Reading the transcript, it occurred to me that one should not throw a sharp hunting boomerang without knowing how to catch it.
Comment on Trial of the century? by Pooh, Dixie
↧
↧
Comment on Inconvenient truth of carbon offsets by GaryM
Consensus climate science is the new medieval Catholic Church.
First they act as an inquisition to silence any skeptics. Now they are selling indulgences from the fiery wrath of Gaia.
But hey, I am all for voluntary carbon indul…. offsets. They are a form of economic Darwinism. If someone is gullible enough to buy into CAGW, and intellectually challenged enough to think carbon offsets make one iota of difference to globalclimatewarmingchange, then their money is much more likely to be put to good use by anyone smart enough to con them out of it.
↧
Comment on Inconvenient truth of carbon offsets by Dan Hughes
For David Springer at | March 28, 2014 at 9:34 am |
Here you go David:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26966144/SovacoolNukeyCO2.pdf
I’m certain that when you Google around you’ll find total life-cycle carbon costs for all kinds of electricity generation.
You’ll find that nuclear is far from the highest and also far from the lowest.
Kindly omit crap like this, ” Nuclear cheerleaders are invariably some combination of ignorant and dishonest. “
↧
Comment on Inconvenient truth of carbon offsets by Wagathon
Heaps of peat
Bring heat
And flavor
Not so neat.
↧
Comment on Inconvenient truth of carbon offsets by naq
When scientists arrive on the NJ shore they will be staying at Fort Totten, where the motto is: Trees, Shade, Cool
↧
↧
Comment on Inconvenient truth of carbon offsets by pokerguy (aka al neipris)
By definition, CAGWer’s are an easily led, credulous bunch. Their view of the world appears hopelessly naive. These are the same people who likely bought into the Internet bubble in 1999, and the real estate bubble in 2006. Why? Well because they were told it was the right thing to do by “experts,” taking no notice that these so-called experts one way or another had a vested interest in their doing so. They’re also unable to discern the echo chamber in which they live.
Classic suckers.
↧
Comment on Inconvenient truth of carbon offsets by NW
“Meanwhile, in an Indian village where my offset money has helped to fund a wind turbine, the villagers now have the (low-carbon) electricity to watch television, which provides advertisers of a petrol-fuelled moped with more viewers, and customers. A fuel depot follows, to meet the new demand, and encourages others to invest in old trucks to transport goods between villages. Within 30 years, the village and surroundings have new roads and many more petrol-fuelled mopeds, cars and trucks. Meanwhile, the emissions from my original flight are still having a warming impact, and will do for another 100 years or so.”
Just enough of us, way too many of you.
↧
Comment on Inconvenient truth of carbon offsets by pokerguy (aka al neipris)
Natalie, Like most of the true believers, Web has a chronic case of the nasties. Don’t take it to heart.
↧
Comment on Week in review by pottereaton
Chris: saying that Pielke is a political scientist is rather like saying that Babe Ruth was a pitcher. Here’s how describes his academic background:
I am currently a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado. At CU, I am also a Fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences and was director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research from 2001-2007. Before coming to CU in 2001, I spent 8 years as a staff scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in their Environmental and Societal Impacts Group (which no longer exists). I have a B.A. in mathematics, an M.A. in public policy and a Ph.D. in political science, all from the University of Colorado. In 2007 I was on sabbatical at the James Martin Institute for Science and Civilization (now called the Institute for Science, Innovation and Society) at Oxford University.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by pokerguy (aka al neipris)
In a way, I almost feel feel sorry for the sappy, credulous believers who genuinely, if pathetically believe “deniers” are destroying the planet.
The real culprits are the propagandists, and some of the institutional scientists, and those who are getting rich. They know the extent of their own dishonesty…at least deep down… as they continue to whip their idealistic dupes into a frenzy of anger and fear.
The threat of exposure at the hands of skeptics fills the fraudsters with terror, and they’ll stop at just about nothing to make sure that doesn’t happen. I agree that the situation is becoming dangerous. I think it’s just a matter of time before some lunatic…or perhaps a group of them… does something violent.
