Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 Next
Comments 53301 to 53350:
-
barry1487 at 16:46 PM on 22 September 2012Record Arctic Sea-ice minimum 2012 declared - it's the Silly Season!
Number watching... The last two Arctic sea ice news posts at WUWT have been pushing the turning point of the big refreeze. The first one asked if the late season melt had "turned the corner" yet. No, it hadn't. A couple of days ago the agenda was a bit starker, headlining with 2012 Arctic sea ice minimum reached, it’s all gain from here WUWT must downplay this in every way possible. Latest daily extent from MASIE, which Anthony Watts himself gave the gold seal of approval, has the lowest extent for the year. 3529012.32 3452809.48 3398785.21 3520791.45 3544682.16 [WUWT: "It's all gain from here"] 3438433.28 3368882.08 It's not that WUWT was wrong, it's that Watts, who should know so much better considering the amount of text devoted to emphasising weather influence on September minimum at WUWT, needs so desperately to control the narrative he sets himself up for the gaffe. I should be a bit careful myself - that last value could be adjusted upwards tomorrow, but not by enough to mar the point. -
Old Mole at 16:42 PM on 22 September 2012SkS: testimony to the potential of social media and the passion of volunteers
Mal Adapted @34 A couple of the things that the Ars Technica article didn't point out was that since the OMB reports on climate change expenditures were produced by the Executive Office of the President, items like research into improved nuclear power plants and "clean coal" technology were included in the accounting. This can be verified through a Congressional Budget Office report from 2010 and a General Accountability Office report from last year: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/112xx/doc11224/03-26-climatechange.pdf http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-317 That isn't the main thing that bothers me about his comment, though. First, he wants to compare an input {lobbying contributions) with an output (climate funding) and treat them as somehow equivalent, which seems odd to me. He might be better served to look at output vs. output, in terms of the subsidies provided to the fossil fuel industry, mainly permanently via quirks in the tax code, vs. the subsidies provided to green energy, which mostly sunset too quickly to count on. The Environmental Law Institute did a good paper on comparative subsidies between 2002-2008 http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/112xx/doc11224/03-26-climatechange.pdf which found that out of slightly over $100 billion in subsidies, the fossil fuel industry got $72 billion and renewables got $29 billion, nearly half of which went to corn-based ethanol subsidies ... hardly a climate scientist's wet dream. Worst of all, I am pretty sure this guy doesn't know any actual scientists. If anybody with the mental horsepower to get a hard-science PhD was that motivated by the money, they could have gone into medicine, law or Wall Street and made ten times the money for half the effort. Mostly they do what they do because they love doing it and couldn't imagine doing anything else. This may seem counter=intuitive to most people, but the more scientists you meet, the clearer the evidence becomes. Best wishes, Mole -
Estiben at 16:25 PM on 22 September 2012Record Arctic Sea-ice minimum 2012 declared - it's the Silly Season!
Great article, John, and some of the links in the comments have me giggling, too. Only one complaint, your canary metaphor is a little muddled. If there is something wrong in the mine, the canary doesn't tweet louder, it keels over. I'm afraid one of the canaries is dead. -
skywatcher at 16:21 PM on 22 September 2012Record Arctic Sea-ice minimum 2012 declared - it's the Silly Season!
Nice article John. But a wee correction required for the Antarctic ice minimum, which is much lower than 12million sq km (depending on area/extent measure, probably 1.5-5 million sq km). -
vrooomie at 15:25 PM on 22 September 2012PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
"The journalist conditioning to which Rob painting so validly refers is partly a response to the fact that controversy sells." Bernard J, it was *ALL* predicted, uncannily, or at least summed up nicely, here. This tendency has been going on, since time immemorial, and how to combat it, I'm clueless. However, as said above, we *must* try. -
Neven at 15:06 PM on 22 September 2012Record Arctic Sea-ice minimum 2012 declared - it's the Silly Season!
