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

Comment on Kardashian Index by Valar Morghulis


Comment on Importance of intellectual and political diversity in science by stevepostrel

0
0

If ethanol were cheaper and people were voluntarily putting it in their gas (though why the mandate on the gas is there isn’t 100% clear), great. But the oil companies hate having to do this, which makes me doubt that it is really cheaper for them.

In the past, ethanol has been cheaper than alternatives because it is subsidized. It wasn’t actually cheaper in terms of the value of the resources that go into it. Now some of the tax credits and subsidies have just expired, but the Obama administration is trying to put them back. And of course chemical competitors would have shut down some capacity due to the government’s pro-ethanol mania, driving up the price of their additives.

Most importantly, ethanol has no environmental benefit to justify its subsidized, favored position. Even the IPCC finally figured out that it makes matters worse. E-v-e-r-y-b-o-d-y knows this stuff. Knowledge has diffused out to wonks far and wide. It’s only corn-state politicians and lobbyists who even try to defend it now.

Comment on Week in review by brent

0
0

Electrify Africa Bill Short Circuits Over Global Warming Concerns

Delaware Democratic Sen. Chris Coons told The Washington Post that while he believed the Senate version of the Africa electrification bill would eventually reach Obama’s desk, he warned that any bill dealing with global warming issues would be a hard sell.

“Any bill that touches on energy, on power generation, has become very difficult to get passed in this Congress because of the issues around coal and climate change,” said Coons, who cosponsored the Senate version of the bill with Tennessee Republican Sen. Bob Corker.

One reason the House bill got so much support from environmental groups is that it left in place rules that force the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) to consider the global warming impacts of the projects it funds. The rules come from language that was attached to a 2009 Senate appropriations bill and required the OPIC to dramatically reduce the carbon dioxide emissions emitted from its projects — making it hard for OPIC to fund fossil fuel projects.

“This move essentially bars OPIC from supporting traditional energy infrastructure throughout Africa, making it much more difficult for US firms to help bring Africa on the grid quickly and cost effectively,” wrote Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe in The Washington Times.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/07/electrify-africa-bill-short-circuits-over-global-warming-concerns/

Comment on Importance of intellectual and political diversity in science by stevepostrel

0
0

Also of interest is the political reason why the ethanol mandate is so hard to get rid of: Rural Republican districts benefit hugely from the market distortion and some alt-fuel fanatics in D.C, such as Obama, love to stick it to the oil companies regardless of environmental impact. For some great examples of special interests overcoming a legislator’s professed ideology (in this case “conservative” pro-market ideology),see

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2014/01/ethanol_debate_puts_conservati_1.html

Note that the reporter and everybody else quoted just takes for granted the badness of the ethanol mandate for everyone but corn farmers. The politicians propping it up won’t even respond for the record.

Comment on Importance of intellectual and political diversity in science by GaryM

0
0

izen,

Funny, I didn’t know Einstein did his work at a “progressive institution.” I thought he worked at a patent office when he first published.

And the CAGW debate is not about radiative physics. It’s about decarbonizing the global economy.

“Perhaps the cognitive ability to consider variations that might be more successful has some correlation with the liberal political bias because the authoritarian preference for fixed forms among conservatives is less adaptive.”

“Liberal political bias” is about an elite claiming they are entitled to centrally plan the economy. It has nothing to do with “cognitive ability,” let alone science.

Comment on Importance of intellectual and political diversity in science by phatboy

0
0

izen:

the radiative transfer equations that determine the way increasing CO2 increases the temperatures gradient between the emission altitude

should read: “the radiative transfer equations that affect the emission altitude”
That’s about the only thing that’s cast in stone.

Comment on Importance of intellectual and political diversity in science by ianl8888

0
0

Nah

For Jimmy old bean D:

a rotissierie of gate posts

Comment on Importance of intellectual and political diversity in science by Paul Matthews

0
0

See comment below from Lee Jussim himself (posting as leej55)


Comment on Importance of intellectual and political diversity in science by WebHubTelescope

0
0

“Science vs Conspiracy: collective narratives in the age of (mis)information”
Alessandro Bessi, Mauro Coletto, George Alexandru Davidescu, Antonio Scala, Guido Caldarelli, Walter Quattrociocchi
http://arxiv.org/abs/1408.1667

The troublesome aspect of this is that the deniers are convinced that the roles are reversed. They think that their conspiracy is the science while the mainstream science is the conspiracy.

Comment on Importance of intellectual and political diversity in science by Rob Ellison

0
0

‘In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.’ IPCC TAR 14.2.2.2

You can either accept that this is unconditionally true – or perpetually babble on about boundary conditions or – worse – a statistical mechanics of climate that doesn’t exist.

The former is unassailable and the latter delusional cognition that leads to a narrowing of science to the memes of the social construct that has grown up around climate science – that of the Borg collective cult of AGW groupthink space cadets.

They cannot of course see past their fixed ideological limitations and insist that the memes are the whole of science. It is clearly not.

Comment on Engagement vs communication vs PR vs propaganda by Editor of the Fabius Maximus website

0
0

Michael,

Then you should admit your statement was factually incorrect. There were specific examples given for each statement (i.e., substantiate means “to provide evidence”).

You need not find the evidence sufficient, of course. That’s a matter of opinion, of personal judgement.

Comment on Engagement vs communication vs PR vs propaganda by Jim D

0
0

Talking about communication, WUWT have now in recent days highlighted reports about deadly jelly fish and Ebola increasing with climate change that we wouldn’t have seen otherwise (h/t to them). They tried their obligatory weak denials based on no science of their own, so own goal, I would say. Maybe someone needs to stop them before they score more.

Comment on Engagement vs communication vs PR vs propaganda by kcom1

0
0

Joshua, I’m curious how many times you can read that definition and still not get what it means and what everyone else is talking about? Since you don’t even understand the basis for discussion your replies really are nonsensical. You don’t give any sign that you’ll be ready any time soon to move on to the “more complicated steps”.

Comment on Engagement vs communication vs PR vs propaganda by kim

0
0

No, I’d much rather play with words than step on their toes. Your deficit model is backward; and it’s the models that have led your ‘experts’ off the dance floor.
==============

Comment on Engagement vs communication vs PR vs propaganda by kcom1

0
0

Weak, nonsensical blather doesn’t require much in the way of reply. Just highlighting it for the world to see in all its glory (cough) is enough.


Comment on Engagement vs communication vs PR vs propaganda by Jim D

0
0

Science is more than an idea or an opinion. It is evidence backed up by physics. It is an objective truth that can be tested against other people’s versions. There is only one winning idea, as time and data tells.

Comment on Politicizing the IPCC report by Tuppence

0
0

The parallel between the toboacco-company ‘science’ on the health effects of smoking, and government ‘science’ on global warming ‘science’ are abundantly clear : both were geared to produce results that favoured their paymaster, by skewing and twisting the science in their favour. Both pretended their funds were not used to advance their vested interest.

The ideas that smoking is healthy, and that global warming is a certain imminent disater, are both science forgeries of the highest order.

Comment on Engagement vs communication vs PR vs propaganda by kim

0
0

Attribution isn’t just for temperature change anymore.
=================

Comment on Politicizing the IPCC report by kim

0
0

Oreskes, what a chump.
======

Comment on Engagement vs communication vs PR vs propaganda by Jim D

0
0

Aren’t you going to thank them for putting your mind at rest? Most of their denizens do, or maybe they prefer to attack the scientists which comes more naturally to them.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images