Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on AGW skeptics in the professional community by R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist, etc.

0
0

BTW Tony,

Of course the term “Anthropocene”, like any new scientific term that carries with it a new perspective is quite controversial, but it is far to early to say if term has or has not “caught on”. Might want to discuss your perspective of it not having caught on with the good folks at Elsevier and their new journal, “Anthropocene”:

http://www.journals.elsevier.com/anthropocene/

Or maybe tell these folks to change their name to something else because it hasn’t “caught on”:

http://www.anthropoceneinstitute.com/


Comment on AGW skeptics in the professional community by R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist, etc.

0
0

If this were a court of law, the jury would now decide (whatever it is you think your “case” was), but in fact, related to the ultimate consequences of the Human Carbon Volcano and how humans do or do not learn to manage the Anthropocene, the ultimate jury are the laws of nature.

Comment on Unforced variability and the global warming slow down by Kristian

0
0

“More precisely rising and high ENSO is the recharge phase, falling and low the discharge phase.”

No, it’s the exact opposite. Everybody understands and agrees that El Niño is the phase when ocean heat is released into the atmosphere, thus warming it, and that La Niña is the phase when the ocean heat is restored again, thus cooling the atmosphere/surface. Did you read the Trenberth quote? That is what we see happening. In the tropical Pacific. The primary (oceanically connected) ENSO region. It is not some hypothesis. We see it happening. We observe it.

So why you keep insisting on this strange claim that the world operates upside down from observed reality is beyond me …

Comment on AGW skeptics in the professional community by David Springer

0
0

Tobacco use is way down in the US fercrisakes. Growth in other parts of the world more than made up for that lost in the US. The only losers in the US are convenience store owners who’d have to move back to their native country if they so smoke in their own stores and sell lots of cigarettes. Five hour energy drinks and red bull just don’t cut it as a replacement revenue stream for nicotine delivery devices.

Comment on AGW skeptics in the professional community by Harold

0
0

Well and good, but it would be even better if you translated it into English before reversing the roles. I think the point of this jargonisticism is to wear people out.

Comment on AGW skeptics in the professional community by Steven Mosher

0
0

well, its not psychobable. Its just a language you are not used to.

I called a real estate broker and he was blathering on about “points”
Crap, the DMv blathers about points, there are points in the basketball game.. bob seger sang she had points all her own, a drug addict found points in the garbage can..

,,, learn a new language

Comment on AGW skeptics in the professional community by David Springer

0
0

R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist, etc. | July 16, 2013 at 2:13 pm |

“To the extent this is true in the U.S., then we all pay for it by higher insurance and health care costs.”

Bull. Anything anyone does to lower their life expectancy is less time they have to spend collecting social security and medicare. If everyone would just smoke their asses off from puberty to death most of them wouldn’t survive long enough to enroll in medicare or collect social securit and those that did live past their sixties would be unlikely to live much past it. Healthy living is what’s bankrupting SS and medicare you dolt.

Comment on AGW skeptics in the professional community by Max_OK

0
0

Regarding WUWT, Steven Mosher said on July 16, 2013 at 1:33 pm

Well max that is still an inaccurate characterization and I told you to stop being stupid. So stop it. Stop being stupid. Its not quantity over quality.
_____

Sorry, Mosher, but stupid or not, I prefer to judge quality for myself. If WUWT policy favors quantity, quality suffers.


Comment on AGW skeptics in the professional community by R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist, etc.

0
0

David,

Your vile, prejudicial, and hateful perspective on the world never fails to repulse me.

Comment on AGW skeptics in the professional community by climatereason

0
0

R Gates

Exciting news! Elsevier has agreed its a daft name and have changed it to ‘Sceptics world’
tonyb

Comment on AGW skeptics in the professional community by Chief Hydrologist

0
0

Why thanks Jabberwock – that’s one more than you.

Comment on Unforced variability and the global warming slow down by Kristian

0
0

What weak and strong La Niñas/El Niños are you talking about?

