They would enjoy their day in court, at least in the US, fruit of the poison vine and all that, case dismissed for lack of evidence.
Comment on After Climategate . . . never the same (?) by Bob Droege
↧
↧
Comment on After Climategate . . . never the same (?) by willard (@nevaudit)
Speaking of the old left:
Two of my neighbours derive incomes from the public sector. My neighbour across the street works for the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. He is returning in August from a year’s sabbatical in the south of France. He is contemplating early retirement at 55 on an indexed pension. My next-door neighbour is a professor at York University. He is about to begin a second sabbatical in seven years. His previous sabbatical was spent in England. My wife is absolutely bewildered about why I persist with our business. Fundamentally, it is that I do not want to be a bureaucrat.
http://www.ontla.on.ca/committee-proceedings/transcripts/files_html/1991-07-31_r015.htm#P521_159836
Our emphasis.
↧
Comment on Conflicts between climate and energy priorities by WebHubTelescope (@whut)
Bond-Lamberty is consistent with anthropogenic CO2.
The stuff has to go somewhere after being buried underground for eons.
Cheap Hydrologist ran out of gas long ago and seems to be reasoning on fumes.
↧
Comment on Conflicts between climate and energy priorities by captdallas 0.8 or less
Webster, “The graph is by Tsonis and Swanson and once the variability is removed, the trend matches a 2C sensitivity for CO2 doubling or a 3C sensitivity for doubling if a land temperatue record is analyzed.”
And if I remove the shorter term variability ~60 years, I get what would be a 1.6C sensitivity if I neglect the longer term secular trend. If I consider the secular trend, the reason for comparing hemispheres btw, I get a total “atmospheric forcing” sensitivity of ~ 0.8 C riding on a longer term ~0.8C trend with +/-0.2 C of shorter term natural variability. You ASSUME, that after removing the variability that all that is left is wmghg forced “sensitivity”.
As I said, I have explained this quite a few times. You continuously resort to land only to eke out your 3C and ignore the possibility that recovery from the little ice age did not magically stop circa 1945 and ignore that there was some recovery to at least 1945. .
↧
Comment on After Climategate . . . never the same (?) by Bart R
Harold | August 9, 2013 at 1:31 pm |
No. Depreciation allowance applied to inventory of machines and equipment used to manufacture, ie accelerated depreciation, that’s not a subsidy. That prevents government from grabbing tax from hardworking business people.
Accelerated depletion, which SCOTUS found in 1911 to be a scam, the practice of writing down your inventories in the ground even while they become more valuable over time, that’s just begging poor while getting rich to avoid shouldering a fair share of the cost of upholding the nation.
And it’s far from the only subsidy. I know you have trouble remembering more than one thing. But if you could remember only one thing, the explanation I provide immediately below to AK’s piteously invalid arguments should be it.
AK | August 9, 2013 at 12:55 pm |
When everything being paid is taken and “returned to the owners — everyone who draws breath — per capita” you no longer have the kind of market the “law of supply and demand” is talking about.
Every Market runs by the payment of buyers going to sellers. The Law of Supply and Demand works just as well for CO2E as for cell phone bandwidth or rutabagas. The mechanism of the Law of Supply and Demand under Fair Market assumptions (the foundation of Capitalism) is that the sellers raise their price per unit until the next increment in price reduces the total units sold by enough that total revenues fall. (In the simplified version; counting the cost of production, the equation becomes a little more complicated, but it appears you’re not quite ready for that many terms in a mathematical identity.)
Balancing the monopolistic qualities of all owners of CO2E acting as a single seller and sharing all revenues equally — much like many other natural monopolies — is that there are many alternative ways to get the same energy without CO2E, as well as many inefficiencies in the wider world that can be reduced without diminishing the quality of life of buyers.
As these alternative ways are competing against a set of products — in essence, two: petrochemical fuels and coal — that are subsidized by being allowed to use up the scarce resource of the carbon cycle’s ability to cope with waste CO2E, the Market is not fair, and does not run according to Capitalist precepts, without such a carbon price.
Steven Mosher | August 9, 2013 at 12:46 pm |
You assert wicked implementation. But you can’t prove it, because it’s false.
