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

Comment on Have U.S. Republicans shifted strategy on climate change? by Tom


Comment on Have U.S. Republicans shifted strategy on climate change? by Peter Lang

Comment on Have U.S. Republicans shifted strategy on climate change? by Joshua

0
0

Then again I certainly will acknowledge, Judith, that I will often read the comments of folks like GaryM, Willis, and many of the “skeptics” in this thread and see that at least sometimes they think you’ve temporarily donned a “realist” uniform..

It certainly is tricky to avoid getting caught in the crossfire, I’m sure.

Comment on Have U.S. Republicans shifted strategy on climate change? by Peter Lang

0
0

JC

+1000 for all your comments on this sub thread. I think you do a brilliant job on trying to improve the integrity and honesty of climate science debate.

But I feel some of you comments about energy policy on other sub-threads step outside your area of expertise and they expose you to criticism for doing what many other climate scientists have done – advocated policies based on little more than what seems like ideological and politically partisan leanings.

Comment on Have U.S. Republicans shifted strategy on climate change? by GaryM

0
0

” Ofgem warned there could be energy shortages in the middle of this decade as the UK has failed to build enough new wind farms and nuclear powers stations to replace old fossil fuel plants.

It also believes demand for energy may not fall as much as originally expected, as fewer households are insulating their lofts and switching to green appliances than predicted.

Ministers are so concerned that factories and large businesses may be asked to switch off their power during energy emergencies in return for compensation from bill-payers.

‘Without timely action there would be risks to security of supply,’ Ed Davey, the Energy Secretary admitted.
‘If we didn’t do anything, if we allowed this supply crunch to happen, we would see spikes in power prices and that would be very damaging for the consumer. This intervention is meant to keep the lights on, which it will, but it’s also meant to protect consumers from those price spikes.’”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10145803/Risk-of-UK-blackouts-has-tripled-in-a-year-Ofgem-warns.html

Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya

[All you progressives - together now-sing!]
Someone’s laughing, Lord, kumbaya
Someone’s laughing, Lord, kumbaya
Someone’s laughing, Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya

[All you conservatives - together now-sing.]
Someone’s crying, Lord, kumbaya
Someone’s crying, Lord, kumbaya
Someone’s crying, Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya

[All you future generations - together now- sing.]
Someone’s praying, Lord, kumbaya
Someone’s praying, Lord, kumbaya
Someone’s praying, Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya

[All you lukewarmers now - together -sing it loud!]
Someone’s sleeping, Lord, kumbaya
Someone’s sleeping, Lord, kumbaya
Someone’s sleeping, Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya

Comment on Have U.S. Republicans shifted strategy on climate change? by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)

0
0

There’s your guy. Push the right buttons and witness the response.

Comment on Have U.S. Republicans shifted strategy on climate change? by Jim D

0
0

If I interpret Judith’s comments correctly, I agree it is great that the argument has shifted from whether climate change is happening to what to do about it. While it would be convenient to separate energy policy from climate change, they are inextricably tied as Obama has realized, so the debate is now about how much they are tied. This is related to where coal and shale oil fit in with future energy, if at all. I think that there are still some people (Republicans) who see nothing wrong with these energy sources, but they may be headed the way of the dinosaurs as they can’t gain supporters for this view in this day and age.

Comment on Have U.S. Republicans shifted strategy on climate change? by Tom Forrester-Paton

0
0

Judith I have to go with Willis here. It beats me how, after all this time, you can still write about ‘solutions’ to a problem whose very existence is in such profound doubt. I’m not among those who think you should be badgered to declare your position on this or that. But if you’re going to write approvingly of ‘solutions’, you really can’t shirk the burden of stating clearly what ‘problem’ you believe these ‘solutions’ ‘solve’.

I also find it baffling that you haven’t worked out yet that, yes, there is a sizeable segment of the catastrophist cohort that really does see man’s use of energy as a sophisticated form of original sin, and wants to constrain it – by price, if necessary.


Comment on Have U.S. Republicans shifted strategy on climate change? by Chief Hydrologist

0
0

Neither side has any credibility – you are merely telling each other stories superficially in the objective and culturally powerful idiom of science. Except for Joshua – he merely repeats ad nauseum the same sad old story about objectivity straddling no mans land. Not even close – the goal of science is truth and not politics. God is not on either side in the climate war – there are merely pompous fools trotting out inanities.

There is science in there somewhere but it is struggling to stay afloat in the maelstrom. There are rational policy ideas emerging but it is lost in the noise.

Comment on Have U.S. Republicans shifted strategy on climate change? by Jim D

0
0

glyph-enchanted would be Fannie, who has been around for a while.

Comment on Have U.S. Republicans shifted strategy on climate change? by Jim D

0
0

err… not been around for a while

Comment on Have U.S. Republicans shifted strategy on climate change? by Tom

0
0

David, if you were to read the comments at the above link, on the IMF story. You will see that many do see clearly, yet most scientists seem blind to it all. Please give us your view after reading the comments. What is the answer to the scientific cognitive ignorance of the current situation? Science will keep to their invisible gas or will you go with the invisible God?
Easy, isn’t it.

Comment on Have U.S. Republicans shifted strategy on climate change? by Peter Lang

0
0

“Republicans have shifted to a more rational stance?”

