ITT VoTech of Tulsa
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by mosomoso
Pronoun confusion, Will. I meant the hydrochloric would acidify the bicarb. Repeating your own point, but with spoons and vats. That was just to inform that most of us already know what pH involves.
Of course, drop a spoonful of vinegar into a vat of caustic and by your own reasoning you have acidified the caustic. (I’d settle for saying you have lowered the vat’s pH to a very tiny degree.)
Of course, this is just mucking about over terms, but it’s sometimes worth mucking about. The almost pointless expression “climate change” (climate IS change, right?) has been hijacked by people who know they only have to get those words said or inserted into discussion – because the words are now so well loaded. (And if the discussion is not going well, they can just fall back on the original common meaning and say nothing was implied beyond that.)
There are certain terms which alarmists like and repeat signal-fashion, the verbal equivalents of polar bears. Acidification is a good’un, and you’d have to take it from their cold dead hands.
↧
Comment on Open thread by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
Comment in moderation due to some innocuous word.
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by phatboy
Perhaps a black eye is just what ‘science’ needs to shake itself up. There’s far too much rubbish and slipshod work passing itself off as science these days, and by no means only in climate.
↧
Comment on Open thread by beththeserf
Oh dear, ocean acidification sounds so scary
but, but, if the average pH of the ocean drops to 7.8
from 8.1 by 2100 as has been predicted, it will still be
well above 7, the point where alkaline becomes acidic.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970203550304577138561444464028
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by wrhoward
To add to my comment on another thread listing a number of lines of evidence for the recent decades’ CO2 rise being due to anthropogenic inputs. Colin Prentice, an expert on the terrestrial carbon cycle, has addressed this same question (in response to Salby’s suggestions ) from some of the same lines of evidence I listed, and adding a few other points I hadn’t covered:
Cheers.
↧
Comment on Open thread by Stephen Segrest
Jim2 — I think your links to what the U.S. “should” be considering with nuclear power were good & informative. I also believe your (and others like rls) constant comments on Liberals and Obama don’t show objectivity. For example,
(1) As you’ve challenged me on and I’ve previously provided info on, federal tax credit goodies on wind energy and new nuclear projects are very similar.
(2) You (and others) go crazy on Solyndra — but one-third of this DOE loan program goes to advance nuclear power (primarily Georgia Power’s 2 nuclear units).
(3) You don’t like subsidies for renewable energy, but are silent on subsidies to nuclear power — including perhaps the biggest subsidy through Price Anderson (although there are others, like tax credits and guarantees for cost over-runs).
(4) While there is much criticism (rightfully deserved) by CE Bloggers on CAGW Alarmists, very little is mentioned that Industry and Republicans do the same thing (as they’ve done previously on so many things like Acid Rain, ozone hole, etc.). Obama’s GW regs have not even been written yet and here we go with Alarmism: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/aug/14/fact-checks-obama-coal-rules-carbon-politics/
(5) Obama has done some “positive” things — like playing hardball with the auto industry to double MPGs (by I believe 2025?)
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Michael
phattie,
Go show them how it’s done.
Do the work.
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Brandon Shollenberger
Seriously? Judith Curry, I’m all for light moderation. I can accept it if people are allowed to follow me around leaving comments for no reason other than to use personal information to try to insult me.
But can I at least get a comment saying this sort of behavior isn’t appreciated? I didn’t ask for anything when people kept randomly sprinkling my name in comments to insult me, but are we all really supposed to just ignore what WebHubTelescope is doing whenever I comment?
I’m happy to not feed the trolls. I’d just like to know there’s some public recognition that following a person around with spam to insult them isn’t considered acceptable behavior.
↧
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by phatboy
Slow day, Mikey?
↧
Comment on Open thread by jim2
Dave, you don’t seem to realize that by and large what you call “Wall Streeters” are Dimowits. I know it seems incongruous, and I personally don’t understand why for the life of me, but it’s an unfortunate fact. This is demonstrated by the donations of record to the two parties.
I don’t believe my comments vis a vis O’bumbler are off the mark. He and the Dimowits have been in power for eight years. They own the tepid economy, the various disasters in the Middle East, the soaring debt (and they have contributed more than any other), the health care socialist mess, the militarization of the police, the IRS political crimes, and the NSA spying on everyone.
They own it.
↧
Comment on Open thread by jim2
@Stephen Segrest | August 17, 2014 at 7:45 am |
(1) As you’ve challenged me on and I’ve previously provided info on, federal tax credit goodies on wind energy and new nuclear projects are very similar.
*****
You haven’t “provided” me with anything I didn’t already know about subsidies.
(2) You (and others) go crazy on Solyndra — but one-third of this DOE loan program goes to advance nuclear power (primarily Georgia Power’s 2 nuclear units).
*****
PROVIDED the US implements a 0% corporate tax, there should be no subsidies for oil, coal, solar, wind, or most other forms of energy.
(3) You don’t like subsidies for renewable energy, but are silent on subsidies to nuclear power — including perhaps the biggest subsidy through Price Anderson (although there are others, like tax credits and guarantees for cost over-runs).
****
I am for the Federal government streamlining the evaluation and licensing process. I am OK with the Price Anderson indemnity Act. And I can live with the contradiction.
(4) While there is much criticism (rightfully deserved) by CE Bloggers on CAGW Alarmists, very little is mentioned that Industry and Republicans do the same thing (as they’ve done previously on so many things like Acid Rain, ozone hole, etc.). Obama’s GW regs have not even been written yet and here we go with Alarmism: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/aug/14/fact-checks-obama-coal-rules-carbon-politics/
*****
Barry should leave coal alone. It’s already on its back due to cheap and plentiful nat gas. The last thing we need is more Federal regulation. It is already beyond ridiculous.
(5) Obama has done some “positive” things — like playing hardball with the auto industry to double MPGs (by I believe 2025?)
*****
This will just make transportation more expensive for the poor and middle class.
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by climatereason
Nick
You say you have limited expertise in Dendro and refer me to the literature. I have read a great deal of it and been on a short course but I can not see the evidence that it can do what people such as Mann claim.
What has convinced YOU that Dendro proxies are good global thermometers.? There must have been a number of studies that convinced you-what were they?
The science appears to be hugely compromised by micro climates, the short growing season, shade and other factors.
tonyb
↧
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Daniel
Joshua,
“My point is the defense of Steyn’s offensive speech – by people who frequently decry the damage that offensive speech is doing in the climate wars. And the hand-wringing about the future of free speech rights hangs in the balance. So much drama-queening!”
Really? You see no material difference between people decrying language on a blog or calling for less heat in a discussion and someone suing for defamation? Really?
↧
Comment on Open thread by mwgrant
A new physical model: Underlying dissipative structure of debate at climate blogs…sort of drifting faux limit cycles peppered with occasional catastrophes:
↧
Comment on Open thread by jim2
This is what needs to be streamlined at the NRC:
221 general categories of regulation:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/reg-guides/power-reactors/rg/
↧
Comment on Open thread by jim2
Yep, but it’s regional. Note the last UAH global temp didn’t change much. In the US, the East has been cooler, the West still warm.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by jim2
And here is the Charlotte’s web of regulations that hold back development of new reactor designs.
↧
Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by thisisnotgoodtogo
You’re a PhD?
↧
Comment on Open thread by cwon14
That sums up left-wing media and academic history departments rather well.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