British Columbia implemented with no fuss, muss or bother. If a tiny backwater pimple on the far end of a third-rate G20 member can do it, then the fact the US Congress can’t tells us either the Founders built something that can’t work and it is time for the Tree of Liberty to once again be fertilized by patriots, or that Congress is a bunch of bums who need throwing out and replacing with hardworking people who will do their freaking jobs.
You insist on tugging at the Gordian knot fruitlessly until it’s been untied (which would take forever) with your ten absurdly invalid straw men, before drawing the sword and slicing through all the crap.
The solution isn’t wicked. Just cut the crap.
↧
↧
Comment on After Climategate . . . never the same (?) by Bad Andrew
You forgot:
Global Warming is a hoax
Andrew
↧
Comment on Why conservatives should love a carbon tax by Bart R
Tonyb | August 9, 2013 at 2:30 pm |
If you’re ever traveling in America, you may find avoiding the phrase ‘rule of thumb’ wise; some morons falsely claimed textual historical support for the etymology of the phrase to mean you should not beat your wife with a stick thicker than your thumb.
This is of course historical nonsense, though beating of wives happened in the past, and sadly continues today; eschewing the phrase irrelevantly does nothing to honor those victims of the practice in the past, and nothing to protect of provide redress in the cases of those suffering today.
See how important it is to get history right? Well, I know you won’t, because you’ve already decided what the right answers of history ought be, but I thought I’d give it another try even at this late date. I’m an optimist at heart.
Also, Jim D’s well aware of the problems of partisanship, as is evident from his post, though I quibble a bit with his conclusion.
↧
Comment on After Climategate . . . never the same (?) by Bob Droege
The release whether it was hacked or by a concerned insider/whistleblower.
I am glad to see someone else who believes reading others mail is wrong.
It has reminded me that I should consider that a regulatory agency could and does have the right to read my emails, but my right to privacy means that agency does not have the right to publish my emails anonymously on the web.
We should strive for polite discourse, even though it is so lacking here and on the web.
Polite discourse on the science would be appreciated and it is so lacking here. But this site does have a good balance of posters which most other climate sites lack.
↧
Comment on After Climategate . . . never the same (?) by Bob Droege
McIntyre proved that you can fool an awful lot of people if you fiddle with the y-axis.
↧
↧
Comment on Conflicts between climate and energy priorities by Ragnaar
WebHub:
Okay agreed, they could have worded things closer to neutral given the significance of what they may have seen. One should keep in mind their peers and the current situation. I think Judith Curry called this a kind of interface. Which you’ve pointed out, now reaches to a paper’s conclusions because of the interest in these subjects.
Thank you for pointing out this interesting approach. It seems if we can track the CO2 with enough precision, we’ll get closer to knowing.
It’s been said we are acidifying the Oceans. Perhaps that explains where some of the CO2 is going.
↧
Comment on Conflicts between climate and energy priorities by Chief Hydrologist
What is most important the science or silly little partisan snarks? What am I thinking it webby and Joshua.
I hypothesize that La Nona dominated to 1976, El Nino to 1998 and La Nina again since? Or I hypothesize that these modes last 20 to 40 years. No – this is uncontroversial scientific knowledge. See for yourself.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
Do either of them have a clue?
↧
Comment on Why conservatives should love a carbon tax by Tonyb
BartR
Thanks for your concern. I suspect you have been reading too much Wikipedia. Rule of thumb is surely a m easurement based on the thumb.Mind you if travelling in the states it’s not a phrase that slips easily into everyday language so I might be able to stay out of trouble.
Tonyb
↧
Comment on After Climategate . . . never the same (?) by Steven Mosher
Bart R | August 9, 2013 at 2:30 pm |
Steven Mosher | August 9, 2013 at 1:41 pm |
You assert liberal.
Defend the assertion.
############################
Simple. we discussed politics. I’d classify him as liberal.
If you want to have conversations with him for 6 years and come to your own conclusion, have at it. If you present me with new evidence, I’ll gladly take a look at it. but to date, you’ve provided nothing.
Hint: I’m not interested in convincing you. Its enough for people to see that someone who has known steve for 6 years thinks differently from somebody who has never met him, talked to him, or discussed politics with him.
Folks will just apply Occams razor and conclude that you know less about mcintyre than you do about typos in AR4 which is hard to do but you managed to outdo yourself
↧
↧
Comment on After Climategate . . . never the same (?) by gbaikie
Some think the public has right to know what the government is doing and some think the government has right to know what public are doing.
