Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

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

0
0

Yup, it should be a rule. Maybe a blinking light on the necktie. I’m with Big Pharm, I give to the GOP. Im with Oil, we are friends of the GOP. I’m with Wall Street … we give equally to both. I’m with the Steel Union and Auto we give to Dems and on and on and on.

The turn of the phrase and perhaps one of the best marketing shifts of the past 10 years is the creep of NGOs into the game. How brilliant was it to paint yourself as a grass roots group other the normal red flag phrase of special interest ? They moved fast and struck quick.

Let’s take this one …
http://earthjustice.org/the-wild/arctic#

Now why is it “OK” for a special interest group to be molding and executing public policy ?


Comment on Accountability for Climate Change Damages: Is Fossil Fuel Like Tobacco? by popesclimatetheory

0
0

We must get rid of water and carbon dioxide, they are bad. They cause dangerous warming.

We can get rid of them and we might have less manmade warming, but we will die. Oops, we need both of them just to stay alive.

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

Comment on Hiatus controversy: show me the data by opluso

0
0

dikranmarsupial

I don’t think that is true, I would have thought that if this uncertainty were taken into account in computing the p-value it would make it more difficult to get a low p-value (as there is more noise/uncertainty, so H0 can “explain” a wider range of observations).

As I’ve asked a few other times with no responses on this blog, should it make any difference if the researcher decides to use p<0.1 instead of p<0.05 ?

Should it make any difference when that decision is actually made?

You have taken Prof. Curry to task for her statements regarding one possible null hypotheses relating to the "hiatus". Hopefully you will continue to build upon these exchanges in the future.

In the meantime, it would be helpful to hear your opinions concerning the fact that the Karl, et al., hiatus-killing paper did not achieve p<0.05 (and did not achieve p<0.1 for land or ocean for the years 1998-2012).

From Karl, et al., at page 2:

It is also noteworthy that the new global trends are sta-tistically significant and positive at the 0.10 significance level for 1998–2012 (Fig. 1 and table S1) using the approach described in (25) for determining trend uncertainty. In contrast, IPCC (1), which also utilized the approach in (25), reported no statistically significant trends for 1998-2012 in any of the three primary global surface temperature datasets. Moreover, for 1998–2014, our new global trend is 0.106± 0.058°C dec−1, and for 2000–2014 it is 0.116± 0.067°C dec−1 (see table S1 for details). This is similar to the warming of the last half of the 20th century (Fig. 1). A more comprehensive approach for determining the 0.10 significance level (see supplement) that also accounts for the impact of annual errors of estimate on the trend, also shows that the 1998–2014 and 2000–2014 trends (but not 1998–2012) were positive at the 0.10 significance level.

Comment on Accountability for Climate Change Damages: Is Fossil Fuel Like Tobacco? by PA

0
0

Congress can remove standing or deny jurisdiction on subjects and probably should.

Hopefully the next president will be sensible and get all GHGs removed from EPA jurisdiction by law.

The laws that let ecologically fact-challenged organizations like the Sierra milk money from the government for fees and costs by “friendly suing” them should be revoked or sunsetted. I don’t want my tax dollars wasted in this way funding people with narcissistic, self-centered agendas.

Comment on Accountability for Climate Change Damages: Is Fossil Fuel Like Tobacco? by gymnosperm

0
0

Yes, we should. Not that they will not be by far net CO2 producers by far over their lives. Anyone paying attention realizes CO2 is not the problem. The problem is getting enough protein to their brains that obviously and fatuously incorrect vegetative notions never arise to plague science again.

Comment on Accountability for Climate Change Damages: Is Fossil Fuel Like Tobacco? by Knute

0
0

Roger

I read this years ago and said to myself … they’ll get around to it. They’ll develop that talking points top ten list. Maybe even a repository for searchable cites and arguments. Hasn’t really happened though. I liked your summation comment at the end. It’s still true.

“contrarians aren’t interested in playing up to an audience—they are focused almost entirely on mocking and scoring points against the enemy.”

Comment on Lukewarming by Faustino aka Genghis Cunn

0
0

PS: large-scale surveys of views on 16 issues relating to well-being of those in developing countries all placed global warming/climate change last.


Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Faustino aka Genghis Cunn

0
0

Knute, in Australia a vast amount of campaigning funds and campaign material comes from wealthy trade unions and the left-wing campaigning group Get-Up!, who are outside the electoral spending limits imposed on political parties. Get-Up! still runs Kevin Rudd’s absurd line that “Climate change is the great moral issue of our time.” So great that Rudd dropped his “signature” Carbon Tax when in a funk.

