Tell you what JCH, since you are so convinced that fossil fuels are such destructive forces, why don’t you give up everything of benefit that results from theire use. You can use a pigeon or other means not requiring the use of fossil fuels to let us know how that works out for you.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Barnes
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by climatereason
Jim
I understand that Obama has agreed to take 100,000 Syrian refugees so they may make up for those people not needing to flee Patricia after all
Tonyb
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Barnes
Obstructionists don’t need to buy anyone as long as an uncurious and biased msm exists aided by pop culture icons like jon stewart, maher, gollywood in general, and our acedemic institutions. Skeptics need to figure out a way to use the tactics of the warmests to capture the interest and imagination of the dumded down msm and others – that is,coming up with scary scenarios of a world without fossil fuels – a world whose sole energy sources are wind mills and solar panels. A silly idea, but we now live in a silly society.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jim2
His kind of people.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Barnes
Or, run on natural gas if economically feasible.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Nick Stokes
“There’s a well-known process… “
Exactly. Nothing new here. I actually agree with you that it is as sensible to use the fossil form, provided their CO2 can be buried, as I’m sure it can. Reducing it to CH4 which can be burnt has no advantage over sequestration and then burning other carbon.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by JCH
My family has been in the soil and gas industry since 1982. Just another reason to pay much attention to your unskeptical ponypooh.
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by magmacc
I can only wonder what the EOS editors were thinking when they published this. JC
Since Lovejoy’s was an interesting and soundly-grounded opinion piece, I suppose the sort of puzzled miscomprehension evinced by Dr. Curry happens when one voluntarily abandons mainstream science to become a star spokesman for the fake skeptics and contrarians. I wonder if being a bigger fish in a very small, stagnant pond was worth it? At any rate, Dr. Curry has committed herself and there’s no turning back now.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by JCH
oil.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by JCH
I’m glad you’re acknowledging your defeat long before your debacle.
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by ulriclyons
Thank you.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by popesclimatetheory
Climate Change Slams Global Economy in a New Study From @Stanford and @UCBerkeley [link] (an angle on this i’ve not seen before)
They wrote:
Looking at 166 countries from 1960 to 2010, the researchers identified an optimal average annual temperature that coincides with peak productivity of, for example, labor and crops. It’s 55 degrees Fahrenheit (13 degrees Celsius), or approximately the climate of San Francisco’s bay area. The paper appears in the new issue of Nature.
Some crops do best in hot humid wet climates and other crops do best in colder and/or drier climates.
Any research that says there is One temperature that is best for peak productivity is worse than total BS. Different crops evolved in different climates. Earth is wonderful because it is different in different places. Earth is wonderful because it does change and promote adaptation. Without adaptation, there would be no productive life on Earth.
.
Rice does not do best where corn does best.
How many crops are farmed in and around San Francisco?
At least we get an idea of the BS and alarmism to expect from Stanford and UCBerkeley
Thank you JC for posting the link for this. This shows how backward the “so-called” Academic people are.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Jim D
Being a large country, like the US, has the advantage of evening out impacts with internal redistributions. Smaller countries have less choices in adaptation and provide the more precise datapoints in this type of study. It looks like the damage function needs serious revision, which also impacts the social cost of carbon and how effective mitigation is versus adaptation. The study shows that adaptation alone leads to a declining net global GDP, so those using economics arguments for doing nothing need to consider this as the cost of that strategy. Mitigation becomes even more economically optimal with this new study, the cost of aversion being a much smaller fraction of GDP than this new damage cost.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by opluso
<blockquote>The Stanford/Berkeley climate/economics paper is seriously flawed. i am surprised it passed Nature review.</blockquote>
I assume your surprise was tongue-in-cheek?
<blockquote>A big scary number just in time for Paris.</blockquote>
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by David Wojick
It is very different. Congress is responsible for the oversight of federal agencies. They have an obligation to investigate the allegations of deliberate manipulation of data. Civil RICO means suing private entities.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by AK
<blockquote> I wouldn’t want garbage in the IPCC report either.</blockquote>Your definition of “<i>garbage</i>” being anything that tends to conflict with your political/ideological agenda. Just like Jones, <i>et al.</i>.
A clear demonstration why the IPCC should never have been created, and should be removed from existence ASAP.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by popesclimatetheory
They don’t need help from Gaia’s repentant true believers nor from the wind blown solar sharpies and other renewable carpetbaggers. They don’t need reparations either.
THEY DON’T AND WE DON’T YOU GOT THIS RIGHT
↧
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by Jim D
It is not a linear time axis. It is highly stretched with later times doubling and quadrupling the rate of earlier times, yet the temperature response is linear to it, not to time. This plot is exactly what makes the CO2-driven temperature argument so compelling. It has to be looked at closely to fully appreciate what it says.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by AK
<blockquote>Reducing it to CH4 which can be burnt has no advantage over sequestration and then burning other carbon.</blockquote>Well, you were the one who didn't “<i>see any progress toward making fuel.</i>” Both paths are helpful to solve the fossil CO2 problem. If it's cheaper, frack the gas/oil out of the ground, and bury the CO2. When making gas/oil out of the CO2 and solar (or wind) power becomes cheaper, use that instead of digging it up.
Whichever, if the technology grows to maturity and sufficient scale, it will be available to draw down the fossil CO2 emitted in the past, present, and near-term future, after the fact. <b>If necessary.</b>
As well as reducing it to carbon-based materials for construction.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by popesclimatetheory
There was a time that the EPA was good and did good things, that time has passed.
There was never a time that the IPCC was good and did good things, that time has not passed.
↧