Skiphil claims to have “played a notable prank on one of the 19 people who is now a member of President Obama’s PCAST.”
LOL … “No, no!, no!! … I am SparCAGWgus!!! Let the wrath of demagogic astroturfers descend solely upon *ME*!!!
Comment on U.S. climate policy discussion thread by A fan of *MORE* discourse
![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\dsplaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdsplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=bbffbb&fg=0077ff&s=1 "\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\dsplaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}")
↧
↧
Comment on U.S. climate policy discussion thread by Skiphil
Fan, ??
What does not parse is that your imagination, insight, and judgment are so frequently so limited.
It is unfortunate, Fan, that you so often prefer malice to “banter” but if you think about the distinction between banter and insult, you might greatly improve the quality of your comments here.
Whatever the “Spartacus” reference is supposed to be about, I was merely offering a little aside recollection that amused me, an eminent person who was once in the middle of an elaborate student prank. I’m sorry that I don’t care to tell about it, but malicious netizens like Fan make me prefer my privacy. It is not about climate science or science at all, and I do not care to discard my privacy to prove it. You, Fan, will do better to wonder about all the real discussions you miss out on by being so obnoxious. You will not provoke me into further discussion, so you can ponder how many things in this world you know nothing about.
↧
Comment on U.S. climate policy discussion thread by Skiphil
that is the recollection is “about” an eminent person, I am definitely not the eminent person……..!
↧
Comment on U.S. climate policy discussion thread by Max_OK
GaryM said on April 8, 2013 at 12:59 pm |
“The U.S. has never had an “almost free-market” as that term is used here (ie. laissez-faire capitalism).”
______
Well, Historian GaryM, perhaps you can describe the regulations the government imposed on the U.S market in our country’s first 100 years and contrast them with today’s regulations.
=====
Historian GaryM also said “The myth of the laissez-faire market is just that. Progressives know as little about history as they do about economics.”
______
Better not tell libertarians. I believe they are committed to laissez-faire. I imagine they would be shocked to hear it’s a myth. Probably Ayn Randies would be too.
Google committed to ” laissez-faire” to find out more.
↧
Comment on U.S. climate policy discussion thread by manacker
Generalissimo and Edim
Webby fell into that trap once before, when he proclaimed that global temperature moved in lockstep with log(C1/C0), CO2 concentration in ppmv.
When I downloaded and plotted the data to show him that there was no real correlation, he began accusing me of fabricating the data (despite the fact that I gave him the links to all the raw data).
But, hey guys, that’s Webby.
Max
↧
↧
Comment on U.S. climate policy discussion thread by Max_OK
Make that Google “committed to laissez-faire” to find out more.
↧
Comment on U.S. climate policy discussion thread by A fan of *MORE* discourse
LOL … the best response (alike!) of rational science *and* rational skepticism, in regard to pompous demagogic astroturfing and butt-hurt bewailing, is simply comedic ramming-speed, Hortator</a!
Heck … yah wouldn’t want us cheerful-minded folks to slack-off at the smiley-oars, would’ja Skiphil?
![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=ffffbb&fg=0077ff&s=1 "\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}")
↧
Comment on U.S. climate policy discussion thread by manacker
Max_OK
You hammer on “poor” Beth’s phobias.
Actually, “poor” Beth appears to generally have a more positive outlook and be less traumatized by fear than you.
She also seems to have survived adolescence a bit better.
And she sure can write some “mighty purty po’ms”.
Just my observations.
Max_CH
↧
Comment on U.S. climate policy discussion thread by GaryM
Max_Ok,
Just because you think central planning of the economy is the only form of regulation that counts, does not make it so.
For the “first 100 years,” the government had laws against fraud and theft. The government, through the courts, also dealt with negligence, nuisance, breach of contract, insurance and admiralty. The creation of the “regulatory state” was not the first time limits were imposed on market transactions.
And I don’t know a single libertarian who thinks the market should be completely unregulated.
But progressive straw men are hard to kill.
↧
↧
Comment on U.S. climate policy discussion thread by Skiphil
FOMD = Fan of Malicious Discourse
You are good for a few laughs, though, I’ll grant you that.
