Recent Comments

Prev  1135  1136  1137  1138  1139  1140  1141  1142  1143  1144  1145  1146  1147  1148  1149  1150  Next

Comments 57101 to 57150:

57101. Hyperactive Hydrologist at 02:33 AM on 5 July 2012
       Murry Salby's Correlation Conundrum
       I just tried to watch the video but the embedding has been disabled.
57102. Bernard J. at 02:17 AM on 5 July 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #26
       John. I did think twice about it, but given the whole premise of the site, and the lack of skill thus far shown, I thought it worth the mention. If it is embroidered in the future, and the growing internal contradictions then pointed out as that occurs, other denialists may actually be dissuaded from embarrassing themselves. It's easier to call a false start before the runners are at full Gish Gallop... Besides, there's a perverse corner of my mind that imagines a rebuttal or two appearing on SkS's list (should the wiki ever stagger past "alpha"), which would greatly upset the apple cart of that site's front page, as they are forced to either include the rebuttals in their list - which then becomes effectively self-rebutting, or to omit them and be patently seen to be censoring anything counter to their cause. Such would be unavoidable, because the raison d'être of the site is to refer people to each of the items on the Skeptical Science list! Of course, there could very likely arise a recursive loop, as circular links are updated, but one would hope that in the process even the most obdurate denialists would eventually cotton on to the gaping holes in the nonsense that passes for science on their side of the fence. The fundamental premise of the wiki really was very poorly thought out... However, if the SkS moderators don't feel like directing traffic to that train-wreck of a site, I'm happy for them to smack my posts.
57103. John Hartz at 01:49 AM on 5 July 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #26
       Bernard J and Bill: A general rule of thumb: Do not provide free publicity for your opponent.
57104. Bernard J. at 01:23 AM on 5 July 2012
       Murry Salby's Correlation Conundrum
       Sorry, Spectacled Wombat!
57105. Bernard J. at 01:22 AM on 5 July 2012
       Murry Salby's Correlation Conundrum
       Scpetical Wombat at #2:

       Salby has since indicated that he is having trouble getting it accepted (how does that figure with "in print"). [snip] In due course I expect that we will see either an "Energy and Environment" paper or a WUWT post claiming yet another conspiracy to block the publication of an inconvenient paper or possibly both.

       Another option is The Science World Journal, which would publish it without critical assessment... as a recent issue has shown with respect to another mathematically-challenged paper.
57106. Dikran Marsupial at 00:52 AM on 5 July 2012
       Murry Salby's Correlation Conundrum
       @oneiota and @skepticalwombat I have tried contacting Prof. Salby, pointing out the lines of reasoning that show his conclusion to be false, and asking for clarification on exactly how the analysis was performed, but have recieved no reply (I also sent him an early draft of this blog post for comment). I would hope that the paper has now been withdrawn.
57107. Yvan Dutil at 22:39 PM on 4 July 2012
       Murry Salby's Correlation Conundrum
       This is the typical denier tricks: remove the trend and then claim there is no trend!
57108. chriskoz at 22:05 PM on 4 July 2012
       Murry Salby's Correlation Conundrum
       It is beyond my comprehension, why the simple arithmetic equasion: 1) En - Un = C' - Ea 2) the principle of conservation of mass altogether understood by primary school kids; are being denied by contrarians like Salby, who confuses the issue by taking about correlations, instead. The only explanation is: Salby hopes that people are less likely to know about correlations, or specifically about their irrelevance to the subject question. In other words: his hopes are to confuse the simple issue rather than to explain it. The same observation applies to larger teachings on the subject of AGW. E.g.: why am I confused/find hard to understand what I'm reading on WUWT or in contrarian books like Heaven+Earth? As opposed to the clarity and simplicity of information here on SkS or in books by people like James Hansen? Precisely, because contrarians are interested in spreading disinformation and confusion only. The case of prof Salby here is a classic one.
