Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148687 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on U.S. climate policy discussion thread by Joshua

$
0
0

I disagree with much of what you say there. As just one example:

you have never answered any questions about your own bias.

Let’s start with how that statement assumes that you’ve monitored all my conversations? You’ve monitored all my blog comments?

And secondly, I have answered questions about my own bias many times. There is no doubt that my views are biased. If you want to know about my view of my biases, please go ahead and ask.

quite the opposite. you shut it down by attributing everything to people motivations.

First, at the very least, if you’re going to discuss this try to tackle the difference between “motivations” and “motivated reasoning.” It is an unfortunate outcome of lack of clarity in syntax that leads to that conflation – but I have discussed this with you before. I am not attributing “everything” let alone much at all, to people’s “motivations.” I am assuming that we are all “motivated” here by pretty much the same outcomes. It seems there really is nothing for us to discuss further about motivated reasoning as you seem quite content to persist in the conflation between that concept and “motivations.” We have discussed this a number of times, it seems unlikely that we’re going to make any progress, eh?

Second, IMV, the convo is “shut down” fully independent of my input – for two basic reasons: (1) The vast majority of participants quite certain of their views: Folks like to get pats on the back from those they disagree with, and folks like to voice their views in disagreement with others, but “openness” to different views is rare, indeed. (2) What I say or don’t say (at least in these threads), what I do or don’t do (at least in these threads), makes little difference.

Steven – rather typically, you want to make this discussion about me. Well, in response to that I will say that you and I fully agree (as I just said) that what I say or don’t say (at least in these threads), what I do or don’t do (at least in these threads), makes little difference. I hope that makes you feel better.

Now it seems to me that you think that in contrast, what you say/don’t say and do/don’t do in blog comment threads makes a difference by virtue of your more enlightened approach and reasoning. And you may well be absolutely correct about that… If so, more power to you.

Anyway, it’s a beautiful day out there, and my yard beckons.


Comment on U.S. climate policy discussion thread by GaryM

$
0
0

Ahhhh the state planned “capitalism” of those brilliant Chinese.

“Wang can earn better money living in the city, but it’s a grim existence. He recently finished his first month-long stint in Beijing, and he hated it. Working eleven-hour days on a construction site, he earned just over $500 for the month. The weather dropped below freezing most nights, and his coat was hardly enough to keep him warm. A delicate man with a shy smile, he seems ill-equipped for such physically demanding labor.

On site, Wang shared a six-square-meter room with seven other men, trying to sleep despite the noise. The boss provided food, but the quality is bad — usually Chinese cabbage, potatoes, and rice. There were no toilets on site, much less showers.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/345039/mao-s-igrapes-wrathi-jillian-kay-melchior?pg=2

Somebody get Tom Friedman to write another op-ed telling us how we need to be more like the enlightened Chinese. The coming collapse of the EU is nothing like what is going to happen when the Chinese “guided capitalist” system, with its ghost cities, civil unrest, and millions of people living on a couple hundred dollars a day implodes.

And we are supposed to let the Sino-phile progressives here run our energy economy?

Comment on U.S. climate policy discussion thread by Rob Starkey

$
0
0

There is so much unsupportable speculation associated with Mosher’s conclusions that I hardly know where to begin.

Mosher does not know when or even if the feared 2C temperature increase will occur.

Mosher writes- “First, it is far from clear that a 2 degree warmer world is one that we can adapt to, or that the damages caused by such a climate would not overwhelm the costs of keeping it from happening in the first place.”

My response will begin with a question- Steve- who is the “we” you are referencing? Is it the USA or some hypothetical one world order that you personally believe would be a better method of governing the planet than the 200 nation states that actually govern the planet?

Follow up question(s)- What reliable data do you suggest using to determine the key conditions important to humans in a warmer world? What data has led you to conclude that a warmer world is worse for humanity overall over the long term? Will it no longer rain enough to support farming? Where?

What specific harms do you fear? Clearly the largest single fear referenced by the IPCC is potential sea level rise. You fear associated with a warmer world assumes that the current rate of rise will increase by 300% to 600%. Why should anyone believe that the rate of sea level sea level rise will increase by that magnitude?

Steve- how about honestly stating that neither you nor anyone else has reliable data to describe what the conditions of a warmer world will be or when.