Thank you for a wonderful article, John. I've linked to it on the ASI blog. -
PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
Yes - obviously difficult because the mainstream audience must be given some serious contextualization in order to be even close to a position to start sorting bad eggs from good eggs. It's like being James Bond as the timer on the bomb ticks down, and in order to understand how to defuse it, one either guesses which wire to cut based on which looks prettier or which color has traditionally meant X (red bad! cut it!), or one uses the last few minutes to read the 3700-page manual (and an additional 84 supplements and updates). Watts offers a glossy pamphlet with the title "Don't worry about it. It's not even a bomb." Boom. -
Bernard J. at 14:20 PM on 22 September 2012PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
The journalist conditioning to which Rob painting so validly refers is partly a response to the fact that controversy sells. If there was a widespread and organised campaign to tell PBS that they have permanently turned audience members away, especially if such a campaign accumulates Facebook, Twitter, or other counts, PBS might start wondering whether they're losing more than they're gaining. Controversy sells, but when more customers are lost than gained because they want to buy the truth rather than fallacious propaganda, it might not be worth selling that controversy... -
mikeh1 at 13:36 PM on 22 September 2012Record Arctic Sea-ice minimum 2012 declared - it's the Silly Season!
An article by Matt Ridley in the WSJ is right up there in the silliness stakes. It appears that in a effort to play down the impact of the loss of Arctic ice, Ridley is quite happy to make a complete fool of himself. Here is an example. "Although an entirely ice-free Arctic Ocean during at least one week a year is still several decades away at this rate, we are halfway there after just three decades." After numerous distractions involving arctic foxes and amphipod crustaceans, he gets to his main point. "But is the current rapid retreat caused only by warming? At least some of it might be caused by soot from dirty, coal-fired power stations. Some scientists have noticed that the decline in Arctic sea ice correlates better with the rapid growth of coal consumption in China than it does with global temperature. As the argument goes: Soot falling on white ice darkens it, which results in faster melting in summer sun. Correlation does not always mean causation, but if soot is contributing to sea-ice melt, then it is moderately good news, because cleaning up soot emissions from power stations could be both cheaper and quicker than cutting carbon-dioxide emissions." That is why he has a column in the WSJ. -
Rob Painting at 12:58 PM on 22 September 2012PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
Yes, responded with more false balance in the comments section. Sheesh! I think it is extraordinarily difficult to break this journalistic "conditioning" of false balance. But we must try anyway. -
PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
The PBS Ombudsman has responded. -
Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
AH, are you suggesting that humans are at the root of most of the desertification in the 4.5 billion years of Earth's existence? Perhaps you're thinking of desertification that has occurred only within the last couple of hundred years. Humans are not responsible for those big dry belts at the horse latitudes. Those dwarf any desertification caused by humans. Why am I counting standing deserts as desertification? Because those big circulation cells aren't permanent. Their development and shifting created deserts. Isn't this all a little obvious? -
Alpinist at 12:19 PM on 22 September 2012Record Arctic Sea-ice minimum 2012 declared - it's the Silly Season!
Anytime I see a discussion involving Watts and "surface stations" I can't help but be reminded of Tamino's punishing review of his surfacestations.org lead photo of two California sites. Thanks to SKS it's archived here http://web.archive.org/web/20080613192826/tamino.wordpress.com/2007/07/30/surface-stations/ Urban heat index and Antarctica...that too will require some magic.... -
SkS: testimony to the potential of social media and the passion of volunteers
Sirnubwub, I know you through your extensive comments on SkS. You're the author of this little gem: "Can I now present to my classes that the hockey stick argument has been discarded by the AGW proponents?" Your comments are evidence supporting the hypothesis that you're all about the message. There's absolutely no evidence that you can be engaged at depth in any area of the general subject. You want to be able to deliver a certain message, and so your goal is to try to get people on this site to say something useful to that purpose. IIRC, you tried to defend Monckton, who is the very archetype of my understanding of you. You also once said: "This makes the whole debate very frustrating to me. To have to verify everyone and everything is beyond any normal person. I can't trust anyone (Gore, UN, Wattsupwiththat, etc) to do it for me because everyone is suspect. Yet trillions of dollars are at stake." Yet now it is clear that you trust anyone whose message sounds palatable. -
Mal Adapted at 11:10 AM on 22 September 2012SkS: testimony to the potential of social media and the passion of volunteers
SirNubwub:I guess I don't want to "go to the mat" on this funding issue. I will say that I may be wrong to some degree and stop here.
