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

Comment on AGU Statement on Climate Change by Bad Andrew

0
0

Arthur Carlson.

Less- “Nobody touches my Tear-sheets.”

Andrew


Comment on Bouncing forward (not back) by Tom

Comment on AGU Statement on Climate Change by Bob Droege

0
0

“The effective use of mitigation and adaption to reduce the risk to water resources, food, energy, human health and well-being, and ecosystem function from climate (including changes in the climate system) requires a multi-disciplinary, multi-faceted approach.”

Gee, sounds like a call to action to me!

So let’s get started on the mitigation, adaptation, and wrecking the economy and all that.

Judith, isn’t the plural of uncertainty, uncertainties?

Just asking.

Seems we are all lacking in reading comprehension.

Roger, Roger!

Comment on AGU Statement on Climate Change by Joe Freeman

0
0

How in the world could the AGU not only have someone on their panel who clearly is a pro-CAGW propagandist (see Hassol’s bio at http://www.climatecommunication.org/who-we-are/staff/susan-joy-hassol/ ), but then allow her the key role of writing the AGU’s statement?

You can add the AGU to the long list of organizations that have traded their credibility for political expediency.

Comment on AGU Statement on Climate Change by Trees for Free

0
0

The AGU has become a self inflicted parody of science.

Comment on AGU Statement on Climate Change by kim

0
0

We don’t know where the benefits will hit, but we know that they’ll be good. We know also that warmer sustains more total life and more diversity of life. We know also that damage from cold is worse than damage from warm. We know a lot, we ignorant bits of clay, strutting, strutting.
============

Comment on AGU Statement on Climate Change by M. Hastings

Comment on AGU Statement on Climate Change by Jim Cripwell


Comment on ‘Denier’ blogs by Tom

Comment on AGU Statement on Climate Change by Rob Starkey

0
0

Bart oh Bart

If the US Congress passed the law implementing the carbon tax you support- how much would US emissions be reduced? I estimate it would result in a 5% reduction in gas consumption (at most).

How again does that solve “the” or any problem? Wouldn’t worldwide emissions continue to rise?

Comment on AGU Statement on Climate Change by captdallas 0.8 or less

0
0

I am sure there is a more PC term now a days. I am beginning to believe it is unCJD contracted during long airline flights with United Nations climate change delegates.

Comment on AGU Statement on Climate Change by captdallas 0.8 or less

0
0

BartR, “professor captain admiral lord dallas 0.8?” I have been outed!

Propoganda is often in the eye of the beholder. You preach a Carbon specific fee/tax/credit which assumes that the great and mighty carbon is “THE” problem that needs to be solved. Since you also preach about you minarchist, your lean mean total efficiency small government machine should be flexible enough to deal with whatever government scale problem should arise without mandates from the peanut gallery.

Comment on AGU Statement on Climate Change by phatboy

0
0

Michael, that’s such a pathetic argument. Swim further, indeed!
If you’ve ever lived in a developing country you will know that the poorer people are the more migratory they tend to be. They live wherever they can find work, food and shelter.
Are you living in the same place that you were 50, or even 20 years ago? How many people do you know that do?

Comment on AGU Statement on Climate Change by (Ir)responsible advocacy by scientists | Climate Etc.

0
0

[…] ← AGU Statement on Climate Change […]

Comment on AGU Statement on Climate Change by phatboy

0
0

Science is not done by consensus, but the existence of a consensus is a strong sign of a position’s validity.

Absolute tosh!


Comment on AGU Statement on Climate Change by Dennis

0
0

Maybe all AGU members should vote on which statement accurately represents their veiws. I can imagine a brief survey would be very insightful. Find out the background of those who agree with which statement and why. Would 97% agree with the AGU statement?

Comment on AGU Statement on Climate Change by pokerguy

0
0

Consider it awarded. But of course Doc has a point. So many problems, so few resources. Such an unwise decision, to put so much money into something that at the very least, is largely unproven. I still wish someone could explain to me how we can be so sure warming within limits won’t be beneficial in the main…assuming we even get that.

It’s a crackpot theory that excludes to a very great extent, overwhelmingly powerful natural phenomena in favor of a trace gas necessary to life. To believe in it takes willful disregard of empirical evidence and plain old common sense.

Comment on (Ir)responsible advocacy by scientists by willard (@nevaudit)

0
0

Thank you for the kind words, timg56.

These faux burgers will be made from real meat. All organic. No antibiotics.