↧
Comment on U.S. climate policy discussion thread by Rob Starkey
Web
Your percentage of silly comments seems to be increasing. I would take up your challenge to debate the issue
↧
Comment on U.S. climate policy discussion thread by Rob Starkey
David
I disagree with you. Although I disagree with many of mkantor’s conclusions, they were more on topic than most other comments on the thread.
↧
Comment on U.S. climate policy discussion thread by Brandon Shollenberger
You are free to believe what you want GaryM, but I don’t think many people will agree with you. The Supreme Court never said that, and people influence elecfions in far more ways than you claim.* Hand-wavingly claiming otherwise won’t change anything.
*This is actually true by definition.
↧
↧
Comment on We’re not screwed (?) by Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That?
↧
Comment on U.S. climate policy discussion thread by manacker
Max_OK
Wiki tells us:
<blockquote>Laissez-faire lɛseɪˈfɛər-/, French: [lɛsefɛʁ] (or sometimes laisser-faire) is an economic environment in which transactions between private parties are free from tariffs, government subsidies, and enforced monopolies, with only enough government regulations sufficient to protect property rights against theft and aggression.</blockquote>
Free from monopolies?
Free from tariffs or government subsidies?
Only enough government regulations to protect property rights against theft and aggression?
I’d add “to protect the environment from pollution” plus include some sort of government run “safety net” for those who are unable to take care of themselves, but otherwise this sounds like an ideal world to me, Okie.
Who wants <em>monopolies?</em> (Except the monopolists, themselves.)
Who wants <em>tariffs?</em> (Except the companies hiding behind them to charge higher prices.)
Who wants (to pay for) <em>government subsidies?</em> (Except the guys cashing them in.)
Who wants <em>theft or aggression?</em> (Except the thieves or aggressors.)
Who wants excessive <em>government regulations?</em> (Except the bureaucrats.)
The USA (and much of the industrialized western world) was probably more of a “laissez-faire” place on balance in the 1960s/70s than it is today.
You can argue about whether or not it was a better or worse world.
Max_CH
↧
Comment on U.S. climate policy discussion thread by Chief Hydrologist
FOMBS – your tag extends across my screen in large red in a yellow backgound blurry letters apparently saying formula does not parse. Some might see that as as metaphor – but at any rate please stop as it hurts my eyes.
All this wounded innocence and feigned dismay is cloyingly pathetic. Everyone knows what the story is – who they are. Pop psychology and trivial distraction in the service of unreflective cult of AGW space cadet groupthink memes – or else a pissant progressive, frothing at the mouth determination to silence and demonise, trivialise and marginalise the others in a mad Marcusian inspired stategy to control public debate at all levels. One can think of many examples – just from this post. Old, white, creationist, demagog, fat, smoker, science denialist, flat earther, clowns, jokers, fake (?) ockers, Australian or Swiss, delusional, destoyer of worlds, callous wretch, etc, etc. Eh – a pox on their house.
I did not raise the particular Chylek paper – 2 others on modern records in the Arctic and 3 from others on the proxy record. Nor did anyone else directly – merely directed attention to blog science. Chylek is wrong they thundered in unison – without understanding any of it.
‘Our analysis suggests that the ratio of the Arctic to global temperature change varies on multi-decadal timescale. The commonly held assumption of a factor of 2–3 for the Arctic amplification has been valid only for the current warming period 1970–2008. The Arctic region did warm considerably faster during the 1910–1940 warming compared to the current 1970–2008 warming rate (Table 1). During the cooling from 1940–1970 the Arctic amplification was extremely high, between 9 and 13. The Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation multi-decadal variability is suggested as a major cause of Arctic temperature variation. Further analyses of long coupled model runs will be critical to resolve the influence of the ocean thermohaline circulation and other natural climate variations on Arctic climate and to determine whether natural climate variability will make the Arctic more or less vulnerable to anthropogenic global warming. ‘ http://www.lanl.gov/source/orgs/ees/ees14/pdfs/09Chlylek.pdf
These periods of warming and cooling are consistent globally in all sorts of records from rainfall to anchovies. To suggest that we are seeing low frequency climate varialbility seems unremarkable.
