Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 Next
Comments 6351 to 6400:
-
Keithy at 01:19 AM on 18 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
MA Rodger, I think I was actually more saying the debate only exists because the deniers exist... Al Gore sparked the deniers and they put their money into advertising the whole issue.
Win, win, win scenario.
-
Keithy at 23:35 PM on 17 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
I agree with your summary of my POV, MA Rodger, but you must admit I'm replying to more than one person.
To delay mitigation by a decade or two is certainly worth a fortune and that really is the only point I'm making. Yet: who exactly are the interests requiring such a delay? I put it to you that they are vast....
Therefore, I also put it to you, that they require more than a decade or two:
..because basic high school economics teaches that all government intervention in the market place is difficult to recede owing to the fact that the economy itself develops its roots around it depending on it level of intervention: and in the case of fossil fuels we all know that level of interevention is of almost a planet like proportion.
-
MA Rodger at 20:23 PM on 17 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
Keithy @various,
You seem to have been vacillating between two arguments which is not helpful to setting out yor arguement.
Your initial point @9 concerned Al Gore's 2007 message which had been described @5 as not being denier-proof. You counter saying Al Gore's message had to resonate with a public audience meaning 'facts' are less important than 'drama' and (perhaps less well explained by yourself) that such a message would kick off a public debate which would include denialists.
@14-16 you imply that industry/business is synonymous with 'denier' and set out a second argument that unless AGW mitigation is made worthwhile for industry, they would not assist in it. (@19 you rather confusingly seperate 'blue chip company' and 'the garden variety denier', presumably this latter being the denialist public with presumably the former requiring 'facts' and the latter 'drama'.) In terms of which of the two is more important, industry or public, you assert @23 that it is primarily industry/business which needs to be convinced of the requirement to act on AGW.
And in similar vein you state @25:-
"Entrepreneurs don't get out of bed to make peanuts. If there is no pathway for future profiteering then the ideas of capitalism, with its associated captains of industry, itself go to sleep."
In trying to make sense of this "waffling" (as Eclectic terms it), I would suggest that there are certain industries which have been attempting to push back against AGW mitigation. A giant oil company, for instance, has assets on its books in the shape of oil reserves worth billions and it would be employing divisions of workers to find more, such operations also being book assets worth billions. AGW science is saying these assets should not be exploited and the search for more oil reserves should stop immediately. That presents such companies with the prospect of massive loss of assets. So to delay such AGW mitigation, even by a decade or two, is a very profitable enterprise for such companies.
But the vast majority of industry would not react so aggressively against AGW mitigation. And industry does not "go to sleep" when faced by the need to mitigate AGW. Certainly some industries will have a harder time than others in the carbon-free energy-scarce world which will closely follow successful AGW mitigation. Many will see once-profitable business likely disappear (eg steel cans & glass jars replaced by bio-plastic-&-cardboard containers) but when the economic writing is on the wall such industries will evolve into new businesses, either scaled down or providing the modern replacement product.
Of itself, industry is not a barrier to AGW mitigation. What is a barrier is a denialist public whose existence prevents an honest political AGW debate (which is required to mitigate for AGW). Certain industries have actively promoted public & political denialism and they are likely greatly surprised how successful they have been at it so far.
-
Eclectic at 17:08 PM on 17 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
Keithy , you are still waffling.
Answer the question you raised : and tell the readers why (and what is still required) the currently-known information is inadequate for competent planning decisions.
-
Keithy at 16:38 PM on 17 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
Eclectic, its not up for me to say what numbers are required to be in because I am not the captains of industry.
You think you know what analysis is? You have never been payed enough to know what analysis of trillions of dollars worth of plant investment means.
-
Keithy at 16:32 PM on 17 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
Entrepreneurs don't get out of bed to make peanuts. If there is no pathway for future profiteering then the ideas of capitalism, with its associated captains of industry, itself go to sleep.
Where is the work involved in an imagined utopia?
There isn't any... thus we come back to the reality of price points and diminishing returns.
