Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 Next
Comments 57401 to 57450:
-
padruig at 05:58 AM on 4 July 2012Help 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. -
DMCarey at 05:44 AM on 4 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Dustin Carey, Canada -
Chris G at 04:04 AM on 4 July 2012Nil 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. -
Chris G at 03:44 AM on 4 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Chris Golledge USA -
Rob Painting at 03:19 AM on 4 July 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #26
Bernard- very comprehensive. Basically sums up the contrarian's case. -
Nick Palmer at 03:09 AM on 4 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Nick Palmer Jersey, Channel Islands -
Asteroid Miner at 03:09 AM on 4 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Phil Jones: Keep up the good work. -
dcruzuri at 02:37 AM on 4 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Excellent Letter, pleas add my name. David V. Cruz-Uribe, SFO Trinity College, Hartford, CT, USA -
sallen at 02:33 AM on 4 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Susan Allen, Canada -
Bernard J. at 01:47 AM on 4 July 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #26
http://climatewiki.org.uk/Deconstructing_%22Skeptical_Science%22 Blech. -
KR at 01:27 AM on 4 July 2012The 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. -
birdbrainscan at 01:24 AM on 4 July 2012Nil 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. -
Bob Lacatena at 01:02 AM on 4 July 2012Ian 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). -
jlarson at 00:53 AM on 4 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Joakim Larson, Stockholm Sweden -
dutoitdz at 22:33 PM on 3 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
David du Toit Pretoria, South Africa -
Kirry at 22:01 PM on 3 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Kirrilee Loudon, ACT, Australia -
catamon at 21:52 PM on 3 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Catamon: Perth Western Australia Hang in. There are many who will abuse, but more who will support you. Thanx for your work. -
Ari Jokimäki at 20:44 PM on 3 July 2012New research from last week 26/2012
No it wasn't, but now it is, thanks. -
Johns777 at 19:35 PM on 3 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Phil, Your work protects my children. Thank you. John Stewart Sydney Australia. -
Ann Owen at 18:40 PM on 3 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Keep going,your work is invaluable. Ann Owen, Wales, UK -
shoyemore at 17:34 PM on 3 July 2012New research from last week 26/2012
Great post as usual, Ari. Is the date right for Damon et al - 2012? -
barry1487 at 15:44 PM on 3 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
I remember Jones' interview on the darkness he felt following the rotten attacks on him. It made me sad and angry for him. There are now 6 pages of signers here and no doubt a number of emails. This is heartening. Email sent, full support. -
Tristan at 15:41 PM on 3 July 2012Carbon Pricing Alarmists Disproven by the Reality of RGGI
This post is missing a critical piece of information. It states: The [RGGI] states have far exceeded their emissions reduction target, with a 23% overall reduction in 2009-2011 power plant CO2 emissions as compared to the 2006-2008 How does that compare to the non-RGGI states, whose emissions have also reduced? Without that context, the above isn't all that meaningful. -
John Donovan at 14:42 PM on 3 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
John Donovan, Eugene, Oregon, USA -
Tom Curtis at 14:02 PM on 3 July 2012Ian Plimer Pens Aussie Geologist Gish Gallop #2 of the Week
Further to dissembly @13, he suggests that the Carbon Tax virtually pointless because it is only predicted to reduce domestic emissions by 2%. It is however, also predicted to stop emissions growth of 66.7% by 2050. In other words, while not a complete solution it moves us away from uncontrolled emissions growth, and prevents approximately 8 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent emissions.
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. With out the Carbon Tax, therefore, he would face a much more difficult task to reduce emissions because a much larger (and faster) reduction would be required. (This is assuming his plan could in fact be implemented, which I doubt.)