Comment on U.S. climate policy discussion thread by Tonyb

$
0
0

Scott

Schneider was a fine scientist who on the evidence then available believed in the Scary global cooling scare of the 1960′s early 70′s before he switched to scary fears of global warming

http://www.masterresource.org/2009/09/the-global-cooling-scare-revisited/

One of these days I will be writing an article refuting the carefully orchestrated current debunking that there was ever such a thing as global cooling. however it was in all the scientific literature of the time .

Tonyb

Comment on U.S. climate policy discussion thread by manacker

$
0
0

Beth

Aye, an therr have been tales of Scottish lasses too feerrce ta mention since the Roman 9th Legion disapeerred inta the fog of Caledonia, never ta returrn.

An who – while walkin home frrum the pub after a few straight malt whiskies – hasn’t seen a dancin green fairy in the moonlit hills?

Max

Comment on U.S. climate policy discussion thread by Tonyb

$
0
0

Fan

Scott is no doubt a great scientist, but not of climate

http://www.scottaaronson.com/

I suppose we should all convert to his views but ignore the thousands of scientists that signed the Oregon petition because they were the wrong kind of scientist?
Tonyb

Comment on U.S. climate policy discussion thread by Scott

$
0
0

Thanks tonyb.
I know about the global cooling concerns at that time. That NAS report from ’76 was similar to the modern ones except the focus with the same caveats. Except opposite. Scott

Comment on U.S. climate policy discussion thread by Brandon Shollenberger

$
0
0

Joshua, you’re continuing to misrepresent what I do. I say things “make no sense” when I examine the logic behind them and the logic is sufficiently wrong to merit the description. Some things are just wrong. There is nothing remarkable about pointing that out.

You repeatedly make an issue of me saying things make no sense. Here’s a thought. Try showing I am wrong when I say it. I’ve said it at least a dozen times on this site. If I’m guilty of what you say, it’d be easy to substantiate your accusations.


Comment on U.S. climate policy discussion thread by Rob Starkey

$
0
0

Gary

It does not appear that you have spent much time in China recently.

Comment on U.S. climate policy discussion thread by Joshua

$
0
0

Rob –

You do realize that those weren’t mosher’s conclusions, don’t you?

Comment on U.S. climate policy discussion thread by qbeamus

$
0
0

@Max_OK: Your concern that the free market tends to over-reward those who profit from activities that damage the environment is entirely sound, but it’s not a reason to jettison the free market. Instead, we need to internalize the negative externalities–for example, by taxing pollution.

The only reason there’s any ideology regarding the free market is that it requires an ideology that blinds one to reality reject the free market. The market is the only means for distributing scarce resources yet discovered by man that (generally) converts man’s selfish impulses into a quest to find something he can do for his fellow man, and then to go out and do it.

Comment on U.S. climate policy discussion thread by Joshua

$
0
0

Brandon –

What I’ve said is that you (at least sometimes) conflate fact and belief in your proclamations of what “does not make sense.”

Now that is a belief of mine, and I also believe that I don’t need to substantiate it because you substantiate it on a regular basis. More to the point, I have offered that opinion directly in context in the past and you didn’t agree then – so I see no reason to repeat that exercise.

If someone looks at your arguments and doesn’t agree with me, they are certainly entitled to their opinion. They may be correct in determining that I am “just wrong.” Lol!

I also believe that we all do that, that some do it more than others, and that some of us are more resistant to acknowledging it when they do it.

Comment on U.S. climate policy discussion thread by Chief Hydrologist

$
0
0

‘Most discussions of the climate change issue have focused almost entirely on the human contribution to increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and on strategies to limit its emissions from fossil fuel use. Among the various long-lived greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted by human activities, CO2 is so far the largest contributor to climate change, and, if anything, its relative role is expected to increase in the future. An emphasis on CO2 is therefore justified, but the near-exclusive attention to this single contributor to global warming has had the unintended consequence of directing attention away from the other GHGs, where some of the most cost-effective abatement options exist. The non-CO2 GHGs emitted directly by human activities include methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), and a group of industrial gases including perfluorocarbons (PFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). When taken together with the already banned chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), their climate significance over the past century is roughly equivalent to that of CO2. Looking to likely emissions over the next half century, it is also the case that feasible reductions in emissions of methane and other non-CO2 gases can make a contribution to slowing global warming that is as large as or even larger than similar reductions in CO2 emissions. To effectively limit climate change, and to do so in a cost-effective manner, thus requires that climate policies deal with CO2 and non-CO2 gases alike.’
http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/Multi-Gas.pdf

When the effects of black carbon, sulphides and tropospheric ozone are included significant progress could be made with multiple benefits.