I believe it is the Democrats and CAGW alarmists who have shifted the most towards a more rational stance. Not on energy policy but on the CAGW alarmism.

About 25 years ago, and right up to 2 years ago in the 2011 edition of “Storms of our Grandchildren”, James Hansen, the father of the CAGW scare campaign, was telling us the oceans would boil off if we don’t stop burning fossil fuels and stop the “death trains”. Many climate scientists, perhaps 97% of them, were echoing similar sentiments.

But now Climate Scientists are moving towards acknowledging their projections were too high and the impacts were grossly overstated. Many are moving away from their extreme language of saying we must act to cut global GHG emissions substantially within the next decade or catastrophe will result (they were saying this in 1990 and right up to recently, but now backing off, slowly).

What they mean by ‘catastrophe’ has changed from the end of life on earth to now meaning an increased probability of uncomfortable weather events (I de-escalate a bit to get the point across).

The point is that it is the Democrats and CAGW alarmists that have moved massively.

For me, the issue was always that:

1. Catastrophic consequences of GHG emissions is highly unlikely, almost negligible probability, so the debate is about the economics and cost benefits analyses of the proposed policies and proper risk management.

2. The debate should be about the economic and practical, implementable, sustainable, international and global policy (and always should have been). [Conservatives have been saying this since 1990 or before; they'v been correct all along, IMO.]

Since the Democrats and ‘Progressives’ have been advocating high cost, economically damaging, economically irrational policy for decades, it was entirely rational for the Republicans and Conservatives to hold the ‘blow torch’ to every argument that underpinned the irrational, economically damaging policies being advocated by the Democrats and ‘Progressives’.

Comment on Have U.S. Republicans shifted strategy on climate change? by Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)

0
0
Chief Hydrologist | June 28, 2013 at 12:22 am | <blockquote>glyph-enchanted? I’m certainly on Hilary’s team if she will have me.</blockquote> Alas, to be honest, CH, I don't really <em>have</em> a "team" ... But if I had one, you'd be <em>more</em> than welcome! In fact, you could be the head coach, scientific advisor - and the CEO. Provided that we had an agreement which stipulated that you would eschew any and all demands (as i"m confident you would) for payment in illusory carbon credits ;-)

Comment on Have U.S. Republicans shifted strategy on climate change? by Chief Hydrologist

0
0

Oh webster -

You prattle and preen about ‘solving’ climate with a line of algebra and seem so divorced from reality that it doesn’t ring alarm bells. You are obsessed with me because I call you on your utter nonsense. You are quite as mad as Stefan.

Your comments are inevitably personal, pejorative, misguided rants. Most recently you insisted that I hadn’t read the paper I quoted because I live on the Great Barrier Reef an hours flight from Brisbane – and wouldn’t fork out for the paper. The reality is that I have talked with and met Stewart Franks and have read dozens of papers from him and his group at the University of Newcastle. It is of course an area I have been researching for decades – but an idea that can be confirmed with a little background reading if you had bothered to make any effort at all.

I excuse you of any serious interest in the natural sciences – you seem quite incapable. But don’t imagine that your grade school level insults provoke more than amusement and a measure of distaste for a disagreeable and quite dishonest person.


Comment on Have U.S. Republicans shifted strategy on climate change? by GaryM

0
0

Peter Lang,

There has been some minor back pedaling by a few consensus scientists on issues like climate sensitivity. But I haven’t seen any second thoughts by the Democrats. They have slowed the pace of their agenda a bit. But that is because they were spooked by the public reaction to Copenhagen and have recently been busy pushing other aspects of their central planning dogma – eg. healthcare, etc. But this is at most a tactical retreat. They have shown no change up in their intent to decarbonize at least the U.S. economy. Not that I have seen anyway.

Comment on Have U.S. Republicans shifted strategy on climate change? by Chief Hydrologist

0
0

Thank you ever so much Hilary. It is a done deal. I want payment in glyphs.

Comment on Have U.S. Republicans shifted strategy on climate change? by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)

0
0

Chef, AFAIAC, you and Stef and Myrrrhh and Girma and Cotton and Biggs and Lang and the rest of you Aussies are indistinguishable in your relentless drive to present these oddball theories as to how the climate works.

Comment on Open thread weekend by BFJ

0
0

There does seem t be systemic myopia about the motivations of government when it comes to the climate issue.

Government has a substantial and clear vested interest in speading the global warming gospel, and, as such, the oft-quoted figure that 97% of scientists that agree about it, coomes as no surprise; likewise the deafening silence from the bulk of the profession in response to the various blatant acts of science fraud and malprctice underpinning CAGW..

These are after all scientists selected and funded by government. It would be surprsing indeed if they did NOT say they believed in CAGW, and DID call out the Climategate crooks and other miscreants.

Comment on Have U.S. Republicans shifted strategy on climate change? by Chief Hydrologist

0
0

Chaos and decadal atmosphere and ocean variability have extensive and wholly reputable antecedents in climate science. Confusing this with Stefan, Mythr and Cotton is ridiculous. But then you are equally ridiculous with your ‘solving’ of climate with one line of algebra, with your constant repetition of absurd personal complaints and drooling xenophobic mutterings. Say something serious and considered or stop wasting everyone’s time.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images