Are you the publisher? Claim or contact us about this channel


Embed this content in your HTML

Search

Report adult content:

click to rate:

Account: (login)

More Channels


Showcase


Channel Catalog


older | 1 | .... | 4091 | 4092 | (Page 4093) | 4094 | 4095 | .... | 4134 | newer

    0 0

    Ol’ Jim, dumbing down the debate. That’s what happens when Paul the K shows his sorry face. You could also thrill us with some real cognitive whoppers and share the best of the best Ocasio-Cortez tweets. Talk about whack jobs. Anyone with a modicum of intellectual inquisitiveness can see the gaping holes in the CAGW narrative. They are too obvious to anyone wanting to understand them. But there in lies the problem. There has to be a motivation to understand the holes. One side goes through life searching for the next target of government conquest to absolve themselves of their inherent guilt. If it wasn’t CO2, it would be some other life confirming mission. Ol’ Paul and Ol’ Jim just make it too easy.

    0 0

    Jim, the point is that if you use unsmoothed data, be it daily, or certainly hourly, any suggestion of significant change immediately vanishes in a haze of variation.

    0 0

    Sorry, misplaced above: Jim, the point is that if you use unsmoothed data, be it daily, or certainly hourly, any suggestion of significant change immediately vanishes in a haze of variation.

    0 0

    "Denialism" is a pretty broad brush. By the standards of those who want to paint everyone who disagrees with the scientific/media consensus as evil, Fred Seitz was a denier, yet he noted that CO2 might be a problem https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/seitz.html and reasonably suggested that nuclear energy would be part of the solution-- and Oreskes vigorously attacked that sensible solution (but isn't the planet at stake?) Seitz did not deny effects of CO2; I don't know of any denier who denies that CO2 absorbs infrared. What they deny is that the hysteria over CO2 is justified and there are excellent, rational, and peer-reviewed scientific reasons supporting alternative theories for why the planet is about 1C warmer than it was in 1900-- if we can even depend on the temperature record being accurate enough to say we have a 1C rise. But no, we're supposed to swallow alarmism whole-hog and only then can we enter into the church of believers and turn away from evil. Why do Republicans tend to be more moderate about climate change and not alarmists? Because they're not Democrats, who are a bit soft-in-the-head with the kumbaya that says that industrialists are evil and to be resisted by the virtuous people who are all-too-keen to live in nice houses with nice cars and go to nice museums built by industrialists and go to hospitals that might have been funded by industrialists, not to mention fly off to vacation lands in jets built by big bad companies run by men who have no children or elderly to care for, don't go to ball games or operas or concerts, and never go to church or contribute to their community in any way. Or, in the case of Rockerfeller University and Fred Seitz, accept about 45 million given by oil money to fund scientific research, one of which ended up winning a Nobel Prize. People who disagree with the radical alarmist consensus have been demonized. Think about that. Are all oil executives evil? Do they not have parents, cousins, brothers and sisters, and children that they love and care for? Are the people who work on oil rigs doing evil, or are they hard-working folks helping to supply the country with the energy it demands? No, for those who have swallowed the leftist kumbaya-- and I used to be one-- the only virtuous ones are the ones who like to use everything the industrialists produce but would also like to bite the industrialists' hands. The left is not completely wrong. But, neither is the right. We're all people, first. Good, sensible people can have different views-- it really is as simple as that. Oreskes and company would make alternative views a crime if they could. Dems tend to believe the science? I think Jim D is confusing a biased consensus paradigm with an objective assessment of the evidence. Consensus is not science and never has been, and the notion that consensus = scientific truth is at the core of Oreskes' deception.

    0 0

    "An argument for greater inclusion of machine learning in subseasonal to seasonal forecasts" My solar based forecast had the second half of November 2018 as fairly strong negative AO/NAO, followed by positive/neutral AO/NAO states through December 2018. This can be forecast at any range.