There are many other ways forward.

‘The easiest way to sequester Carbon is in the soil. More specifically, perennial grasslands. Since these types of ecosystems usually contain the deepest soils, they have the most potential to store carbon. Furthermore, there are over 800 million acres of grasslands under management just in the US. Combine that with the 400 million acres of cropland in America. That’s a total of 1.2 billion acres we could utilize to sequester a phenomenal amount of Carbon.

Dr. Christine Jones, leading Grassland Ecology Scientist from Australia, says a 1% Carbon increase in grassland and crop soils in Australia would offset their entire “legacy load” or total rise in Co2 over the last 50 years.

So what exactly does that mean to us in the United States? Well, here in California, 50 years ago our Carbon levels in the soil were at 8 or 9%. Now they are down to 4 or 3%. Where did all that extra carbon go……atmosphere perhaps?’

The big question is how long does it take to build soil? In nature it takes at least a thousand years to build one inch. With modern techniques we have seen dramatic increases in soil formation. Abe Collins, Founder of Carbon Farmers of America, has documented 8 inches of soil depth in a single season! That’s more than enough to increase soil Carbon by 1% in less than a year.’
http://www.sweet-soil.com/technology/sweetsoil-technology/carbon-farming/

The global potential of increasing carbon in soils by 1% is nearly twice the entire human emissions thus far.

When we talk about development, health, education, safe water and sanitation these have undoubted influences on population growth.

The emphasis on CO2 and energy is wrong – as it is the least productive way forward.

I remain unclear as to why such fundamentally simple ideas are buried under a carbon tax monomania in the policy sphere.

Comment on U.S. climate policy discussion thread by lolwot

$
0
0

despite human ingenuity and the pressure of the free market to develop new technologies, we are now burning even more fossil fuels, not less. It would seem pessimism is well founded.

Comment on U.S. climate policy discussion thread by Brandon Shollenberger

$
0
0

You are free not to repeat the exercise. What that means is you’ll go around repeatedly leveling accusations against me while refusing to do anything to support what you say. That is basically a smear campaign.

You, willard and others are free to do this. You may even get some people to believe you. But you won’t be right, and in the end, you won’t accomplish anything useful.


Comment on U.S. climate policy discussion thread by Chief Hydrologist

$
0
0

Heyak goes further than some to include health and welfare as roles for government in wealthy economies. The essential idea is that rights evolve through time as a result of changes in societies and these rights are enforced in the rule of law. The law exists as a social contract to protect the weak – all of us – against the brutal and ruthless. It includes the potential for pollution laws, market rules, workplace safety, consumer protection and in a plethora of other areas arrived at by the usual messy processes of democracy.

There are aspects of economies that Hayek discussed – importantly the role of interest rates in preventing damaging booms and busts. Both Hayek and Keynes agreed on an optimum size of government of about 25% of GDP.

Practical, pragmatic and mainstream. It exists as a committment to democracy, the rule of law, free markets and free peoples renewed daily. Nothing else makes any sense at all.

Comment on U.S. climate policy discussion thread by Chief Hydrologist

$
0
0

Brandon,

It is the usual Joshua mode of random accusations of personal failings. Is there a substantive point to any of it?

Comment on Historic Variations in Arctic sea ice. Part II: 1920-1950 by Joshua

$
0
0

tony –

So, you stand by your “must?”

No doubt? No uncertainty?

Only a statement of what we “must” conclude?

That’s a strong statement. Your evidence is anecdotal, and there is no systematic mechanism for calibration or validation.

IMO, that does not at all mean that your evidence is without value, that it is necessarily inaccurate, or that it isn’t “evidence,” but that conclusions w/o allowance for any uncertainty, based on your evidence, seems not particularly skeptical.

Comment on Historic Variations in Arctic sea ice. Part II: 1920-1950 by Hum

$
0
0

“plus the idea that a single measurement of ice thickness from a ship trapped in ice.. of necessity having a narrow thickness.. says anything meaningful about the arctic is just a laughable steve goddardism”

Yup Mosh, kinda like the idea of estimating Artic temps by a few thermometers close to the warmth of a Siberian government office.

Comment on Historic Variations in Arctic sea ice. Part II: 1920-1950 by NevenA

$
0
0

Do you have updated temps up to 2013? That would be most interesting to see.

Viewing all 148687 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images