Interesting…the story is all over the blogosphere but MIA in the MSM. Nice to see you quoted!
Comment on Week in review by JustinWonder
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Don Monfort
Jimmy is the master of simplistic absurdities.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
Don M, yes, he is probably just thumbing his nose at them while doing a lot behind the scenes, maybe even while he was on vacation, that is obviously not being revealed to the press. We will find out soon enough.
On the compounding thing, yes, the annual 0.04% in WG3 compounds to quite a small amount even by 2100, so that is where the 3% comes from and seems to be the number Lomborg uses. The upper estimate from WG3 is 11% that might take about 5 years instead of two. The total GDP growth would be about 600% give or take 100%, so it is somewhat within the uncertainty anyway.
↧
Comment on Partisanship and silencing science by NickC
I posted the following in 2008 at RC and started a vigerous debate …
“We have all read management books and accept the impact human behaviour has on decision making in general. Groupthink for example has the potential to be very damaging and can be minimised by:
Create constructive conflict within the group
Break context to avoid context traps for participants
Foster the role of devil’s advocate
Ensure a heterogeneous group
Limit early influence of a senior leader
How many scientists do you think consider these techniques redundant due to their involvement in an ‘unambiguious’ persuit where ‘facts’ are most important.
I am not on either side of the global warming debate, I don’t know, and feel comfortable in that position. I do however think that past examples of where the consensus position was overturned offer lessons. Historical Lamarckian analysis provides lessons for both sides, not against one or the other.
The following link for example points to an enormous unfair onus placed on all actors in this specific anthropogenic debate to be the frontline warriors in a social policy fight. Is it fair that a scientist must work with the a) threat of a ruined planet for his/her children, or b) threat of carbon reduction on third world, as two simple polar examples. Any scientist claiming they are free from any influence misses the point, usually they won’t be aware.”
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/00se.html
Interestingly the regular 600 or 700 comments over at RC around that 2008 time has shrunk to less than 100 and the bulk of comment has shifted to the less alarming blogs.
↧
Comment on Week in review by ordvic
Produced by: Fossil Fuels, CO2 and Human Greed
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Don Monfort
You are a trip, jimmy. Impervious to reality.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Faustino
(sigh) I’ve been modded for correct use of a term which can be considered abusive. Here’s a modified version:
Not quite as dramatic as when I heard it in the Middle Earth basement club in ’68 and the “very silly” roadie accidentally set the place on fire while I was on the corner of the stage.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Rob Ellison
It presumes increased energy over time – resulting in permentantly lower GDP – by several percent each and every year. Not counting risk from unforeseen outcomes and economic shocks from misguided and ramped up interventions.
There are conservative ways to run economies – none of them understood by Jimbo. As I suggested earlier – if he can decarbonize by allowing the market and innovation take it’s course so be it. If not he can sit on it and rotate. It seems to me I am not the first to suggest this to him today.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Faustino
Are the three bears huddling close together because (a) the expanse of ice is now so vast that they fear getting lost and lonely; or (b) because a warmist photographer got them to huddle to show the over-crowding from ice loss, and forgot to crop the photo? You be the judge.
[Ed: they are actually comparing porridge temperatures.]
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Faustino
MIA in the MSM? I wonder (no pun intended … well, alright, intended) if this is an attempt to equate it to the MIASMA issue which was an early example of scientific blinkered group-think?
(Yes, I am tired.)
↧
Comment on Week in review by PA
Well…
It seems to be generally agreed at this point that it isn’t going to warm until 2030.
Proponents of catastrophic warming (which is the only kind of warming that really needs a response) have a track record that is worst than lousy. The climate models would have to improve to be really bad. The rate of CO2 emission is worst than RCP8.5. So the warming should be worse than the climate models suggest, we should not be having a hiatus. Despite that the CAGW proponents have a fire-ready-aim approach to CO2 emissions.
We have at least 16 years sort through our options. It won’t be 2-3°C warmer in 2020 as predicted by Hansen. Perhaps we should quit doing studies with invalid models and focus on atmospheric science and natural forcings.
There are currently 38 explanations (and counting) for the pause. Reasonable people would actually like to understand the situation rather than just guess at it.
The skeptics can’t prove the warmers are wrong. The warmers can’t prove that CAGW is at least as likely as a asteroid strike.
We should split the difference and devote about as much money to global warming as we do to asteroid defense. In a decade or so we will have better information and can revise our policy accordingly.
↧
Comment on Week in review by beththeserf
Pretty accurate assessment of the UNFCCC COP 21Process.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/nakedpastor/2010/05/cartoon-crystal-ball/
↧
Comment on Week in review by kim
It’s easy for Hansen to predict the past; it’s the future he has trouble with.
==============
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by willard (@nevaudit)
You make me think of Jean Béliveau, JimD, who turns 83 today:
Celebrate Jean Beliveau's 83rd birthday by checking out this gallery of the many highlights of his career. HERE -> goha.bs/Z3Ln2q—
Canadiens Montréal (@CanadiensMTL) August 31, 2014
A great ambassador.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
kim, if you don’t learn from the past, …
↧
Comment on Week in review by Eric
People like jim 2 blame the USofA for all of the worlds problems. As a patriot, the irrationality of the blame America crowd is easily visible.
↧
Comment on Week in review by kim
A seven year old once asked me why bubbles rose in her glass of soda pop. After I explained that carbon dioxide became less soluble as the temperature rose she thought for a moment, looked around, up at the sky and then on past the beach. Finally she said ‘So the carbon dioxide in the air will rise after an ice age stops?’
====================
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by kim
Oh, JD, I have, I have, and that lag is a huge dilemma, hardly false, for the alarmists.
==============
↧
Comment on Week in review by kim
What I think is cool is that after temperature rises, CO2 rises, and after CO2 rises, temperatures drop, always, always, always. We won’t discuss the lag for the second phenomenon.
========================
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
kim, so maybe you understand, or possibly not, that CO2 rises after volcanic periods, and temperature rises as a result, then you replace those volcanoes with an anthropogenic CO2 release and the temperature rises as a consequence of that too.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