Of course, you may always have a choice to buy your meat from compassionately conservative factory farming:

Comment on (Ir)responsible advocacy by scientists by Steven Mosher

0
0

AA

‘But scientists did not obtain the Heartland documents by deception, Gleick did.
Your comment certainly seems to me to imply that others either have or would carried out similar actions. ”

1. Stop drawing conclusions that are unwarranted.
2. Since some defended his actions, its clear that others might
consider similar actions.
3. Others have violated the law.

#################################

And Gleick’s actions fall way outside what anyone is talking about in he current discusions about what are the limits of advocacy by scientists.”

THIS IS MY POINT.

1. there are guidelines
2. What he did falls waaay outside those guidelines
3. Nobody cared enough to do anything.

therefore, arguing about guidelines to prevent milder abuses is
silly. Put another way. If your mother tells you and your brother not to shoot heroin and not to eat cookies from the cookie jar and you confess to shooting heroin and your mother does nothing, should ur brother take her rule about cookies seriously

####################

“I’ve said about as much as I want to about my view of Gleick’s actions in my reply to Brandon. I accept that some have defended his actions – I think this is misguided but not necessarily unprincipled. People have applauded the almost certainly criminal actions of the climategate hacker, I think this is also not necessarily unprincipled. Sometimes it can be a good thing that information not meant for public consumption is made public even if it is obtained by underhand means.”

huh?
yes some defended him. See your comment above. do you wonder why people might think others would do likewise?

Not unprincipled? is that your guideline. very funny, you prove my point.

the climategate hacker. He should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law regardless of his principles. But the same folks who defend Gleick for his “not unprincipled” actions are unwilling to extend the same get out jail card to the hacker.

#########################################

“As for the extent to which scientists should police other scientists behaviour, I think their should be clear guidelines for conduct directly relating to their scientific work. As far as advocacy goes, I think it’s up to individual scientists where to draw the line. That doesn’t mean it’s OK to break the law if someone thinks it’s justified but then Gleick has not been charged, let alone convicted, of any offence and I’m not sure how far the scientific community should go in policing actions which don’t fall within a scientist’s immediate scientific work.”

if its up to each scientist to draw the line, then what is the point of guidelines about speaking outside your area of expertise?
What is the point of requiring people to disclose conflicts of interest?
You note that folks can draw their own line, but then you refuse to say that its wrong to break the law while advocating.

As for Gleick being charged. He admitted to the crime.

Finally you fail to get the point about policing. the community is unwilling and unable to police scientists behavior INSIDE science when they violate scientific norms and OUTSIDE science when they engage in advocacy and activism. Its unable and unwilling.
Therefore, it makes no practical sense to talk about guidelines, even your guideline : ‘decide for yourself’ is just a pointless exercise.

Scientists will advocate. Some will break the law. 99.9% wont. You cant stop them from advocating. Guidelines wont do any good. basically anything goes— thats a principle

################

“But the basic problem we have here is that others, even if they believe Gleick was wrong to do what he did, don’t see his actions in as serious a light as you do. You are asking others to act in a way that assumes they share your judgement. I don’t see how that’s going to be resolved.”

wrong. I am NOT ASKING THEM TO SHARE MY JUDGMENT
I am noting that they dont share my judgement. And I’m saying
Talking about guidelines for advocacy with people who DONT SHARE MY JUDGEMENT is silly. They have already demonstrated through their actions that anything goes, so why in gods name would I discuss the limits to advocacy with people who refuse to action in a case that clearly required action.

I conclude that they will never do anything about advocacy or activism and that in their world as a pragmatic fact anything goes.

To recap: Judith was invited to a hang out to discuss responsible advocacy

My position: this will end up in a discussion over guidelines and that discussion is futile since nobody takes the guidelines seriously. Evidence that guidelines are not serious can be found by looking at the Gleick case

Your suggestion; “make up your own guideline’ is ANOTHER EXAMPLE of pointless guidelines, unless you beat yourself when you disobey your own guidelines

Comment on Conflicts between climate and energy priorities by philjourdan

0
0

Careful Dr. Curry, or you are going to become a full fledged skeptic! ;-)

All heated rhetoric aside, the question really comes down to do you help the people alive now? or do you reserve your magnanimity for a select few in the future? In time, Solar and wind may become viable alternatives for fossil fuel. That time has not yet come, and we have immediate needs now in 75% of the world.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images