Now, that's the mark of a genuine skeptic. Kudos. If you do want to follow up on the funding issue, here's an in-depth analysis of the claim that climate scientists are in it for the money. It includes a break-down of how the author's grant money gets spent. -
YubeDude at 10:55 AM on 22 September 2012Record Arctic Sea-ice minimum 2012 declared - it's the Silly Season!
You illustrate a central position that is used for denial, the misdirection and confusion allowed when a particular adjective is applied. Curry’s use of “apparent” is a subjective qualifier that suggests to the reader or listener that there may be some questions as to the relative merit of this “apparent record”. Suddenly it is no long an empirical observation, now it is a “possible” conclusion and one that opens the door of doubt. Reading WUWT and SKS one is drawn to the tonal difference between the two. Where the former enjoys subjective and pejorative insights painted freely with these kinds of adjectival colorations and formulated in the conspiracy of motivation, the later details objective analysis of metrics helped along by a moderated insistence on a discourse that leaves subjective opinion at the door. Though he avoided the loaded adjective I couldn’t help but laugh when I took a look at the comments by Watts where he feels the need to mention that “most weather stations in the Antarctic are near humanity, and humanity requires warmth to survive” or “The Antarctic Peninsula is the most populated place in Antarctica.” I was struck by not only the absurdity of mentioning “humanity needs warmth to survive” but I was left trying to discern how these factoids are suppose to relate to the issue of ice loss or the supposed viability of measuring stations. -
uknowispeaksense at 10:30 AM on 22 September 2012Record Arctic Sea-ice minimum 2012 declared - it's the Silly Season!
#6: "Look out behind you! The Antarctic is growing!" This tactic has become popular at places like Jo Nova. But its not just Antarctica they point to. They also choose to divert their eyes from West Antarctica and instead focus only on East Antarctica. One can only wonder which direction they will choose to look when the Antarctic inevitably starts doing what is expected in a more obvious way. No doubt they will rely more heavily on #1-5. -
Philippe Chantreau at 09:13 AM on 22 September 2012It's not bad
AH1's style is strangely reminiscent of that of Damorbel's and a few others who cluttered the 2nd law's thread with endless repetition of grotesque nonsense and self contradictions. KR's suggestion is appropriate. -
Bob Lacatena at 08:30 AM on 22 September 2012SkS: testimony to the potential of social media and the passion of volunteers
SirNubWub,I don't have the line-by line expenditures for the oil lobby, nor the government, nor the NGOs.
Just a point... A skeptical person would have demanded this before uncritically accepting the $79 billion figure published by a denial web site. -
Alpinist at 08:14 AM on 22 September 2012Record Arctic Sea-ice minimum 2012 declared - it's the Silly Season!
