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

Comment on Arctic sea ice and extreme weather by Peter Lang

0
0

Chief,

+1^3

Excellent video. Thanks.


Comment on Arctic sea ice and extreme weather by Chief Hydrologist

0
0

The joke about the girl is noxiously unfunny on so many levels it beggars belief that he can think it any near appropriate to repeat.

Scientifically illiterate, ignorant and a boor to boot.

Comment on Scientists and motivated reasoning by Chief Hydrologist

0
0

You are a liar and a fool webster.

Energy futures are technological. No one gives a rat’s arse about oil as such. Merely having sufficient and reliable energy at minimal cost. I don’t know how to make this simpler. The winning technologies will emerge as a result of economic substitution in a free market. If oil prices rise – other energy sources will be economically viable. If technologies evolve and costs decline the new technologies will replace oil. It is a very simple equation.

You have been told time and time again and merely return with the same whines over and over again.

Comment on JC on NPR by kim

0
0

Ah, perhaps you have a point; the Institution of Climate Alarmism, AKA the IPCC, shows little interest in maintaining public trust.
================

Comment on JC on NPR by Chief Hydrologist

Comment on JC on NPR by Edim

Comment on JC on NPR by Max_OK

0
0

Detroit Don, my guess is I pay more in tax than you, and I ain’t whining. If you are concerned about passing too great of a debt to future generations, you shouldn’t be opposed to a tax increase to pay for past spending.

It’s past my bedtime. Goodnight.

Comment on JC on NPR by kim

0
0

From the sheen on your shine, I’d guess your golden years are behind you.
========


Comment on JC on NPR by Chief Hydrologist

0
0

Max – this is about science and we know your eyes glaze over. It is not about trivial, smarmy, one line, smartarse snarks that you think are funny. If it were you would be right up there as a sterling contributer to the discourse. As it is you are just a boring little fart with absolutely nothing worthwhile to say.

Comment on Scientists and motivated reasoning by Diag

0
0

The first one is what this all means for young scientists entering the field: chances are that by now – 2013 – they enter the field with preconceived ideas and/or motivated by the “noble cause”. Then, it is equally likely that during their formal education they will not be taught to think independently and be really critical. I have particular problems with entering science motivated by this “noble cause”, or as Tasmin Edwards put it, because she “cares about the environment”. I think you should start doing scientific research first of all because you are interested in the topic, not because you want to save the world.

Hear! Hear! It’s good to see this expressed so well. This is a problem which will haunt us for quite a while.

Comment on JC on NPR by kim

0
0

A fine liberal like you, the very quintessence of modern progressive thought, has a much better chance of an interview with NPR.
================

Comment on JC on NPR by Steven Mosher

0
0

“The interview seemed pretty fair to me. ”

huh? to judge fair you’d have to have the tape of what she said and the story written from it.

What was included .what was left out.

jeez.

Comment on JC on NPR by kim

0
0

Heh, she ran, but she couldn’t hide. Not from the ceaseless truth-seeking of Richard Harris.
============

Comment on JC on NPR by Steven Mosher

0
0

NPR’s audience

interesting thread. I think Joshua should go teach them about motivated reasoning.. you know prove he can see both sides of things..

Comment on JC on NPR by Brian H

0
0

It’s not the Murdoch press which is spinning and concealing for all it’s worth. It’s the self-anointed “reputable” media, notably NPR, which is selling its bias as hard as it can.


Comment on JC on NPR by kim

0
0

EXTRA! EXTRA! The train is leaving the station.
=============

Comment on JC on NPR by manacker

0
0

Don Monfort

Gotta agree with you.

This was not an informative “interview”, where the object is usually to learn the opinion of the interviewee on a specific subject, often one related to his/her area of expertise.

Instead it was a polemical “inquisition”, i.e. a series of loaded questions asked in a rather aggressive or unpleasant manner, with the intent of discrediting any opinion that deviated from the expressed political agenda of the UNFCCC/IPCC and Obama administration, which is fully supported by the interviewer.

The 8-minute summary was apparently spliced and censored to cut out most of the discussion of open scientific areas of debate. Instead it attempted to depict Judith as a controversial outsider obsessed with uncertainty rather than agreeing with the general scientific consensus that urgent action on climate is needed now.

In other words, it was hardball politics in play, Chicago-style.

To her credit, Judith maintained her calm throughout, even when Harris got shrill.

Short-term it looks like Harris outsmarted her.

But in the long term, most impartial observers will realize that she displayed rational objectivity, which Harris did not.

And, after all, as a respected climate scientist, she knows what she is talking about when it comes to our planet’s climate.

Harris obviously does not.

Max

Comment on JC on NPR by Chief Hydrologist

0
0

It is only zero sum if you assume that clouds, ice, snow, biology, hydrology and dust don’t vary with shifts in ocean and atmosphere circulation over decades to millennia. A difficult assumption to justify.

We know there are large short term changes.

‘The top-of-atmosphere (TOA) Earth radiation budget (ERB) is determined from the difference between how much energy is absorbed and emitted by the planet. 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

We know equally that there are very large decadal changes in albedo that are associated with the decadal patterns in ocean and atmospheric systems. We know as well that the patterns occur in varying forms and intensity over hundreds to thousands of years. We don’t know what tips the system into rapid and severe cooling – but ice feedbacks are involved.

Comment on JC on NPR by Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)

0
0

I agree, Beth.

If one compares Harris’ “journalism” with that of (much to my surprise) CBC’s Max Allen (although I believe Allen is an independent contractor, rather than a run of the mindless IPCC/UNFCCC-green-propaganda-mill CBC employee!) and his treatment of Judith’s evolving views [see http://judithcurry.com/2012/03/12/demon-coal/%5D, IMHO, CBC beat NPR hands down!

Comment on JC on NPR by Beth Cooper

0
0

On Feb 9th 2011, Judith posted a thread, ‘On Being a Scientist’
which she linked to the publication, ‘On Being a Scientist.
A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research.’ citing standards
ter be followed fer honest reseach.

Hmm …so where are the guidelines, loud ‘n clear, presented
fer journalists out there and checks ter see they’re followed
so that the publick ain’t channeled into a consensus-du-jour-
sanitized interpruh-tashun of events and media don’t control
gateways of not fer publick interpreta-shun, ‘we will tell yer
what yer need ter know. ? Max_ who _thinx_ he’s_ okay
thinx “consensus -u-lie-ashun”is okay, but Max, it ain’t okay.

Thank heavens fer open society blogs like Judith Curry’s.
Bts

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images