Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on A precautionary tale: more sorry than safe(?) by Faustino


Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by Ragnaar

0
0

“In science you’re right until you’re proven wrong, and theories survive only as long they stand up to challenge.”

CO2 may be the best answer and it seems to have this ‘king of the hill’ role at the moment and will remain so until a better answer is found. But while being the king, we still wonder about with how much certainty do we know this? Natural variability might account for more than 50% of the recent changes. I think we should distinguish between weak kings and strong kings. The challenge of the hiatus I think should at least be acknowledged. I think some might be supporting the current king but not searching for the true king or kings if they exist.

Thanks for the interesting post.

Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by wrhoward

0
0

Fernendo, good point. Highlights the problem of “who” to believe. How do you decide who is a “fringe global warming contrarian”?

Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by wrhoward

Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by Faustino

0
0

“Most of the impacts we are concerned about are in the future and we have no data for the future. … However, by the time we’re in a position to test the result of, say, doubling greenhouse gas concentrations, it may be too late to mitigate the impacts.”

Potential impacts in the future; and, not knowing them, we don’t know that mitigation will serve any net beneficial purpose.

Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by Tom Scharf

0
0

Well these are all reasonable assertions. I’m all for R&D into clean energy and what really makes this thing work will be making clean energy cheaper than fossil fuels. We aren’t there yet but progress is being made.

The developing world is where the action is, and where the cost factor is the most sensitive. We will never stop coal use there without providing a more economical clean alternative. The western world can help most by developing better technology, not taxing its own emissions.

A straight up carbon tax is a regressive tax, and unfortunately the “fix” for this is effectively income redistribution. For this reason it stands almost no chance of getting through Congress. New taxes are already anathema
to the right, coal state Democrats will reject a carbon tax, and there is no trust the government would execute this wealth transfer “fairly”, as most on the left would push for this to additionally be a fix for income inequality. DOA, but it is an interesting thought experiment. A US only carbon tax also won’t do much for global emissions.

It has always been curious to me why politicians frame some infrastructure improvements around climate change. This really poisons the well politically. You are more likely to get support on simple straight up infrastructure improvements.

The “may be too late to mitigate” was a misunderstanding, but could have been made clearer in the text. This phrase sounds like the “we must act before it is too late” meme and that was my mental connection. Possibly phrasing it as “many of the potential impacts may already be locked in due to the long term sequestration of carbon in the atmosphere forcing us into adaption instead of mitigation” or such could make it more clear.

Comment on A precautionary tale: more sorry than safe(?) by William McClenney

0
0

You are most welcome :-) Thank you!

Comment on Is the road to scientific hell paved with good moral intentions? by Maurice Newman’s climate claims are a mess (at best) | Plastic Corrosion Awareness

0
0

[…] climate science as Newman makes it appear. A larger problem is that Newman ignores Tetlock’s next sentence, “it is one thing, however, to argue that values can easily influence inquiry and quite […]


Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by Faustino

0
0

Howard, I knew one of those A-bomb scientists, physicist Carl Christ, who switched fields and became a world-leading econometrician. He was a very nice guy. Christ’s wife told me that, in reaction to the bombing, he changed fields “to do good.” She added, “He hasn’t done good, but he’s done well.” [Pronounced Krist.]

Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by Faustino

0
0

With multiple lines, it’s easier to get on the wrong track.

Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by wrhoward

0
0

I haven’t said anything (yet) about sea ice. Also my essay is a critique of Skeptical Science’s approach.

Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by Curious George

0
0

What exactly is a mathematical network approach? Where can I find a definition of it? Could it have been invented specifically to analyse abrupt climate change on decadal timescales?

Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by Faustino

0
0

This is a good example of why I don’t read The Conversation, which has very strict boundaries on what appears. I applied to be a contributor before it began, no hope.

Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by thisisnotgoodtogo

0
0

Jim D said

“even skeptics don’t say “stopped” for fear of looking like they have made an unfounded assumption about the future.”

“Stopped” is a statement about a past time period, Jim D.
It doesn’t what most people do.

Scientists should feel free enough to call a spade a spade.

Joshua said
“Yes. Crucified. Nailed to the cross. Executed. That’s what would happen.”

Phil Jones wrote
“The scientific community would come down on me
in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK ,
it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant”

In no uncertain terms, Joshua.
To say it’s warmed enormously lately, that always as been JUST FINE.

:)

I wonder how long it would take until WR Howard would feel comfortable saying “stopped”.
30 years of no warming?
Would he need 60?

Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by Curious George

0
0

Never bother to read a scientific paper. An abstract is all that matters.

Am I the only one who sees Cook’s approach as inherently nonsensical?


Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by Tom Scharf

0
0

“they disagree that the total warming will be dangerous”

This is absolutely correct in my experience. The real denier boundary is whether you support immediate (and costly) action. That is how people are sorted.

You can agree on everything “the science” says, but then go on to question the assertion the temperature increase will be dangerous, and you get thrown into the denier bin every time. If you choose to go through the exercise of nailing someone down on this paradox, they will ultimately tell you that believing in AGW can only lead you to believing it is dangerous. They are the same. Maybe not….

Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by Faustino

0
0

“Those who see AGW evidence as clear feel we’re long overdue for decisive action, while the so called skeptics find such action unwarranted given the state of the science.” No, some of us believe that whether or not warming resumes, costly GHG emissions reductions which cause economic damage for virtually no impact on temperatures make no sense, pro-growth policies which increase our capacity to deal with whatever (currently unknown) future emerges do.

Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by beththeserf

0
0

A serf saying J2, ‘Yer don’t hafta hav built the wind mill
ter know which way the wind is blowing.’ … Or yer can’t
make a genuine hockey stick from jest a coupla trees.

Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by Tom Scharf

0
0

Very interesting. Well written.

I’m not sure I’m a big fan of dynamic climate sensitivity, but would be interested to see how many others jump on that bandwagon. It could be interpreted as a not so subtle face saving exercise for admitting the models may have carbon sensitivity overblown, but still hanging onto a tagline that it might change later.

Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by Faustino

0
0

Thanks, Robert. I’ll happily accept the appellation of “Monster lover” rather than “denier,” the defining characteristic of existence is change, and in the absence of perfect knowledge, that will always entail uncertainty. As I’ve said before, it often seems that those inclined to be warmists rather than of a sceptical bent find it difficult to accept the reality of change and uncertainty.

Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images