Very nice explanation. Any "shift in behavior" seems likely to require magic in order to overcome physics. -
Doug Bostrom at 07:24 AM on 22 September 2012SkS: testimony to the potential of social media and the passion of volunteers
SirNubWub, probably best to drop it, yes. As to the rest, give it your best shot. Be sure to read the reference materials found in the various articles and you'll do better; there's a tendency to get hung on what us amateurs say and forget to check the sources. -
John Hartz at 07:21 AM on 22 September 2012SkS: testimony to the potential of social media and the passion of volunteers
@SirNubwub: Composer99 took the words right out of my mouth. You made a blatantly false comparison in your initial post. My post was about the stakes in the game. The fossil fuel industry will do everything in its power to preserve "Business as Usual" and to prevent and delay the governments of the world from taking meaningful actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. At stake for the fossil fuel industry is Trillions of dollars of future revenue. If they can no longer extract the remaining fossil fuels from within the Earth's crust, the industry's projected revenue streams will fail to materialize. -
SirNubwub at 07:12 AM on 22 September 2012SkS: testimony to the potential of social media and the passion of volunteers
Doug bostrom @47 probably. I don't have the line-by line expenditures for the oil lobby, nor the government, nor the NGOs. Shall we just drop the debate and just say that lots of money is being spent by both sides? Actually, the most important thing to me is understanding the real science foundation of AGW, that being whether or not human-produced CO2 is the main cause of the last degree of warming. I will address those questions in other areas of this site. I guess I don't want to "go to the mat" on this funding issue. I will say that I may be wrong to some degree and stop here. -
John Hartz at 07:07 AM on 22 September 2012SkS: testimony to the potential of social media and the passion of volunteers
@SirNubwub Before staking out a position on a particular issue, it is always advisable to view the issue from a variety of perspective. That is why I recommend that you read the article, Myth of the climate science gravy train: scientists studying Greenland forced to pay their own airfares -
SirNubwub at 07:06 AM on 22 September 2012SkS: testimony to the potential of social media and the passion of volunteers
In #46 I should have said "he compares them as being similar in type by saying that one pales in comparison to the other" -
Doug Bostrom at 07:02 AM on 22 September 2012SkS: testimony to the potential of social media and the passion of volunteers
Sort of a "one apple and a lot of oranges" thing going on here. All expenditures by the fossil fuel industry on legislative relations as well as PR w/an eye to influencing the electorate are an apple. Expenditures on a myriad of scientific research endeavors some small fraction of which may be indirectly or directly relate to climate change are a lot of oranges. The two don't compare easily. -
SirNubwub at 07:01 AM on 22 September 2012SkS: testimony to the potential of social media and the passion of volunteers
Composer99 @44 Hartz didn't make the differentiation, (he compares them as similar in saying that one pales to the other) so I didn't differentiate them either. If I misinterpreted Hartz, then I will retreat. I am awaiting his reply to my statement #45 -
SirNubwub at 06:56 AM on 22 September 2012SkS: testimony to the potential of social media and the passion of volunteers
doug_bostrom @39 (and John Hartz #41) Doug: Yep, I probably over-reacted/misread his actual words. I will concede that. But John: aren't you really saying what I addressed? that the oil lobby spends more than the science gets? (by the way, I only included government spending and not all the NGOs and their money) If I am wrong in thinking that, then I will admit my error and retreat. -
Composer99 at 06:46 AM on 22 September 2012SkS: testimony to the potential of social media and the passion of volunteers
SirNubwub: It has already been explained to you that monies pouring into science research from governments are for research, which is rather different from legal & political advocacy or marketing/propaganda. Is there some reason why you persist with conflating research with advocacy/lobbying/propaganda? -
SirNubwub at 06:45 AM on 22 September 2012SkS: testimony to the potential of social media and the passion of volunteers
DSL: (-snip-). You say: "Further, you would have to establish that the research supported by the government was fraudulent. I know you believe that, but you have no evidence." So you know what my beliefs are on the credibility of research and you know the quality of research I have in my possession just by my posting two links. And you call ME a bad critical thinker. I know that I make mistakes, but lets try to tone it down a bit. I am a skeptic but I am open to being swayed if people take the tone of Mal Adapted and (-snip-) show me good information. I have many graphs from skeptic's websites that I would like to post on SkS. Hopefully, you folks here at SkS can (-snip-) explain to me why I shouldn't believe what that data says. I will post those on the appropriate sections of SkS at later times.Moderator Response: [DB] Inflammatory tone snipped. -