57109. Sceptical Wombat at 20:52 PM on 4 July 2012
       Murry Salby's Correlation Conundrum
       Oneiota In fact it is now 11 months since Prof Curry claimed that it was "in print" and was expected in 6 months. Salby has since indicated that he is having trouble getting it accepted (how does that figure with "in print"). To quote The technical paper underpinning my presentation to the Sydney Institute has certainly not been withdrawn. The cycle of scientific publication is slow, typically about a year. For a subject as political as this one, it can be very slow. The fiasco surrounding Spencer and Braswell (2011), a thinly-veiled exercise in coercion, didn’t help. But, with patience, we will eventually get there. In due course I expect that we will see either an "Energy and Environment" paper or a WUWT post claiming yet another conspiracy to block the publication of an inconvenient paper or possibly both.
57110. Macro at 18:59 PM on 4 July 2012
       Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
       Malcolm Croft New Zealand
57111. adelady at 17:53 PM on 4 July 2012
       Carbon Pricing Alarmists Disproven by the Reality of RGGI
       "How does that compare to the non-RGGI states, whose emissions have also reduced?" Well these two items are showing the RGGI states reducing CO2 emissions 20% faster than the other states. Not only that, they're increasing GDP faster as well. Much happiness all round.
57112. Tom Curtis at 16:52 PM on 4 July 2012
       Ian Plimer Pens Aussie Geologist Gish Gallop #2 of the Week
       dissembly @20, I am not assuming you vote for Abbot. I am assuming you want to tear a part an adequate plan implemented now for the sake of a supposedly good plan implemented when the cows come home.
57113. Tom Curtis at 16:50 PM on 4 July 2012
       Ian Plimer Pens Aussie Geologist Gish Gallop #2 of the Week
       dissembly @19, as a matter of etiquette it is preferable to use different comments to respond to different respondents, except where they have made essentially the same argument. Having said that, there are two key points at issue. The first is that you took exception to the Dana's claim that

       "the Australian government (primarily their Labor Party) passed Clean Energy Bill 2011, which implemented a national carbon pricing system (starting as a tax, then becoming an emissions trading system). This was a major achievement for Australia, but one which political conservatives tended to oppose"

       You claim that his claim was untrue because many people with left wing opinions also the Carbon Tax, however: a) That is irrelevant to his claim. He claims that conservatives have tended to oppose it, and that is false only if many conservatives have supported it. As it happens, conservatives have by an large opposed it; so Dana's claim was true. b) Even your claim that left wing people have opposed it is misleading because, without shadow of doubt, the campaign against the Carbon Tax has been organized by people from the conservative side of politics. It is true that many people with a socialist bent have been mislead by those conservatives, and consequently oppose the Carbon Tax, but that is because of misinformation pushed by Conservatives, not because of any fundamental opposition to the Carbon Tax. So, your argument opposes a strawman in that even if your claims where correct they would not falsify Dana's claims; and they also misrepresent the political situation in Australia. On the other hand, they do illustrate how poorly Australians have been served by politicians and main stream media in that, it is true that currently elected parties poorly represent the views of and serve the interests of the people who elected them. The second key issue is the practicality of the Carbon Tax as an early step in the response to climate change. The simple fact which you are ignoring is that the response to climate change has been so long delayed that it must now be a very fast response to avoid the worst consequences of global warming. To give an illustration of that, the following graph shows the rate of reduction in emissions needed to have a 50% chance of avoiding a greater than 2 degree C increase in global temperature, on the assumption that benchmarks are set on a per capita basis by national grouping: Note that dashed line is the reduction required if we exclude emissions trading. The task is obviously substantial, even with emissions trading (solid lines). Butif we do not flatten emissions growth now and we reject emissions trading, we will be placed in a position within one electoral cycle where Australia must end all emissions within a year, or not contribute its fair share to the task of reducing global emissions. Actually, it is worse than that. Australia's per capita CO2 equivalent (CO2e) emissions are 28 tonnes per capita per annum. If per capita emissions targets are set on a per nation basis, rather than by national grouping, and without emissions trading, Australia must end all emissions by 2013, or else not be contributing its share to tackling