You could of course try to explain these two graphs without ENSO being the driver of global OHC evolution. Help yourself:
http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/OHCglhotcold_zpscd8c7d78.png
Map here:
http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/world-map-2_zpsd5298cf2.png

Also, you have heard of the Great Pacific Climate Shift, haven’t you? It occurred in the 70s and commenced with an abrupt (and unexplained) fall in the mean pressure gradient between east and west in the tropical Pacific (SOI):
http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/SOI_zps4a244c80.png

The coupled oceanic-atmospheric conditions in the Pacific basin were fundamentally different before and after that shift. It basically started the modern era of global warming. Now that era has most likely ended. There is no trace of any CO2 warming signal during this period. It is all ENSO.

Comment on AGW skeptics in the professional community by Martha

0
0

Let’s get clear about the ‘professional community’ in question.

The paper, and its conclusion, affirms what we already know: when faced with the situation of the science, Conservative-thinking business leaders in Alberta, and the federal government in Canada, are not thinking of action plans. The paper’s authors suggest the need to re-frame to the familiar and practical approach of risk management, especially for senior corporate, government and business professionals who form the most ‘skeptical’ group surveyed in that provincial and federal context.

The paper includes references to petroleum companies concerned about damage to their infrastructure, and to Canadian engineers involved in changing building codes (because of impacts of climate change). So while they may be distracted by party politics at this time, they’re not idiots (well, for the sake of Canadians, let’s hope not).

Appallingly, a reactionary Canada is the Chair of the Arctic Council in 2013. We’ll see how it goes. As anyone who reads international media can see, there are serious concerns that the Canadian government will narrow the Council to its own extremely narrow domestic agenda and promotion of the Alberta oil sands.

On the other hand, the reality of melting in the North and the pressure that can be exerted by Northern communities and their leadership, especially with international support from other Council members, could be yet another wake up call for Conservatives in Canada to get real about the need for risk management. Views such as those surveyed are defensive and narrow, rather than proactively-oriented and in the interests of inter-related economic bases and regions.

That’s an interesting paper, especially for anyone familiar with Alberta politics and economics.

Comment on AGW skeptics in the professional community by climatereason

0
0

R Gates

This from your anthropocene institute link;
Projects

‘T’he Anthropocene Institute provides due diligence to an investor pool, in areas of scalable change that abate global warming, and support biological diversity through our projects listed to the left.

The Anthropocene Institute also partners with NPO and NGO entities to meet social goals in the broad program areas of Energy, Food, Biodiversity, and Cultural Change.’

Sounds like the sort of thing that might drive some of the denizens mad. You must try and get them to submit a current article, I think Judith would find it interesting.

BTW, I was rereading the first IPCC assessment (as one does) and came across the name Gates. Any relation?
tonyb

Comment on AGW skeptics in the professional community by Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)

0
0

Certainly doesn’t look like they have, does it?! OTOH, if the “content” of their paper is anything to go by, it could well have been “informed” by taking at face value their reading of Gleick’s notorious forgery – and/or the ramblings of the U.K.’s Bob <fast-fingerered obsessive whiner par excellence> Ward ;-)


Comment on AGW skeptics in the professional community by Max_OK

Comment on AGW skeptics in the professional community by Rob Starkey

0
0

That melting arctic disaster huh. How is arctic ice being lower for 3 to 4 months in the summer a potential disaster or even a problem.

Comment on Certainly not! by WebHubTelescope (@whut)

0
0

Flynn had said in the past that he has no formal scientific education. At some point he will have to understand the mathematics of thermal diffusion and how a very small thermal diffusivity of mantle rock translates into a very limited heat flow.

Flynn also seems not to be interested in the question of what else besides GHG’s can cause the +33C discrepancy. The molten core is certainly not it, even though an untrained scientific mind might think that to be the case.

Flynn will continue to impugn the integrity of scientists who have ruled out other options, while following with an unctuous rejoinder of “live well and prosper” that virtually drips with insincerity.

Comment on Why farmers don’t believe in anthropogenic global warming by tempterrain

0
0

Hang on a minute. Before you write posts on the “why” you have to establish the veracity of your general statement on farmers’ beliefs.

There are farmers all over the world. They do exist outside of the US and Canada!

In Australia, there’s a large acceptance, including the farming community, that AGW is a reality that has to be dealt with and planned for.

Comment on Certainly not! by timg56

0
0

Willis,

I like the man/dog assessment. While I can see some exceptions to the rule (the dog being a rescue dog or badly trained as a guard dog) it is rather difficult to believe a truly nice person can have a nasty dog.

Unless the dog is a Chihuahua. I’m convinced they are innately mean little mothers.

Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images