john byatt at 06:42 AM on 22 September 2012SkS: testimony to the potential of social media and the passion of volunteers
SKS gets around alright, It is even copied into regional QLD newspapers. http://www.theweeklyobserver.com.au/wordpress/?p=1003 Positive feedback? , -
John Hartz at 06:40 AM on 22 September 2012SkS: testimony to the potential of social media and the passion of volunteers
@SirNubwub: Doug_bostrom beat me to the punch. He has accurately articulated what I said and why I said it. If you want to engage in serious discussion on this website, you have to do better than merely regurtitate some worn-out and debunked talking point generated by the Climate Denial Spin Machine. -
SirNubwub at 06:32 AM on 22 September 2012SkS: testimony to the potential of social media and the passion of volunteers
Mal Adapted So the link you showed me has a graph that shows that science reseach only received an average of about a billion dollars a year for the last 20 years. And it states that "a lot" of the 20 billion dollars goes to equipment instead of people. I maintain that the balance of 20 billion dollars is still significantly more than the "millions" that is credited to the oil lobby. -
anon1234 at 06:32 AM on 22 September 2012Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
DSL, you said, " Land mismanagement is at the root of some types of desertification, but not desertification in general. " But it is (especially if you believe that human CO2 emissions cause Hadley cell widening)- changing rainfall patters or widening Hadley cells do not always cause desertification, ecosystems can and do adapt to changing rainfall patterns (a grassland, which can be much more tolerant of drought, can replace a rainforest and vice versa). The human element which directly reduces the efficiency of the water, mineral, solar, and decomposition cycles create desertification. So to be more precise, the vast majority of desertification is the result of mismanagement of land, as opposed to humans burning fossil fuels (burning trees and grass are land management issues). -
Doug Bostrom at 06:29 AM on 22 September 2012SkS: testimony to the potential of social media and the passion of volunteers
What John Hartz actually said: Given the big picture of what happens on a global basis, the fossil fuel industry has spent and continues to spend enornmous sums of money throughout the world to perpetuate the Business As Usual conditions that allow it to generate trillions of dollars annually in revenues. Revenue is not expenditure, a simple accounting principle. John can speak for himself better but for me the implication is that if an industry is defending trillions in revenue and many billions per year in profits it has ample motive and means to pursue fiduciary duties on behalf of shareholders, including helping foster a favorable legal climate for business. Is anybody claiming that fossil fuel firms are not faithfully executing their duty to their shareholders? I've not seen such an assertion but perhaps I missed it. -
SirNubwub at 06:21 AM on 22 September 2012SkS: testimony to the potential of social media and the passion of volunteers
Mal Adapted Thank you for the link. I will read it with interest. -
SirNubwub at 06:19 AM on 22 September 2012SkS: testimony to the potential of social media and the passion of volunteers
DSL: Hartz claims that trillions of dollars could be spent by the oil industry. Why aren't you yelling at him for saying this without any sources? (trillions????) Even his response to me is without sources. -
Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
No, AH. It's best to be precise. Small-scale desertification can occur through land mismanagement. Large-scale desertification can occur through climate-scale changes in atmospheric and oceanic circulation. Land mismanagement is at the root of some types of desertification, but not desertification in general. -
Robert Murphy at 05:35 AM on 22 September 2012Record Arctic Sea-ice minimum 2012 declared - it's the Silly Season!
How about a #6: Pretend that the ice has been recovering since the end of August? -
anon1234 at 05:32 AM on 22 September 2012Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
DSL, the second quote doesn't suggest that I am unaware of such mechanisms (which I already acknowledged, and explained how Hadley cell widening fits into my understanding of desertification). My point is that desertification as we know it is primarily dependent on the biodiversity of a given region, and the extent that humans choose to degrade or enhance the local ecology. Widening Hadley cells are responsible for some changing rainfall patterns, but any environment on earth that already experiences extreme temporal variations in moisture are at risk of desertification via human mismanagement of land (thus desertification spreads far beyond the Horse latitudes). Land management is at the root of desertification. -
Composer99 at 05:10 AM on 22 September 2012It's not bad
All that and still no answer to Dikran's questionSo please answer this question directly and unambiguously: Is there anyone other than yourself that is promoting this hypothesis, yes or no?