    0 0

    Apparently, the facts presented above are so overwhelming that no one here is prepared to refute them using logic and scientific arguments. The data shows that the normalized autocorrelation of the positive annual rainfall anomalies in Victoria Australia between 1900 and 2013. The autocorrelation confirms that there is a periodicity in the years in which the State of Victoria Australia receives excess rainfall that matches the 18.6-year lunar draconic cycle. Why are people ignoring the evidence that is right in front of their eyes? Am I the only one who seems to have taken the red pill?

    0 0

    The great increase in horse drawn travel that occurred in the 18th Century must have greatly increased the methane emanating from the horse manure. Since methane is a more dangerous greenhouse gas than even the evil CO2, the little ice age was ended. These explanations are always founded in horse manure.

    0 0

    "It doesn't matter how beautiful your data are, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with the model, it's wrong." - IPCC, Jim D, and warmists everywhere (with apologies to Richard Feynman)

    0 0

    <blockquote>These explanations are always founded in horse manure.</blockquote> Good point. The substitution of horses by cars means climate scientists have been forced to rely on more abundant bull manure for their explanations.

    0 0

    The AMO is not going to save the foolish positions of skeptics like Tsonis and his followers. There is not going to be a reversal in the 21st century of climbing global temperatures. The PAWS misled. Then it died several times, including getting hit by lightning, eating its own poison, and then getting run over by a truck. But its memory will live on here at Climate Etc. You all should be looking at the divine wind, the Kimikamikaze. Because it was divine, animal sacrifices and prayer could bring it back. Worked for ancient Japan.

    0 0

    Scientists or not, any emergency would be an economic emergency. I cannot afford to move out of a river flood plan. Which I could argue to be caused by other factors besides climate change. Because I like to buy a new truck every 3 years. How is a climate scientists supposed to advise me about the best solution for me? The best solution might be for me to have more money to be able to adapt. If a government is corrupt in an another land, climate change may be a factor, but one of many making people not have options in the face of change. The real problem is the government, not climate change. Why would a climate scientist have any wisdom in such cases?

    0 0

    Horse manure does not produce an enormous amount of methane. Horses are not ruminants. Ruminants burp methane.

    0 0

    Perhaps Wordpress is cracking down on the mention of "alcohol" this close to New Years.

    0 0

    On Meet The (De)Press(ed) today, there is a large segment on “climate change.” They talked to Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, now Kate Marvel of NASA is on a panel along with ex-FEMA manager, and other alarmists. I don’t need to mention which way the discussion is going. (More hurricanes, wildfires, and extreme weather). We need a JC on the panel, it's all alarmism.

    0 0

    Judith Curry Washington Times article on my new report Sea Level and Climate Change [link] Nice. Readable; and positive. Thank you

    0 0

    RiHo08 - there is no link.

    0 0

    If you want to see "childishness", read Michael Mann, his deluded defenders, Sou at <i>Hot Whopper</i>, Sarah Myhre, so called genius Peter Gleick, Mark Jacobson suing critics for pointing out that he needs 15 times more storage than exists, just about any <i>Rational Wiki</i> entry on climate, the Climate Crocks guy equating climate denialism with racism, ... ad nauseam.

    0 0

    They claimed they had those years ago. One problem, see Gomer Pyle.

    0 0

    I've read one of Mann's books, read some of his papers, and watched him debate Curry. I never found an instance where he wrote or said anything like what Keyes. In fact I'd place Mann well above Curry for professionalism, including the debate where they both appeared.

    0 0

    Jim D: <i>, it is likely that they define catastrophic as the level below which no action is required, </i> You have evidence for that? With and without the use of "CAGW", there are lots of analyses claiming that the opportunity costs of particular projects outweigh their purported/calculated benefits, such as California's Bullet Train.

older | 1 | .... | 4091 | 4092 | (Page 4093) | 4094 | 4095 | .... | 4134 | newer