-
scaddenp at 13:56 PM on 3 July 2012Ian Plimer Pens Aussie Geologist Gish Gallop #2 of the Week
Dissembly, I'm on other side of Ditch and so not following developments in West Island as close as you obviously, but I had perceived the aims of the scheme differently. 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. Not necessarily "reduce unnecessary production" (what defines "unnecessary"). I would have thought biggest criticism was that it didnt hand back 100% of the tax? It seems a lot simpler and cleaner than our ETS which has been further slowed down. A 2% reduction by 2050 sounds like a very pessimistic assessment of alternative energy. -
Tom Curtis at 13:45 PM on 3 July 2012Ian Plimer Pens Aussie Geologist Gish Gallop #2 of the Week
dissembly @13 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. That even extends to most of the independents in Federal Parliament, with three conservative and one left leaning independent all voting for the tax. The same is true outside of parliament, with all organized opposition to the Carbon Tax coming from conservative political parties, right wing think tanks, and denier organizations. Many of the opponents of the Carbon Tax are quite happy to dissemble; and those who are more honest still never call the others on their falsehoods. The result has been a perfect storm of misinformation. Given that, it is no surprise that there is substantial uncertainty about the Carbon Tax in Australia. The question is, then, will you increase that uncertainty, as appears to be your intention, or provide accurate clear information to dispel? -
p.hughes001 at 13:29 PM on 3 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Patricia Hughes, NSW Australia -
dissembly at 13:08 PM on 3 July 2012Ian Plimer Pens Aussie Geologist Gish Gallop #2 of the Week
@dana1981 I take exception to this: "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". In fact, opposition to the carbon pricing scheme is not limited to political conservatives, and, according to surveys, includes the majority of people in Australia. Polls I have seen have shown that up to 80% of Australians believe that AGW is a real issue, yet as many as 75% are opposed to the carbon tax. (And despite rumours to the contrary, Australians are not necessarily politically conservative when it gets down to the polling details: http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2012/06/11/what-australians-believe/ ). So I think it is factually incorrect to present opposition to the carbon tax as something associated with political conservatism (or AGW denial) - that is certainly not the case in Australia. The Liberal Party's position on the carbon tax is seen as a populist move, even though most people polled disagree with their AGW-denialist stance. I also disagree with the description of the carbon tax as "a major achievement for Australia", and I say this as someone who fully agrees with the science on global warming, and sits far to the left on the political spectrum. This is actually a point of contention among the environmentalist movement in Australia. In my own experience, the carbon tax has made the Greens (and environmental issues) quite unpopular, where previously they were seen as having a moral high ground. It has alienated people who agreed with us on AGW, because it is seen as a measure in which average people will be made to pay for a problem created by big business. A conservative government in the next election is a near-certainty at this stage, and the carbon tax is one of the policy decisions that has contributed to this near-certainty. macoles wrote: "The only plausible criticism of the CEF package is that low incomes earners will be overcompensated via the "Household assistance measures", and that could be seen as vote buying."" In fact, there are more people in tricky economic circumstances in Australia than is commonly reported, as cost of living increases have been eating away at us for some time. There's a lot of doubt that the carbon tax's compensation packages will actually compensate for all the increases, much of which will be difficult to track (as businesses fold their cost increases into the prices that they pass on to consumers). Perhaps more importantly, Treasury figures have shown that the carbon tax and cap & trade program is only expected to reduce emissions by something like 2% by 2050 - the reason that higher figures are often quoted is that they include "reductions" from the purchasing of carbon offsets from overseas. This is an especially fraught issue; in some cases businesses will be "purchasing" things such as 'a promise not to log an area of forest that (supposedly) otherwise would have been logged'. One could write essays on the problems with cap & trade (and many already have, so I'll stop myself there). Another consideration is the role of economic recession - already in full swing overseas, and definitely en route to Australia (via recent drops in Chinese manufacturing/infrastructure, which partly relies on Australian mining exports; and via the high Australian dollar that has already caused substantial job losses in manufacturing, retail