-
It's not bad
Moderators - At this point, given the large number of recent posts on this thread circling around a single sub-issue, a side-track, raised by (but really, IMO, not supported by) a single poster, perhaps it's time to invoke the Comment Policy stating: "Comments should avoid excessive repetition"?Moderator Response: [DB] Agreed. That also constitutes sloganeering/PRATT. -
anon1234 at 04:49 AM on 22 September 2012It's not bad
Philippe Chantreau, you said, "Walker and Winslow showed as early as 1932 the ability of E.Coli to grow in the absence of CO2 on a medium more complex than the very basic one. That's obviously not the kind of depth where AH1 will go. Whatever." Whatever, indeed. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2065164/pdf/brjexppathol00219-0137.pdf Please cite the article (and medium for that matter) you are referring to. you said, "I had to introduce the concepts of PaCO2 and PaO2 [...]" When I have introduced biological concepts on this thread, I have had to repeatedly describe them in great detail (when wikipedia is available). I didn't want to make extra work for myself by introducing PaCO2. Internal CO2 to O2 ratios are a simple way to describe PaCO2 to PaO2. I am very glad that you wield knowledge of biology, and are willing to criticize my information- thank you, btw. you said, "from a purely physiological point of view, CO2 elimination should be easier at high altitude." Of course it is, this is why adapted organisms have a reduced rate of respiration, thus having higher PaCo2 (and be slightly more acidic) than someone actively adapting. sou said, "If one was suddenly exposed to high levels of CO2 at normal pressure, ventilation would increase in order to restore normal PaCO2, then would stabilize as that goal would be reached and alkalosis would not develop." You are absolutely right. I concede this point, although atmospheric CO2 increasing as a result of burning (of fossil fuels or trees and grass) would cause a reduction in concentration of O2, all else being equal. Reduced atmospheric O2 pressure is a large potential effect of widespread human fires. you said, "I note that this paper represents a change from the previous dominant idea, which was one of chronic alkalosis." Thanks for fixing the link! It is an interesting paper which does change the previous (or current depending on who you ask)dominant theory as to acid/base imbalances at altitude. I am skeptical, though, because the mechanism for lower atmospheric O2 pressure causing alkalosis in Sherpas makes sense. you said, "AH1 made an argument about people's death rates at high altitude. I took the bait and looked at life expectancy," Well you took bait that I didn't provide. I did say mortality rates (as did the wikipedia, and study I posted). you said, "The vascular changes associated with low Co2 and low O2 are currently believed to be the most likley causes of vessel permeability leading to pulmonary edema and cerebral edema" This is an interesting theory, but mortality rates from cardiovascular disease are significantly lower in people adapted to low pressure (whats a bigger problem, edema or heart disease?). this study http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/120/6/495.full (which I have already posted), shows significantly decreased mortality rates for people with cardiovascular diseases who are exposed and adapted to the low pressure of high altitudes (reduced respiratory rate, increased PaCO2 in relation to a steady PaO2 or higher internal CO2/O2 ratio). you said, "Sherpas limit alkalosis by a more efficient response to hypoxia but still experience it." Of course they do; to quote myself, in post #308 "the more extreme elevation a person is at (everest like), the more alkaline they would be in general (because of a respiratory response to reduced internal O2 levels)" you said, "Dikran, there is no PaCo2 to PaO2 imbalance. " Adaptation to lower pressure increases PaCO2- PaO2 is relatively stable at all altitudes. I am glad that you seem to accept (or at least not reject) the evidence I have presented regarding CO2's antioxidant activity. and again, thank you for addressing the points that I did make, I sincerely appreciate it. gws, thank you for pointing that out (perhaps this is what doug was on about), that totally should have read ~ 0.4% (or ~ 4000 ppm). Remember that 4000 ppm is a tenfold increase in current atmospheric levels. Dikran Marsupial, you said, "You are missing the point. How do you know that the effect is due to the difference in CO2 to O2 ratio rather than to other changes in body chemistry due to lower atmospheric pressure and lower oxygen availability. " Thanks for clearly making the point; The effects of adaptation to high altitudes (increased metabolic rate etc.) are consistent with what one would expect from increased exposure to CO2 (because of its antioxidant activity, and its role in protecting and properly distributing the body's O2 supply) which is one result of adaptation. -
Doug Bostrom at 04:20 AM on 22 September 2012SkS: testimony to the potential of social media and the passion of volunteers
$79 billion, which includes many things that happen to produce data useful to climate research, such as weather satellites, the synoptic weather network, etc. but are mostly intended for other purposes. You occasionally drive your car to town to see a movie. You mostly use it to drive to work. Does the line item for operating your vehicle go entirely to "entertainment?" What a lousy and porous line of argument UCResearch is offering. -
SkS: testimony to the potential of social media and the passion of volunteers
I meant to point out also that UCResearch does not provide any kind of sourcing for the figures it claims. -
Mal Adapted at 04:12 AM on 22 September 2012SkS: testimony to the potential of social media and the passion of volunteers
SirNubwub:According to UC Research(http://www.ucresearch.com/tag/global-warming-research)the US government alone has spend $79 BILLION in the last 20+ years.