global warming. So, if your plan to tackle global warming cannot end national emissions by 2013 (and it cannot), then you need to commit to the Carbon Tax now as a means to keep the task manageable. We need to do it on the ethical ground that we should not expect more of other nations (ie, a lower per capita emissions target) than we accept for ourselves. We should also accept it because if we do not, we preclude the negotiation of a reasonable global response because we shall have already violated the terms of any such reasonable response before negotiations begin if we do not curb our emissions now. Finally, we should commit to the Carbon Tax because only with a Carbon Tax can Australia keep emissions down long enough to arrive at an effective solution. This is not a claim that the Carbon Tax is the best means available to tackle climate change. It is just recognizing the practical fact that a Carbon Tax is currently being implemented, and that no alternative policy can be implemented soon enough to stop the rise of emissions over the next three to five years. And if you can't recognize that practical fact, and get on board; you are part of the problem. If you cannot recognize that fact, you are guaranteeing that Australia's policy will be in practice, to restrict global warming to 3 degrees, or more. If you think your solution is better, then by all means argue for it - but your argument should only be that, while your plan is better, we should support the Carbon Tax until your plan can be implemented. To do otherwise it to pull your driver of the starting grid because you think your new car design currently in testing would be better for winning the race she is about to start.
57114. dissembly at 16:04 PM on 4 July 2012
       Ian Plimer Pens Aussie Geologist Gish Gallop #2 of the Week
       Can I just say, because I think some people might not have gotten this, that I do not support Abbott or his party? I personally vote left-to-right, and am a member of a party that is far-left. I'm not saying "this is a bad policy, therefore we should vote for the other guys" (although that is what a lot people will be inclined to do); I'm saying "this is a bad policy, we need to push for a good one."
57115. oneiota at 16:00 PM on 4 July 2012
       Murry Salby's Correlation Conundrum
       DM, In your link to Climate etc above Judith Curry predicted that Salby's paper with his potentially "AGW science revolutionising analysis" would be published in a journal within 6 months...about 6 months ago. Has it seen the light of day?
57116. dissembly at 15:55 PM on 4 July 2012
       Ian Plimer Pens Aussie Geologist Gish Gallop #2 of the Week
       I got a lot of replies so I'm separating my responses with "----" lines, for readability. ----------------------------- ----------------------------- @14 & 16 - Tom Curtis: You wrote it is "impossible to keep a close eye on the Australian political scene without realizing that all left wing or centrist political parties with enough support to have seats in parliament support the Carbon Tax." There are no traditional left-wing parties on the Australian political scene (not without going to the fringes, where I sit), and that includes the Greens in practice (if not in words). Support in Parliament does not correlate with support in the general population - the survey I posted had some substantive empirical evidence to the contrary. It would be a mistake to assume that because 45% of seats belong to Party X, the views of Party X must be popular with 45% of the population. That isn't true for any Western country right now, and certainly not for Australia. People are voted out, not in. As I mentioned, the deeply unpopular conservative party is going to win the next election, despite being deeply unpopular, simply because, this time around the ALP is slightly more unpopular. "The same is true outside of parliament" - Well, no, it's not. Talk to the more organised pro-carbon tax environmental campaigners one-on-one, and they will often tell you 'We know it's not a solution, but it's a start' - not disimilar to the argument you made in post #16, in fact. But neither the spread of organised campaigning groups, nor the composition of Parliament, are indications of what 'Australians' support (or oppose). Surveys and polls of regular people, talking to average people on the ground, reading what people say when they do get themselves into the media, are much better indications. I am confident that if you do this, you will find that support for the carbon tax is not widespread. - "The question is, then, will you increase that uncertainty, as appears to be your intention, or provide accurate clear information to dispel?" Perhaps you should have a glass of water before you post anything again, mate. This is insulting and inappropriate. I expect some basic assumption of good faith. - "It is however, also predicted to stop emissions growth of 66.7% by 2050." A valid point. So what's the good of that if you've taken this reduced emissions growth from people's economic well-being (which is not