and tourism; a lot of people are already 'underemployed', if not unemployed). Carbon pricing is an incentive scheme to reduce unnecessary production, but recession already raises the price of production and pares things down to a bare minimum (even below the bare minimum, as unemployment & poverty rise). The 1990s economic crash in Eastern Europe did more for carbon emissions than any carbon price has. The alternatives I would propose involve nationalisation of energy production & active development of alternatives (rather than using a market incentive system), which I'm sure I don't need to go into (and it'd take me OT anyway). So I question the characterisation of opposition to carbon pricing as a hallmark of political conservatism, and the description of it as a step forward for those of us who know that AGW is a problem and want to do something about it. Both implications are factually incorrect. -
tonydunc at 12:28 PM on 3 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
AH. Tony Duncan, Vt, USA -
tonydunc at 12:27 PM on 3 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Posting on my facebook page. You have gone through hell because of ideological thuggery. I know scientists aren't perfect and science isn't perfect, yet you should never have been subjected to the hostility and paranoid delusions of these people. Your have my sympathy and support, and what you have gone through has strengthened my resolve to do what I can to get the facts as we know them out to the public -
Lambda 3.0 at 08:47 AM on 3 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Phil, I regard you as an honest and brave scientist. My children will learn to take you as a role model. Their children and those of the fake skeptics will be inspired by your great contributions to the survival of civilization. Keep up the good work. There are many of us who will stand up for dealing with reality rather than preserving personal interest. Thank you for all you do! Bill Rumbley USA -
MikeD at 08:39 AM on 3 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Long time reader (and learner) here and had to register to show support. Let us hope the increasingly desperate talk from the deniers shows they realise that the end game has arrived for them. No one should have to receive the sort of stuff Professor Jones has so I totally support this show of support for him. Mike Doyle, London -
Byron Smith at 08:26 AM on 3 July 2012Mercury rising: Greater L.A. to heat up an average 4 to 5 degrees by mid-century
Can I ask that headlines referring to temps in ºF and so departing from the international scientific convention of ºC make this clear in the headline itself? -
HerwigR at 08:18 AM on 3 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
It's a sad world where you have to thank people for doing there job, but here it is : thank you a lot. Herwig Regelbrugge, Belgium -
bibasir at 08:01 AM on 3 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
It is shameful that this abuse is so extreme and has gone on so long; all as the result of the unsolved crime of stolen emails. I hope you feel the support of your many friends who appreciate your scientific expertise. Jon Parker Houston, Texas -
Martinm at 06:03 AM on 3 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Martin Mathers, Scotland -
Jim Powell at 05:16 AM on 3 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
James Lawrence Powell, USA -
Utahn at 04:42 AM on 3 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Gary Kunkel, Utah, USA -
KR at 04:38 AM on 3 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Sent by email. -
BoulderBob at 04:30 AM on 3 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Robert Evans Boulder, Colorado USA -
Mark-US at 04:16 AM on 3 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
When I find myself asking "Why bother?", sooner or later some of Gandhi's words come back. Something along the lines of: Almost everything you do may seem insignificant, but it is IMPERATIVE that you do it as well as you can. Chin up! And that goes out to all of us. Mark E, USA -
pbjamm at 03:14 AM on 3 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Stephan Reed Long Beach CA USA -
monkeyorchid at 02:22 AM on 3 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Dr Richard Milne, Edinburgh -
Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 02:05 AM on 3 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Miriam O'Brien, Victoria, Australia. -
stewart at 01:58 AM on 3 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Stewart Longman, Calgary, Canada -
Svatli at 01:46 AM on 3 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Sveinn Atli Gunnarsson Reykjavik, Iceland -
Publicola at 01:41 AM on 3 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Prof. Jones, You have the deep respect and gratitude of innumerable people, including mine. -
heb0 at 01:24 AM on 3 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Evan Bush, Kentucky -
Climatemama at 01:20 AM on 3 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Harriet Shugarman USA
Prev 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 Next