↧
Comment on Week in review by vukcevic
Webby: Instead of wishing for something to be true, why don’t you do the actual quantitative analysis.
Done.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
Earth-Sun 99% consensus. :)
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
Pielke also had a falling out with Stefan Rahmsdorf of Realclimate, about a paper that showed Moscow’s record hot July 2010 was 80% probably due to warming in the temperature record. Rahmsdorf goes through Pielke’s critiques here under the 29th March postscript. Warning: this is actual statistics here, but he says that “Pielke using the word “gentlemen” struck me as particularly ironic” (in that letter from Pielke to Trenberth.) Bottom line was that Pielke kept misrepresenting their work as cherry-picking despite attempts to correct him.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/03/the-most-common-fallacy-in-discussing-extreme-weather-events/#more-17093
↧
Comment on Week in review by jim2
JCH – good catch. Typo. Should have been laying. Oh well, the dangers of real time.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Curious George
I am grateful to Bart for a link to a paper by Dr. Holdren of many predictions. He starts in a usual pattern: “I replied that the indicated comments by Dr. Pielke … were not representative of mainstream views on this topic in the climate-science community.”
He does not say Dr. Pielke is wrong; his sin is that he does not follow the herd. This from a President’s scientific adviser.
↧
Comment on Week in review by manacker
Stephen Segrest
Yes. That was a wonderful quote.
Rumsfeld (like him or not) is no dummy.
The WMD story turned out to be bogus, and Bush/Cheney (plus Rumsfeld) were blamed by some for misleading the public. Whether or not this was intentional deceit, is a matter of conjecture, but it was very likely to a large extent simply a case of bad intelligence.
The same sort of doomsday hobgoblins were used by politicians at the time to justify the war in Iraq (“mushroom cloud over Manhattan as a smoking gun”) as are being used by alarmist politicians today to justify “action”, i.e. a carbon tax (“climate change is the single largest terrorist threat we face”)
Will the CAGW story of IPCC be judged in the same way, if and when it turns out not to be true?
IMO our hostess is on the right side of history here, by cautioning that we still far too uncertain that there even is a CAGW problem (due to known as well as unknown unknowns) to jump to mitigating actions whose unforeseen negative consequences we are unable to assess today.
IOW, let’s get our “intelligence” (or “science”) straight first.
Max
↧
Comment on Week in review by manacker
Jim D
Anyone who states that the hot July 2010 in Moscow was “with 80% probability a result of human GHG emissions” is simply spreading unsubstantiated BS, and you know it Jim.
Max
↧
Comment on Week in review by beththeserf
I would like to believe that the skeptics are winning the debate
but when you consider the pervasiveness of left liberal values
in education, the media or in climate science with its emphasis
on consensus, ‘reducing science to an absolute authority,’ as
Sultan Knish states, makes me doubt this. In an open debate
I’d feel more confident.
Once again, thank goodness for Dr Curry’s open forum.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by manacker
↧
Comment on Week in review by tallbloke
WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | March 29, 2014 at 4:09 pm |
The land warming is around 1.3C since 1880 and the stadium wave oscillation is about +/- 0.1C of that amount.
Anyone perusing the data can see that that statement is both wrongheaded and factually incorrect. The ocean surface warming since 1880 is less than a degree and the major oceanic oscillations take the SST up and down around +/- 0.15C
Here, I replicated it:
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/sst-model1.png
So, around 0.3C of the 0.4C 1975-2005 warming was the positive phase of the oceanic cycles forced by the Sun and the Moon and the Jovian planets, and the people spreading the FUD are the co2 fetishists, alarming people about a trace gas that has added at most around 0.25C since 1880, 0.15 of that since 1975. (assuming the temperature record hasn’t been diddled with).
I admit there’s plenty of uncertainty in all assessments and models, but I’ll bet you $1000 mine turns out to be more accurate than yours. Ready to put your money where your mouth is?
↧
Comment on Week in review by Steven Mosher
whoever rebuts Roger will likely change the subject.
or they will bristle under any editorial control.
But it would be nice to have a back and forth of SEVERAL rounds
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