Wow, that's some weapons-grade denial at that site. The "$79 BILLION" figure is given without attribution, but may be from Jo Nova. John Timmer takes the claim apart at ArsTechnica. The point is made:None of that money goes to the researchers who are actually generating the results that point to anthropogenic warming, so it can't possibly provide an incentive to them.
-
SkS: testimony to the potential of social media and the passion of volunteers
SirNubWub, what sort of critical thinker are you who accepts the word of a blogger at face value. I say UCResearch is wrong. According to your apparent methodology, my opinion is as valid as that of UCResearch. Upon what basis do you choose one opinion over the other? Further, you would have to establish that the research supported by the government was fraudulent. I know you believe that, but you have no evidence. If the research is not fraudulent, then it has social value within the general human project of science. Even if that value is only worth a whole dollar, it is greater than the value of industry-created doubt. The doubt machine created by industry through entities such as the Heartland Institute constitutes a social cost. Through the products we buy, we pay for a future of diminished food and water security, and we pay to be more ignorant. Our quality of life declines because such organizations cast doubt on the project of science, and the impact of scientifically derived knowledge on democratic choice diminishes. The authenticity of the democracy is thus diminished. You are advocating for the un-hitching of the democracy from the more neutral and controllable mechanism of democratic government, and the re-hitching of the democracy to the interests of private property. You are simply a shill, a bot, within that process, and you probably think you're exercising your freedom and doing everyone a favor. -
bibasir at 03:59 AM on 22 September 2012Record Arctic Sea-ice minimum 2012 declared - it's the Silly Season!
Another part of Judith Curry's comment is as follows: "Judith Curry said that while global warming is “almost certainly” affecting Arctic sea ice, she cautioned that there is a great deal of annual and decadal variability in sea ice cover. She said that the next 5 to 10 years could see a shift in Arctic sea ice behavior, though exactly in which direction is difficult to predict." If she thinks there will be a "shift in behavior" it can only go up, because we have already seen a shift downward since 2007. In addition, looking at your chart of the IPCC prediction, the red line shows almost no Decadal variability after the initial period. The 9 year average shows no variability. -
John Hartz at 03:58 AM on 22 September 2012SkS: testimony to the potential of social media and the passion of volunteers
@SirNubwub #30: The fossil fuel industry is composed of multinational corporations doing business in countries throughout the world. Go back to your drawing board and calculate how much money these corporations annually spend on lobbying and bribing the governments of the countries they do business in. While you’rer at it, compute how much money the fossil fuel industry spends annually in the US on greenwashing advertisements (i.e., “clean coal”) and on infomercials designed to motivate voters to support Republican candidates for office. While your at it, compute compute how much money the fossil fuel industry spends annually in Canada on greenwashing advertisements (i.e., “clean coal”) and on infomercials designed to motivate voters to support Conservative candidates for office. Repeat the above calculations for every other major industrialized country in the world. Given the big picture of what happens on a global basis, the fossil fuel industry has spent and continues to spend enornmous sums of money throughout the world to perpetuate the Business As Usual conditions that allow it to generate trillions of dollars annually in revenues. -
John Cook at 03:51 AM on 22 September 2012SkS: testimony to the potential of social media and the passion of volunteers
SirNubwub, money spent on climate research is to measure and understand what's happening to our climate. A key question is how many millions have the oil lobby spent conducting climate research versus funding of PR misinformation.
Prev 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 Next