necessary to reduce carbon emissions, but *is* necessary if you just use a carbon tax to do it), alienating them from the movement, and waved away solutions that will actually provide a meaningful reduction? - "Dissembly suggests alternative policies for tackling climate change, and he is certainly welcome to pursue them. Optimistically it would take around 10 years for him to achieve the political capital to implement his preferred solution. In that 10 years, without the carbon tax emissions would have grown by another 60 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent per annum." '10 years' is a bizarre estimation, which I guess you pulled out of thin air. Right now, there is very little political will to do anything substantive about climate change - despite the majority of people being in favour of doing something. I assume your conception of political capital means lobbying the ALP, Greens, Coalition, etc. to win them over, or something of the sort. This would not achieve much. What is needed is concerted trade union activity and probably the formation of a new party; there are a lot of obstacles to this, but a lot in its favour as well. Under the right circumstances, this sort of thing can happen quite quickly (Syriza in Greece is a recent example; Syriza isn't a new party, but it has taken on a new form, and forced their rivals to the left in that country despite failing to win the most recent election). "This is assuming his plan could in fact be implemented, which I doubt." If it can't be implemented, then global warming can't be averted. A carbon tax is not going to solve the problem, and now you're saying to me that the development of alternative energies with a concerted public investment is simply not possible? If that's the case, then the game is already over. I prefer to be a little less pessimistic. ----------------------------- ----------------------------- @scaddenp - "I would have thought that the carbon tax was incentive to de-carbonize industry (especially use alternative generation) because you would then have more competitive advantage of industry that didnt. Consumer would buy so as to avoid tax." That is all true... - "Not necessarily "reduce unnecessary production" ...but it is both. All a carbon tax is, is a market incentive. In theory, consumers have an incentive to cut down energy use (buy less stuff, cut out unnecessary production), industry has an incentive to source lower-carbon energy, investors have an incentive to invest in renewables, all at the same time. The problems with this are manifold. I only highlighted the problems with the first clause, the effect on consumers. But the also assumes that consumers have renewable-energy-sourced alternatives to purchase from. Without massive investment in alternative energy, the green choices for customers simply don't exist. (At the moment, most green energy options involve offsets & gas plants - woefully inadequate to actually solve the basic problem). So the carbon pricing is supposed to incentivise investment as well. But in recessions, owners of capital simply do not invest. Even when you throw massive bailout packages at them. Even outside of recessions, they are unlikely to invest in high cost projects with long-term payoffs - which is what alternative energy production is. Carbon pricing would need to be far higher to make this attractive. The current government has already shown that it would rather let private alternative energy companies die a market-led death than supply them with the funds necessary to make something happen. Alternative energy is something that requires a lot of investment, with little expectation of short-term profitability. That is a job for public investment and nationalised ownership. It simply will not happen in a market, certainly not without making the carbon tax much higher (and withdrawing government support for other areas of industry). Without nationalised public investment, the carbon tax will essentially be driving people to cut down on consumption more than anything else; i.e. simulating a recession, while we are already likely to be heading into one. - "(what defines "unnecessary")." Exactly. 'Unnecessary' is what we won't (or can't) pay for. I have a problem with this approach. This is my problem with this entire approach: treating the problem as if average consumers are the root cause (and creating a situation where they will pay the most for it; proportionate to actual wealth), when the cause is in fact far bigger than individual people. - "A 2% reduction by 2050 sounds like a very pessimistic assessment of alternative energy." That's not an assessment of alternative energy, but of the efficacy of this specific market-based solution. What I'm arguing is that alternative energy is, in fact, the real solution. ----------------------------- ----------------------------- @Sphaerica said: "There is so much profligate waste and thoughtless but unnecessary consumption in the system that major cuts are easy if people are simply given an incentive to do so" - I disagree with this approach, for three reasons. 