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

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by philjourdan

0
0

YOu do not speak for me unless you are saying the “in it” is your own yaw.


Comment on How to criticize with kindness by Matthew R Marler

0
0

Pekka Pirilä the main reason is in lacking knowledge about the actual outcomes from alternative policy decisions.

It is important to remember that.

There has not been much of a showing that a coordinated plan to rapidly reduce human fossil fuel consumption will have any beneficial effects, either in actually reducing atmospheric CO2 or in producing any other beneficial effect. Much less a showing that the benefits would outweigh the costs.

Comment on Week in review by aaron

0
0

And more recently (2000-2008), 15% of concentration increase happened when 20% or emissions happened.

Comment on How to criticize with kindness by Wagathon

0
0
<em>Growth of nuclear power in the US ended in the 1980s, however the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was passed in 2005 which aimed to jump starting the nuclear industry though financial loan-guarantees for expansion and re-outfitting of nuclear plants. The success of this legislation is still undetermined, since all 17 companies that applied for funding are still in the planning phases on their 26 proposed building applications. Some of the proposed sites have even scrapped their building plans, and many think the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster further dampen the success of expansion of nuclear energy in the United States.</em> ~wiki

Comment on How to criticize with kindness by Matthew R Marler

0
0
kim: <i>Lost opportunity costs compound. Oh, the grandchildren. </i> Excellent!

Comment on How to criticize with kindness by John Smith (it's my real name)

0
0

physicistdave
read your comments with interest
As I’ve tried to learn about this issue I’ve become suspicious
97% of climatologist believe in CAGW
physicist, statisticians, geologist, oceanographers maybe not so much

Comment on How to criticize with kindness by Matthew R Marler

0
0
a fan of *MORE* discourse: <i> hence dialog between committed denialists and rational scientists becomes more-and-more difficult. </i> Lucky for you there are no committed denialists here. People read most of the articles that you link to, and generously share their discoveries of flaws.

Comment on How to criticize with kindness by Don Monfort

0
0

Thanks, Steven. Not having had a particularly liberal artsy education, I don’t know whether to call your little ditty esoteric, abstruse, or just plain silly. Are there many other words whose meaning can be rendered meaningless with the right interpretative approach? Wish I had known about this sooner. I am fond of irony. Could have had a lot more of it.


Comment on How to criticize with kindness by ordvic

0
0

Fan, Once again you are confused on your facts. Obamacare is Not a universal health care program. It may or may not be a form of enlightenment. I suspect that would be in the form of health care entitlement meaning free health care. Of course nothing is free, the government either pays for it with taxes or deficit spending.
Map of countries that provide universal health care (America is still not on it):

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/heres-a-map-of-the-countries-that-provide-universal-health-care-americas-still-not-on-it/259153/

In the old system you would get health care in one of three ways. You would buy health insurance, you would pay out of pocket or the provider would absorb a loss or use a government program such as disability to get paid. Obamacare is set up much like social security where the younger payers will supposedly pay for the older payers whose amount of sickness will outweigh the amount of insurance. This may not work out due to the silver tsunami:

http://www.kfiam640.com/onair/billhandle-30603/silver-tsunami-12764373

As social security is confronted with the new reality of the baby boom with the number of benificiaries far outweighing the current work force, so will Obamacare face the same reality. That may be further exacerbated by young people not having employment or just unable to pay for expensive insurance they don’t need. The government will have to pick up the tab probably with deficit spending. Now in california the state is picking up a tab for illegal immigrants who go to emergency care (even if it’s just for a cold) and they don’t normally pay the bill. This tab is partly picked up by medicaid emergency program that costs billions for both the state and the fed. So there are two examples of subsidized programs.

My prediction is that Obamacare will eventually fail (that may be by design). So when it does the question is will we go back to the old system or move on to universal coverage that is free? I suspect the latter.

That only leads to the same old question about economics. Liberals believe in distribution as decided by government conservatives think this is a failed model doomed to failure. So far the US has had both systems in place and is the most successful nation (or at least toward the top – think China). Will it continue and will it’s citizens still enjoy the high standard of living that they have?

Comment on How to criticize with kindness by Rob Ellison

0
0

‘… respond professionally to well-mannered, well-reasoned professional critiques…

And the irony of the month award goes to FOMBS.

