Ask WaPo, Bob. Report. Thanks for your concerns.
Comment on Week in review by willard (@nevaudit)
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by willard (@nevaudit)
↧
Comment on Week in review by Steven Mosher
willard wins the stupid segway of of the day award
“After all, it’s only what his previous sentence was about.
Another thing that sucks is thinking that not knowing everything means we know nothing:”
Wow.
↧
Comment on Week in review by cwon14
That’s of course nonsense Jim D, Dr.Curry always gets relative softball treatment from skeptics because she doesn’t appear angry and radical. It’s why society sinks, conservatives are content with spineless middling while left wing fanatics never forget the cause…..global socialism:
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
Steven Mosher, black carbon and methane are less urgent. You can start mitigating them later and get the same effect in the long term. CO2 is worst because of the way it stays around, and there is no substitute for early mitigation. That’s not to dismiss these, but when it comes to priorities, CO2 first.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by willard (@nevaudit)
FYEO, Bob:
↧
Comment on Week in review by David Wojick
Thanks Willard. Stupidity personified.
↧
Comment on Week in review by AK
@Steven Mosher…
1. big focus on NG, must get China on board [...]
What about sea-floor methane hydrate? If they’re starting from scratch they might as well go for the most modern. And they’ve got plenty of money to fund research.
2. No new coal.
Well… For China especially, if they build new coal plants that can burn biomass, those could switch to azolla later. They’ve got centuries of tradition and experience with it.
3. Black carbon control
I suppose. Don’t know much about the black carbon problem.
4. R&D increases
Not just more money. (Although that too.) Need new ideas. For instance, I suggested allowing corporations to dedicate some fraction of their tax bill to research of their choice, with limited IP. It might take some thinking through to make it work, and of course the traditional recipients of tax money would scream, but it would also allow a whole bunch of new people to look for innovative things to fund research in.
And tweak the IP laws!
↧
Comment on Week in review by Bill
“comic” He was not very funny.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
She seemed a bit angry at the Greenland remark, where her response was mostly “Climate is always changing!” which is a pretty good catch-all phrase to use when in doubt.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Rob Ellison
Agreed that it is a good informational set of slides. This helps to evaluate what is needed for the 2 C level of climate stabilization, and it is a lot, but that doesn’t mean don’t even try. Either you fail and get 3 C, or the sensitivity turns out to be a little lower and you get to 2 C despite exceeding the carbon budget. If you don’t do anything, you most likely get to 4 C still rising.
These people just don’t get that such confident scenarios are not remotely possible. They are indeed counterproductive – the nature of a dynamic climate suggests the likelihood of non warming for decades at least. Yet their ability to cognitively process this is severely compromised. Not even uncertainty seeps through the psychological construct of the AGW groupthink.
They busily deny quite obvious science and ridicule uncertainty – and the purpose and sense has been lost long ago. It is counterproductive because it is inextricably linked to intimations of catastrophe and progressive ambitions to transform economies and societies parading as philosophies of limits of one kind or another. For this reason pragmatic proposals to encourage energy innovation, carbon intensity, energy efficiency are necessarily too little too late in this worldview. Not to mention social and economic development strategies that in tandem address population pressures, ecological degradation, the decline of soil fertility and emissions of black carbon, methane, nitrous oxide, CFC’s and ozone precursors. Fast mitigation and energy R&D. What’s not to like?
But the essence is in the personality construct. They have sent far too long and invested too much personal capital in disparagement of sceptics to recognize that the groupthink – masquerading in their minds as consensus – is wrong on fundamental levels and that sceptics were right all along. That is obviously a bridge too far and the poor little dears are far too fragile.
↧
Comment on Week in review by AK
Oh, and <strike>somebody </strike>everybody needs to start funding research into making methane from electrolytic hydrogen. I know that's my pet peeve, but IMO it's important.
You start with CO2 in the ocean, and hydrogen from solar power (which eliminates the need for inverters, etc.), feed it through bio-reactors filled with tailored methanogens, and feed the methane into the same storage, distribution, and power generating infrastructure you built for NG. That way everything you did about NG except for digging it out of the ground avoids being sunk costs.
And solar is coming down exponentially.
Then, later on, if you need to remediate, you turn some fraction of a <b>mature</b> system for dragging CO2 out of the air to sequestration, rather than try do do it with immature technology.
↧
Comment on Week in review by AK
<blockquote>[...] there is no substitute for early mitigation.</blockquote>Thin green line anyone? Of course there's a <i>"substitute for early mitigation."</i> Remediate later.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Richard (rls)
Alexander: “However it is not their final report which hopefully will spell out where the R&D dollar should be spent.”
Koonin’s committee is not working on a report, but rather the APS Climate Statement. It will probably only lay out the status of climate science, and probably will not be much different than the WSJ piece. However that piece does lay out some deficiencies in the science that could be used for a roadmap, for future climate science expenditures. He mentions the need to improve observational capabilities and the need to better understand feedbacks and the oceans.
↧
Comment on Week in review by willard (@nevaudit)
↧
Comment on Week in review by Don Monfort
That’s right, jimmy dee. Blog debates are different from debates in public, where you face your opponents with people watching and you have to think on your feet. Blog debates are better for those who are insecure in their position (especially if they are ugly and have bad teeth). They can select the points they want to debate and run away without being publicly humiliated, when the going gets tough. Gavin gave up public debating, after he got his buttocks kicked up between his ears in the famous NPR debate:
http://www.npr.org/2007/03/22/9082151/global-warming-is-not-a-crisis
Have you watched that one, jimmy?
“In this debate, the proposition was: “Global Warming Is Not a Crisis.” In a vote before the debate, about 30 percent of the audience agreed with the motion, while 57 percent were against and 13 percent undecided. The debate seemed to affect a number of people: Afterward, about 46 percent agreed with the motion, roughly 42 percent were opposed and about 12 percent were undecided.”
And that was before the pause that is killing the cause had run on for a decade and a half. Also, before the leaked Climategate emails showed the world what the tricky cabal of shyster climate scientists were up to, behind the curtain. Oh, the humanity!
↧
Comment on Week in review by jim2
Solar won’t be competitive with other sources of energy for a long time to come.
Wasting money is just that, a waste. There are much better things to spend it on than solar.
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/studies/levelized-cost-of-new-generating-technologies/
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Steven Mosher
“Steven Mosher, black carbon and methane are less urgent. ”
1. yes this is the best reason to start with them. especially if you are trying to do things globally. You can afford to start early, work out the kinks and get it right.
2. starting with things like black carbon which also have severe immediate health effects, build good will and saves lives. TODAY
“You can start mitigating them later and get the same effect in the long term. CO2 is worst because of the way it stays around, and there is no substitute for early mitigation. That’s not to dismiss these, but when it comes to priorities, CO2 first.”
Of course, but there is no practical way to do it and 20 years of failed attempts. So the science says do it first. Sorry SCIENCE, pragmatics say do what you can today.. we will have to adapt. sorry.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
Live debates favor skeptics because, unconstrained by having to stick to the published science, they know how to make things up and the public audience is none the wiser. If you want a live debate, do it in front of a scientific audience, like at the AGU, who can detect the BS, and even better is to let that audience ask questions too. Would any skeptic take that offer up? I think not.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Steven Mosher
willard an observation is not a defense.
if they meant koch funded groups, they could have said it in the headline
Koch brother groups
they dropped the word, not me. not you.
So they lied.
↧
