek out some news, rather than just reading ‘skeptic’ sites, esp ones that focus more on sociology than actual events occurring in the world right now.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