Now webby has a new meme. ‘The guy who says that most climate science is wrong.’ Get a grip man – 80% of uncontrolled studies – the sort of study we must get in climate science – in medical science is wrong. – http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/…medical-science/308269/ -
So if I suggest cross checking and replicated results is the norm for healthy scepticism – it is based on science and is merely thorough and prudent caution. This is opposed to reflexively defending a meme in loser blog science.
Is this like the man who fell to Earth? I might break into song any minute now.
↧
Comment on U.S. climate policy discussion thread by Chief Hydrologist
Obviously – this was a concerted effort to break the threading.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/05/u-s-climate-policy-discussion-thread/#comment-310328
↧
↧
Comment on U.S. climate policy discussion thread by manacker
Fanny
Forty-Niner has got part of the story right for that part of the climate science community, which has fudged the data to sell its story (the “consensus” crowd exposed by Climategate, etc.).
But I can imagine that all climate scientists on taxpayer-funded government grants feel pain if these dry up as the public support wanes in difficult economic times.
Wouldn’t you agree?
Max
↧
Comment on U.S. climate policy discussion thread by captdallas 0.8 or less
Joshua, both points are over stated, which is the least over stated? the Road to Serfdom describes the gradual erosion of personal and economic freedoms. Government forcing the populace to “conform”.
The patriot act was an erosion of personal liberties. The seat belt law is an erosion of personal liberties. The cigarette tax is an erosion of personal liberties. The ethanol “mandate” is an erosion of personal liberties The carbon tax will be an erosion of personal liberties. Any tax or regulation that doesn’t have an opt out option, is an erosion of personal liberties.
If I do something that causes harm to another, that would be a crime. To suspect that I may do something to someone someday that may cause them harm, is paranoia. You can feed paranoia with creative use of statistics. The live saving impact of the seat belt law is over stated to justify the seat belt law for the good of all.
sounds great, right? http://madisonfloridavoice.net/?p=20929
Second place in the law enforcement challenge. You get points for seat belt citations, bonus points if the seat belt stop leads to other violations, drugs, DWI, alcohol, guns, driver’s license suspensions, insurance lapse, etc. etc. etc. Now there is never any concerns about profiling, because any law enforcement office might suspect you are not wearing your seat belt. If fact they are encouraged to suspect more people of not wearing their seat belts. More people can be punished for possibly have the potential to cause some harm to someone sometime without ever doing any actual harm.
↧
Comment on U.S. climate policy discussion thread by Lauri Heimonen
JC comments: ”Who knows how this will play out, but the PCAST effort seems to be a step in the right direction. Which items from this menu do you prefer?
‘The letter calls for a dual focus on mitigation—reducing the pace and magnitude of climate-related changes—and adaptation—minimizing the unavoidable damage that can be expected to result from climate change.
The six key components are:
Focus on national preparedness for climate change, which can help decrease damage from extreme weather events now and speed recovery from future damage;
Continue efforts to decarbonize the economy, with emphasis on the electricity sector;
Level the playing field for clean-energy and energy-efficiency technologies by removing regulatory obstacles, addressing market failures, adjusting tax policies, and providing time-limited subsidies for clean energy when appropriate;
Sustain research on next-generation clean-energy technologies and remove obstacles for their eventual deployment;
Take additional steps to establish U.S. leadership on climate change internationally; and
Conduct an initial Quadrennial Energy Review.’”
I cannot choose any one of the items in the menu as such. I prefer only to learn applicable
”adaptation—minimizing the unavoidable damage that can be expected to result” from
natural climate change and weather events. There is no empiric evidence for the global
warming believed to be caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
I have already expressed in comments of mine; look e.g. at comments http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/02/were-not-screwed/#comment-309318 and http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/16/hansen-on-the-standstill/#comment-287036 :
a) Nowadays the anthropogenic CO2 emissions control only about 4 % at the most of an increase of CO2 content in atmosphere and even of the total CO2 content in the atmosphere.
b) Even any total increase of CO2 content in atmosphere has not been empirically found to cause global warming.
c) According to observations an increase of CO2 content in atmosphere follows warming and not vice versa.
d) The climate models adopted by IPCC present only assumptions, which are needed to show that the recent global warming could probably be caused by man-made CO2 emissions.
As you see, any influence of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions on the global temperature cannot be empirically observed.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