1) This addresses the symptoms of the problem, without addressing the cause. We have an economic system where private profit in certain industries (and the lack of political will to nationalise or publicly invest) has meant that we are stuck with outdated technologies, when we desperately need to move away from these technologies ASAP, to escape a massive environmental crisis. The problem does not lie in individual purchasing decisions - the problem lies in the large-scale systematic reason for the continued dominance of a fossil fuel industry in an age where alternative energies are theoretically able to support people. 2) This alienates average people, and in some senses rightly so, by placing the economic burden for a giant problem onto them. You speak as if cutting back was just a simple trick - well, for some people, it is. For others, they'll be asking you "how much more can we possibly cut back?" 100,000 are homeless in Australia, many more in inadequately funded public housing, others experiencing massive rent stress. What do they have to sacrifice? 3) Related to 2), a carbon tax is a regressive tax, a "flat tax". It not only treats most people as if they are both equally responsible for the problem and equally able to afford to fix it, it actually affects those at the lower end much more. Now the ALP has said they will pay some people back - not all people. At the same time, they make cuts in other areas that low-income people rely on. Economically, how are we actually going to police them on this? How do we propose to ensure that nobody truly is worse off? If welfare is cut (currently a bipartisan policy) while the carbon tax is brought in, and then the government offers to pay some people back for the carbon tax, how do you actually disentangle how much worse or better off you are, even if you can force them to maintain the compensation programs indefinitely? It's a bit of a shell game. ----------------------------- ----------------------------- @skywatcher - You pointed to an article that pointed out: "This means that a future Abbott Government will have to negotiate a legally binding reduction to Australia’s carbon emissions in its first term." - I sure hope so. The problem with the piece you link to is that it commits the fallacy of the excluded middle. It sees two options - carbon tax, or no carbon tax. The fact is, Australia can reduce its emissions by investing heavily in alternative energies and instituting a large-scale program to bring alternatives up the task of providing baseload power. So what do we do? Grab the paltry crumbs off the table that they throw us - the carbon tax - and hail them when they make token gestures in the direction of not outright denying the fact that there is a problem? Or say, 'Uh, no, that's not actually a solution, this is.' The bottom lines are, only large-scale, co-ordinated investment can replace fossil fuels with alternative energies; only public investment can do this, as market-based strategies rely on profit-oriented investors (who simply aren't up to the task); and hurting a large number of people for a half-assed attempt at a solution is not going to win environmentalists the credibility & support that we need to carry out a real solution.
57117. Ari Jokimäki at 14:46 PM on 4 July 2012
       New research from last week 26/2012
       But note that the radiocarbon article is from 1978, and the article itself writes that the varying formation was reported already in 1950's.
57118. Don Miller at 14:31 PM on 4 July 2012
       Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
       I regard you guys as heroes already. Don Miller, New Zealand.
57119. meurig at 14:11 PM on 4 July 2012
       Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
       Mark Bigland-Pritchard, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
57120. Sidelong at 13:20 PM on 4 July 2012
       Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
       Rob Eales Melbourne, Victoria
57121. Jayrank at 12:52 PM on 4 July 2012
       Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
       Jay Kamins, United States
57122. bill4344 at 12:39 PM on 4 July 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #26
       

       This wiki is in "alpha" state of development and we invite you to help plan and grow it "under wraps" until enough support, structure, and configurations are in place.

       From the welcome page for the wiki. Given there's a last mod date of 8th March 2012 on that SkSkS page, and it has has a history going back to - well, let's be generous and say January 2012 (though if you actually take a look...), it appears that 'support, structure and configurations' may not, um, altogether be 'in place'.
57123. quarfie at 12:28 PM on 4 July 2012
       Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
       Jason Wood, Canada
57124. psrumpel at 12:08 PM on 4 July 2012
       Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
       Peter Strand Rumpel Calgary Alberta- Just a little south of the Tar Sands...