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

0
0

Knute

Electric rate increases due to green policies will be very difficult for you to ferret out, and intentionally so.

Lots of data from the UK here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/electricity-statistics

There are studies of relative cost to generate power, assuming a new plant is built today:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/223940/DECC_Electricity_Generation_Costs_for_publication_-_24_07_13.pdf

Be aware that the cost of gas turbines shown there are inflated almost 30% with a “cost of carbon” added to the top. OCGT capital costs are multiplied to reflect projected low utilization rates. This cost should be allocated to the intermediate renewables instead. Also the fraction associated with fuel cost is overstated in the current energy marketplace.

But the cost to generate is just the beginning for consumers. The entire grid will require upgrading to allow for load leveling, transfers, storage, etc as ever-increasing quantities of intermittent power come online. This all costs money and adds uncertainty, which leads to additional investments by utilities and consumers to reduce risk in the face of uncertainty.

Comment on Lukewarming by beththeserf

Comment on Accountability for Climate Change Damages: Is Fossil Fuel Like Tobacco? by Geoff Sherrington

0
0

Lucas Burgkamp,
Thank you for the summary.
You note that “the chief causal agent in the cause of climate-related damage is an ubiquitous, natural gas called carbon dioxide, also known as the ‘gas of life.’ ”
I did not know that Exxon-Mobil or any similar resources company sold or sells carbon dioxide to anyone. I think that they do not. So, why are they implicated?
Those who produce carbon dioxide might wish to consider their (guilty??)contributions. Unfortunately, all humans produce an excess of carbon dioxide. If the quantum is not a factor, each person seems to have more culpability (in the loopy way of thinking of the accusers) than the said resources corporations.

Comment on Accountability for Climate Change Damages: Is Fossil Fuel Like Tobacco? by Stanton Brown

0
0

The tobacco victory was a scam. The companies agreed to huge taxes on the poor people who smoke in order to stay in business. The whole point was to provide massive govt revenues on the back of the poor. This is why the new electronic cigarettes are being shut down by regulators. They are a threat to a huge revenue stream.

Comment on Accountability for Climate Change Damages: Is Fossil Fuel Like Tobacco? by Stanton Brown

0
0

As much chance of recovery as all the obese people who relied on the clearly fraudulent nutrition advice of the government over the last half century.

Zilch.

Or those in Colorado damaged by the extraordinary negligence of the EPA in poisoning the river. Or the millions in the Midwest who were flooded by the intentional actions of the Corps of Engineers.

Comment on Hiatus controversy: show me the data by JCH


Comment on Accountability for Climate Change Damages: Is Fossil Fuel Like Tobacco? by JCH

0
0

If genetics caused genetic diseases, we would all have genetic diseases.And we do. So they’re right!

Comment on Hiatus controversy: show me the data by agnostic2015

0
0

Because the most recent period is the one for which we have the best data, and the greatest increase in anthro GHG. The recent hiatus is important because it tests the hypotheses that most of the warming since the industrial revolution is manmade.

That isn’t to say previous hiatus’s aren’t interesting as well.

Comment on Hiatus controversy: show me the data by agnostic2015

0
0

Hi Dr Pielke,

Always great to see you commenting here. However I don’t quite see your point. Obviously the ECMWF is not going to be independent of the surface temperature since it is a re analysis of all the various measuring methods. That’s what it’s for isn’t it?

Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by Climatism

0
0
Reblogged this on <a href="https://climatism.wordpress.com/2015/11/10/jc-op-ed-the-politics-surrounding-global-temperature-data/" rel="nofollow">Climatism</a> and commented: Excerpt from JC Refections : I’ve heard enough behind the scenes (including discussions with NOAA employees) that I am siding with Rep. Smith on this one. The politicization of climate science has gotten extreme. I don’t know where to start in trying to ameliorate this situation, but Congressional oversight and investigation into what is going on in government labs does not seem inappropriate under these circumstances. It’s a sad state of affairs that climate science has come to this.

Comment on Hiatus controversy: show me the data by Jim D

0
0

The email thing has quieted down, and the “pause” is now over, so maybe finally Smith is moving on, or perhaps he is off in search of a clue. It is a pity he did not go to his NOAA briefing because he could have asked some questions there, but clearly questions aren’t his priority at this point.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images