Comment on How to criticize with kindness by willard (@nevaudit)

0
0

> What’s wrong with doing all that AND climate mitigation?

In case of Lomborg, that “all that” includes eradicating poverty and the seven plagues of Apocalypse using small change. This kind of argument may be good to earn 750k per year, but that’s not something I’d consider the only rational game in town. Speaking of rational response, I don’t think betting the house on ingenuity can be considered reasonable, although the more we wait, the more this wet dream will impose itself, nor is asking for sufficiency conditions, for that matter, since it’s only the dual concept of necessity, which may be the mother of all inventions, but certainly not of empirical sciences.

I certainly hope there are ways to maximize welfare that do not turns into invisible hands arm waving.

Comment on How to criticize with kindness by JeffN

0
0

Willard,
Interesting:
“Speaking of rational response, I don’t think betting the house on ingenuity can be considered reasonable, although the more we wait, the more this wet dream will impose itself, nor is asking for sufficiency conditions, for that matter, since it’s only the dual concept of necessity, which may be the mother of all inventions, but certainly not of empirical sciences.”

“Ingenuity” includes Carbon capture, windmills, solar panels, batteries, nuclear power, fracking, tidal, biomass, etc etc. Even policies aimed at adding a price to carbon are billed as being a means to achieving a replacement fuel.
Aren’t “both sides” betting the house on ingenuity? Or do you favor something else?

Comment on How to criticize with kindness by Scott

0
0

Wag,
Bad luck about Fukishima. 16,000 killed by the tsunami, 12,000 washed out to sea, 3 workers with 25 rem dose that increases risk of cancer from 20.0% to 20.1 % over a 70 year lifetime. Still no new nuclear reactors. Looks like a long hiatus in energy generation. At least Georgia is mostly warm in winter. I think they have the only nuclear plant under construction in the US. Good logical decision making should allow for shutting coal plants in time for winter and electricity shortages and price rises. Energy policy is a mess.
Scott

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by philjourdan

0
0

While there are some that think that would have been good, the reality is that Germany was way ahead of the allies in rocket technology, and was very close to the US on Nuclear technology. Think about a world where Hitler had A-Bombs and the rockets to deliver them.

It was closer than you think.

Comment on How to criticize with kindness by Stephen Segrest

0
0

Wagathon — Taking your Warren Buffet quote on wind energy, its totally appropriate to ask: Does it make sense to build nuclear power plants without tax credits, loan guarantees, and liability indemnification which could be in the trillions of dollars (Price Anderson)?


Comment on How to criticize with kindness by jim2

0
0

That liability scenario has never happened in the US. And considering new designs are inherently safer, the “Price Anderson” problem is a contrived one. Perhaps that insurance should be decreased every year it isn’t needed.

Comment on How to criticize with kindness by ordvic

0
0

I suspect they are waiting JC’s approval; who may not be around.

Comment on How to criticize with kindness by Stephen Segrest

0
0

Its these one-sided argument paradigms (that for the most part go unchallenged at CE) that folks like you and Wagathon create that causes so much unpleasant “war of words”.

Coal power plants are not being closed in the U.S. because of Greenhouse Gas Regs — they haven’t even been written yet.

Coal power plants (for the most part) are closing because of mercury emission regs.

Comment on How to criticize with kindness by Rob Ellison

0
0

Lomberg’s focus is on funds committed – some $2.5 trillion to 2030 – and to most cost-effectively use those resources. It is merely rational cost/benefit analysis.

Environment benefits emerge from reducing population pressures in a holistic package that includes family planning, health and education measures – as well as reducing black carbon, methane, tropospheric ozone and nitrous oxide. Carbon dioxide is mitigated in increases agricultural soil fertility and in conservation and restoration of ecosystems. Much environmental progress – as we have known for decades – emerges organically with social and economic development.

The other rational investment is in energy innovation. Is there a guaranteed return? I think there pretty much is. There are dozens of technologies that require technological evolution – rather than a whole new idea. There are dozens of out of the box ideas as well.

Whenever I hear the meme of infinite growth being impossible on a finite planet – I think – this is not relevant – not here not now. Optimum economic growth is the sin qua non of the creation of a global civilization this century.

Comment on How to criticize with kindness by NW

0
0

“Lost opportunity costs compound. Oh, the grandchildren.”

Sure. So too (allegedly) does the value of those investments in public goods, if for no other reason than population growth.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images