57125. Bernard J. at 12:01 PM on 4 July 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #26
       I'm sure it'll be patched up somewhat as time goes on, but the whole premise of reconciling the mutually-irreconcilable twaddle of climate change denialism is nevertheless doomed to humiliating failure - the more so as those unfortunate nominated grandchildren become grandparents themselves. However, as I am frequently wont to point out, half of the human population is of below-average intelligence, so even irreconciled twaddle will reach some people.
57126. bill4344 at 11:53 AM on 4 July 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #26
       Yep, that's truly priceless. Has rather made my day.
57127. Daniel Bailey at 11:12 AM on 4 July 2012
       Ocean heat flux and the Arctic
       This is a great piece, Neven. Thanks for taking the time to do it!
57128. thanes at 10:04 AM on 4 July 2012
       Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
       Hear, hear, hear! Timothy S. Hanes Atlanta, Georgia USA
57129. skywatcher at 09:59 AM on 4 July 2012
       Ian Plimer Pens Aussie Geologist Gish Gallop #2 of the Week
       Further to Tom's #14, this excellent piece by Andrew Mackintosh at The Conversation is worth a read. There may be some uncertainty about the CEF package, and the political Right in Australia, like Abbot, would love to be able to wish it away. The truth is that it's not necessarily actually going to be an easy thing to do, even if he wins office next year. Another very interesting point is made in this piece, also at The Conversation - I'll quote:

       "But in December all countries agreed in Durban to be part of a legally binding treaty by 2015. Existing pledges will presumably be used as the basis of this global agreement. This means that a future Abbott Government will have to negotiate a legally binding reduction to Australia’s carbon emissions in its first term. It might choose to play hardball and let the burden fall on other countries. This would put Australia in breach of its responsibilities under the UNFCCC. Australia would also be free-riding on the cuts of other countries, which is fundamentally unjust for a rich country and will damage our diplomatic relationships, particularly with the developing world. Australia would then be isolated in global climate change negotiations."

57130. dana1981 at 09:57 AM on 4 July 2012
       Carbon Pricing Alarmists Disproven by the Reality of RGGI
       Tristan - it's not easy to find state-by-state CO2 emissions data. However, that's not really the point of the post. The point of the post is to debunk the myth that carbon pricing will cripple the economy. Obviously the RGGI carbon pricing system has not.
57131. PeteM at 06:56 AM on 4 July 2012
       Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
       Added my name via email
57132. kampmannpeine at 06:07 AM on 4 July 2012
       New research from last week 26/2012
       thanks Ari, in particular I found the C14 article great: It is showing how the formation of C14 is varying ... before it was assumed this formation to be constant ... nice indeed ...
57133. padruig at 05:58 AM on 4 July 2012
       Help Send Peter Sinclair to the Mt. Baker Glacier
       To answer Chriskoz's question about Easton Glacier - snowmobiles are not allowed on the hard ice whatsoever. Mount Baker is in the jurisdiction of the National Forest Service and the Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. On the north side it has a wilderness designation, on the south side is a large section with a National Recreation Area designation. The Park actually starts to the east of Mount Baker so if you do the Hannigan trail to Copper Ridge or Cascade Pass to Stehikin you'll cross into the North Cascade National Park lands. Running a snowmobile on the hard ice (the glaciers) [will] get you a lovely ticket (payable to the National Forest Service in Colorado). Easton falls in the NRA, the National Recreation Area, which we call the "snow cone" because of its shape and extends from the Schriebers Meadows trail head to the summit. Snow has lingered long and is plenty deep this year starting at and elevation of about 3,500 feet. While I'm thrilled Mr. Sinclair is coming he would do best to start working out now, every single day. The road up to Artists Point remains closed as are many of the trail heads including Railroad Grade which will take you up to Easton and Deming.
57134. DMCarey at 05:44 AM on 4 July 2012
       Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
       Dustin Carey, Canada
57135. Chris G at 04:04 AM on 4 July 2012
       Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
       Wondering how many of these get included in FOI act requests, or were part of the archives stolen from CRU. I've seen people claim that there are no threats against climate scientists; that seems just as delusional as the denier claims in general. I've said before, people have a tendency to go a bit crazy when threatened, and a changing climate is very threatening. Researchers should indeed put some effort into watching their backs. It is not rational, but there exist many who would kill the messenger.