Personally I think every public person conservations regarding public matters should be a matter of public record.
And I don’t think government should have right to wire tap the public unless they a need that serves the public’s interest- need to get court order. And of course the process involved with getting such a court order should also be transparent [available to the public].
Some things should state secrets, therefore the government can delay this information from being public. I think 40 years should the longest this information should be delayed.
Can’t imagine there being a need to classify any matters in regard to climate science. As reason a government should be able to keep secrets is because they are combating enemies of the people and criminals- therefore keeping such things secret is in the public interest.
↧
Comment on After Climategate . . . never the same (?) by John Carpenter
Willard, perhaps I should have replied directly to the first comment by the Rev. where it says:
“One wonders – -
How did Dr. Judith Curry ever end up securing tenure and with a position as the Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology in the wake of such Evil Oppression and Bullying from the Konsensus Kops?
Move over Murry Salby.
Judith Curry – You are the proud winner of the Victim-of-the-Week-Award!”
Don’t you find it a bit interesting he sarcastically refers to ‘Evil Oppression and bullying from the Konsensus Kops’ toward Judy where presumably it means there is no such thing, that she is using that as a false example of what she has experienced because of her ability to reach tenure? By posing the question, isn’t it saying there really is no reason to fear ‘the consensus community’? There is no retribution, look Judy Curry got tenure as an academic equivalent to Murry Salby?
All by an anonymous commenter?
He he, it’s a richly hypocritical comment. So why not ask the Rev who really is? What’s he got to fear? There is no retribution for speaking out or speaking one’s mind? Is there?
And who says David Appel doesn’t have a few good lines of argument as well? ;)
↧
Comment on Conflicts between climate and energy priorities by Chief Hydrologist
‘Climate forcing results in an imbalance in the TOA radiation budget that has direct implications for global climate, but the large natural variability in the Earth’s radiation budget due to fluctuations in atmospheric and ocean dynamics complicates this picture.’ http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/reprints/Loeb_et_al_ISSI_Surv_Geophys_2012.pdf
The variations in atmosphere and ocean circulation changes – inter alia – cloud radiative forcing. Longer term they can feed into ice, snow and dust feedbacks that shift the planet between glacials and interglacials.
Here a new cloud study that combines the International Cloud Climatology project and the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer and validates these with sea surface temperature.
http://www.benlaken.com/documents/AIP_PL_13.pdf
Webby’s post hoc rationalizations that a chaotic climate doesn’t change albedo notwithstanding.
↧
Comment on Conflicts between climate and energy priorities by RC Saumarez
Are you the David Appell who runs Quark Soup? I seem to notice a similarity in style.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by lolwot
John writes:
“My friend said that Antarctica is melting, look at the breakup of all the ice sheets. I reminded him that when floating ice shelves melt, it doesn’t contribute to sea level rise, and that the ice sheets on the mainland aren’t contributing a pittance to sea level rise at present.”
Uh John,
When floating ice shelves melt the land ice behind them slides faster into the ocean. Antarctica is contributing to sea level rise.
Geez. Maybe you should invite them back to dinner to apologize for being wrong!
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
Ahh, David Springer, the accolyte of William Dembski of Intelligent Design fame. Springer moderated Dembski’s ridiculous Uncommon Descent blog for some time.
The connection to Park here is that Robert Park said this about Dembski being given the Trotter Prize :
http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN05/wn040805.html
“How better to illustrate the overlap than to give the award this year to one of the nation’s top pseudoscientists, Dr. William Demski, a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, often regarded as the leading intelligent-design theorist. The Intelligent-Design movement seeks to portray intelligent-design as science.”
Springer is the same type of pseudoscientist as his buddy Dembski. Congrats to you Springer.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by manacker
Jim D
Good point about the sun (being responsible for around half the past warming). Several solar studies have also come to this conclusion.
The unusually high level of 20thC solar activity (highest in several thousand years according to some solar studies) certainly had an impact.
For example, the average Wolf number of:
- SC 10-15 (1858-1928) was around 90, and
- SC 18-23 (1945-2008) was around 148 (peaking in SC19 at 190)
(i.e. a 64% increase)
SC23 was already much lower and it appears that SC24 will be even lower yet.
So the sun has very likely played a significant role in the past warming and may be playing a role in the current lack of warming.
All makes sense to me, Jim.
Max
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
