maybe 2nd most serious threat to the Amazon is ,,, oh, GreenDamn!!! it’s…it’s soy…..bwahahahahaha
Comment on How to criticize with kindness by thisisnotgoodtogo
↧
↧
Comment on How to criticize with kindness by Stephen Segrest
Wagathon — You never mention that the tax credit on new nuclear is basically the same as wind — but where Congress went a step further in capping financial exposure to electric utilities for cost over-runs.
You never mention Price-Anderson.
You never mention the DOE Loan Program for building Georgia Power’s new nuclear plant.
↧
Comment on Week in review by kim
It’s long looked to be around ’04-’05 to me. That’s about when I first remarked it.
=============
↧
Comment on Week in review by Rob Starkey
Stephen Segrest-
For many of us not in the Renewable Energy field, we also view statements like these with high skepticism.
You ask- “So what are the “reasonable” current actions? Mitigation?”
I am not a republican, but I do not see how most CO2 mitigation actions can be viewed as being an effective use of resources. If you do not know that the proposed action will have any benefit, much less when, it seems difficult to support incurring the cost now.
There has been no increase in the rate of sea level rise and I can see no reliable evidence that there have been any substantial harms created by the increase in CO2 levels. If there have been harms, they appear to have been outweighed by the benefits that humans got as a result of releasing the CO2.
Isn’t the construction and maintenance of robust infrastructure the most sensible action that can be taken? It seems to be the ONLY action that actually reduces harms from adverse weather (regardless of the cause). It also put the responsibility for independent nations to largely take care of their own populations. Look at SW Asia as an example. It isn’t AGW that has caused people to be hurt every year by the weather. It also isn’t the US taxpayers responsibility to help pay for them to fix their problem.
↧
Comment on How to criticize with kindness by Walter Allensworth
Alexander – Just so. I general respond in-kind.
If my un-insulting and rational post is met with a rational answer or argument then I respond the same way.
If someone skips rationality and jumps right to ad-hom or vitriol, then they get derision in return.
This is usually done in such a way that it’s obvious to everyone that the responder is an uneducated wing-nut. There are a lot of them that once pinned down by facts simply disappear like a vampire in the morning light. Poof.
↧
↧
Comment on How to criticize with kindness by Tonyb
Eli
Thank you for taking the trouble to post that link which I read with interest.
The author seems a committed environmentalist
http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Myanna-Lahsen/927773142
Now there is nothing wrong with that at all but the lady concerned dos not seem that objective and as she will see in my link obviously thinks that sceptics and especially sceptical scientists have some deep seated physcolgical problems.
It would be good to see some more objective and less lengthy tracts on the Marshall institute as I still don’t really know who they ae and whether they are the incarnation of evil as some of you seem to believe.
If you or Fan can furnish me with some more material I will read it as my mind is not closed on their desirability or not as a venue for Judith ( not that she would be concerned of course if I were to suggest she might find nicer people to talk to)
Tonyb
↧
Comment on Week in review by Matthew R Marler
thank you for the link.
To your knowledge, has CO Democratic Sen. Udall spoken out on this issue?
↧
Comment on Week in review by kim
Heh, death per Speth.
========
↧
Comment on Week in review by pokerguy
“Yes, we’re cooling. That’s why August 2014 was the hottest on record.”
Pitiful, the grasping at straws by the intellectually halt and lame. NO WARMING IN AT LEAST 16 YEARS,,, BY SOME ACCOUNTING NEARLY 20!
Put that in your alarmist pipe and smoke it.
↧
↧
Comment on How to criticize with kindness by Scott
Wag,
Kind toc us tge models don’t simulate current observations and did not do so in the 1940 to 1970 period. What changes are appropriate to more reaslitcally match observed climate data. Please don’t change historical temperatures. Let the past rest.
Scott
↧
Comment on How to criticize with kindness by Skiphil
FOMT … on a thread which is supposed to be about “How to Criticize With Kindness” … launches into his typical stream of snarling frothing character assassinations. None of us has expressed any knowledge or experience of the Marshall Institute, so of course FOMT’s attacks cannot be intelligently discussed here…. yet, he persists in posting his highly OT diatribes with links to suspect sources which could never be relied upon for objective, accurate information. But then, FOMT (and Rabbett) have never been known for providing sources of objective, accurate information.
↧
Comment on How to criticize with kindness by stevepostrel
Willard: I went first, for free. It’s a cost-free process if you don’t like having your own case besmirched by bad arguments. It isn’t even ego threatening, because you’re not admitting error. So I don’t see why you should need a financial inducement to play.
↧
Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by philjourdan
I do not know if “more” will go in, but you are definitely correct that the winners will be the lawyers.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by beththeserf
Wolves in green fleece
in charge of and fleecing
a reducing flock.
↧
Comment on How to criticize with kindness by Tonyb
John smith
You ask if it is uncivil here?
Well, this is certainly amongst the mosT civil threads I have seen in recent times.
There are two or three people on either side who have periodic spasm of rudeness and there are severa running feuds and in addition there are fly by’s who can often be very rude.
This amtathy causes name calling and often protracted bun fights which I am sure must scare off real scientists many of whom do not seem to like public debate anyway.
I personally like banter, parody and satire all of which can sometimes be cutting! and sometimes downright rude comments can be so funny even the recipient must smile.
Unfortunately the highly committed activists on eitherbside simply won’t listen as was detailed in Garym ‘s list and when they combine that with bluster and name calling it can be quite lively
As you remark however it is better than many other blogs which are simply an echo chamber for one view or the other
Tonyb
↧
Comment on How to criticize with kindness by John Smith (it's my real name)
hro001- thanks for this
↧
Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by philjourdan
Sorry Nick, but you have it backwards. There was no Mann bashing, and there were answers. I take it from your rebuttals you did not like them, but while Steve Mc will answer you, he may not give you the answer you want.
↧
↧
Comment on How to criticize with kindness by Matthew R Marler
Eli Rabbett: Perhaps you need to read this paper by Myanna Lahsen
At least she acknowledged that the Marshall Institute was formed to counter the politicization of science and (from its web page) to provide balanced reviews of the science.
Realistic appraisals of technological possibilities and climate catastrophism are assumed bad by the writer.
↧
Comment on How to criticize with kindness by Tonyb
John smith
Fourth paragraph down, the mystery word is antipathy.
iPads have a mind of their own. I think they could form the basis of a new game show called ‘what did I mean to write?’
Tonyb
↧
Comment on How to criticize with kindness by Wagathon
What good are GCM but to scare children?
This virtual world is isolated from the real world of weather and climate. Few of the GCM modelers have any substantial weather or short- range climate forecasting experience. ~Dr. Wm Gray
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