57136. Chris G at 03:44 AM on 4 July 2012
       Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
       Chris Golledge USA
57137. Rob Painting at 03:19 AM on 4 July 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #26
       Bernard- very comprehensive. Basically sums up the contrarian's case.
57138. Nick Palmer at 03:09 AM on 4 July 2012
       Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
       Nick Palmer Jersey, Channel Islands
57139. Asteroid Miner at 03:09 AM on 4 July 2012
       Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
       Phil Jones: Keep up the good work.
57140. dcruzuri at 02:37 AM on 4 July 2012
       Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
       Excellent Letter, pleas add my name. David V. Cruz-Uribe, SFO Trinity College, Hartford, CT, USA
57141. sallen at 02:33 AM on 4 July 2012
       Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
       Susan Allen, Canada
57142. Bernard J. at 01:47 AM on 4 July 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #26
       http://climatewiki.org.uk/Deconstructing_%22Skeptical_Science%22 Blech.
57143. KR at 01:27 AM on 4 July 2012
       The GLOBAL global warming signal
       Kevin C - Thanks for this series of posts. It really reinforces the points that, when the full set of data is considered, the identified trends are: * Visible in all of the collected datasets, * Consistent from one dataset to another, and * The trends are significant, well above noise levels.
57144. birdbrainscan at 01:24 AM on 4 July 2012
       Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
       Jim Prall, Toronto, Canada Keep your chin up. The crazies on the internet are not the ones who will decide our collective response to this enormous challenge.
57145. Bob Lacatena at 01:02 AM on 4 July 2012
       Ian Plimer Pens Aussie Geologist Gish Gallop #2 of the Week
       13, Dissembly, The reality is, however, that cutting emissions is pretty easy. There is so much profligate waste and thoughtless but unnecessary consumption in the system that major cuts are easy if people are simply given an incentive to do so. As evidence, take the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, ten northeast USA states that collectively moved to cut emissions and were very, very successful in doing so. And that wasn't even really that strong an effort, because people were not themselves motivated, cuts came only through government action. There is a lot of low hanging fruit to be picked, and all it would take to get there is (a) a little bit of leadership and (b) economic incentives to move people along. The same thing happened with litter in the USA in the seventies. It was all over the place as disposable cans, bottles and wrappers became cheap and omnipresent. It seemed like the world would forever be covered in junk because that was human nature. A combination of simple solutions (more trash cans in easy reach), serious littering fines, financial incentives (deposits on aluminum cans) and finally a collective change in public attitude (effective advertising) solved the problem very quickly. What really bugs me about deniers is that attacking this problem is really not going to be as hard as it seems, at least not the first level. We could easily be holding our emissions down and in so doing at least buy time for further technology development and further climate research. But instead, the denial alarmists claim that any action will destroy the world economy and throw us all into the dark ages. It's insanity. Suck it up, people. It's a problem. Address the problem, and stop running from it and burying your head in whichever hole seems to fit most comfortably (in this case, that's the "solve the problem but don't tax me" hole).
57146. jlarson at 00:53 AM on 4 July 2012
       Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
       Joakim Larson, Stockholm Sweden
57147. dutoitdz at 22:33 PM on 3 July 2012
       Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
       David du Toit Pretoria, South Africa
57148. Kirry at 22:01 PM on 3 July 2012
       Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
       Kirrilee Loudon, ACT, Australia
57149. catamon at 21:52 PM on 3 July 2012
       Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
       Catamon: Perth Western Australia Hang in. There are many who will abuse, but more who will support you. Thanx for your work.
57150. Ari Jokimäki at 20:44 PM on 3 July 2012
       New research from last week 26/2012
       No it wasn't, but now it is, thanks.

Prev  1135  1136  1137  1138  1139  1140  1141  1142  1143  1144  1145  1146  1147  1148  1149  1150  Next