-
Eclectic at 16:25 PM on 17 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
Keithy , sorry but you are getting vaguer and more incoherent.
(And even more waffly on the other thread you're posting in.)
Relax. Concentrate. Try again :- what are these necessary numbers which you yourself believe are not adequately "in" ?
IOW ~ what is needed for you (and any timid captains of industry) to make reasonable decisions in planning? Competent captains of industry would rightly say that a vast amount of data & analysis is already "in" (and has been, for years).
-
Keithy at 15:58 PM on 17 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
Eclectic: how do you make consuming voters do anything? By the power of your words? Your words are something I don't buy and I dare say most other people on the planet wouldn't bother remembering anything you ever said either.
The necessary number are what the people with the money deem necessary and you aren't them.
Welcome back to reality buddy!
-
Doug Bostrom at 15:54 PM on 17 September 2020Skeptical Science New Research for Week #37, 2020
Thanks for the spots on PDF and the suggestion, Dawei. :-)
I thought of the same thing regarding DOI, then bumped into "lossy" capture aspect. For the time being I'd like to be conservative about preserving original provenance as captured in the journal URL.
The "PDF aliasing" issue— hmm.
-
Keithy at 15:52 PM on 17 September 2020Berkeley study: 90% carbon-free electricity achievable by 2035
Let alone complex equations...
-
Keithy at 15:51 PM on 17 September 2020Berkeley study: 90% carbon-free electricity achievable by 2035
Using language such as, "..backed into a corner,..", is interesting because that is generally not a winning formula- for it to be a winning formula the odds need to be considerably overwhelming in ones favour basically forcing a resignation.
Entrepreneurs don't get out of bed to make peanuts. If there is no pathway for future profiteering then the ideas of capitalism, with its associated captains of industry, itself go to sleep.
Where is the work involved in an imagined utopia?
There isn't any... thus we come back to the reality of price points and diminishing returns.
-
Eclectic at 15:47 PM on 17 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
Keithy @21,
(chuckle) And you don't sound like captain or middle management.
Nor have you answered about what these necessary numbers are, which you say are not "in". Have you any idea what you are on about?
-
Keithy at 15:28 PM on 17 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
Eclectic, you don't sound like any captain of industry to me.
-
Keithy at 15:25 PM on 17 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
Phillip @17, which public companies are associated with such statements?
-
Keithy at 15:20 PM on 17 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
scaddenp, false arguments are a dime a dozen: big business has only ever been forced to make public statements on the issue because of denier fed fier sparked by Al Gores sweeping statements.
The garden variety denier cannot be the public statment of a blue chip company because these public companies have reputations.
Once again, the climate change denier has every right to make his argument but an argument he must make. The consuming voter has power... He doesn't have to buy bulldust just like investors don't have to listen to every Tom, Dick and Harry or the blue chip companies themselves who compete against each other when push comes to shove.
Iff it were the case that the blue chip companies don't compete against each other then that would indeed be illegal, though it also the law that the shareholder is their priority.
Politics is all human relations....
-
Eclectic at 15:09 PM on 17 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
Keithy , I take a business-oriented view ~ rather different to yours.
Your statement: "making sure the numbers are in" is too vague by far. Please specify what are these numbers which are "not in". What do you feel is needed to be in? And to what extent?
From my own business experience, I would say that delaying investment until complete certainty is reached . . . is a recipe for business failure. Good management requires reasonable decisions in the presence of some degree of uncertainty about present & future conditions. It was ever thus. Otherwise, your better-managed competitors run rings around you.
And I would want the accountants/auditors to give adequate warning, if there were early signs that my business was faltering. I am very surprised that you seem to think differently!
-
Philippe Chantreau at 14:34 PM on 17 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
Keithy,
I've been at this long enough. Deniers are not careful with the evidence underlying their lines of argument. It ranges from the carbonic snow in Antarctica delirium to the Soon-Baliunas fiasco, hitting the grotesque Arcitc sea ice predictions by Jo D'Aleo and innumerable ridiculous pieces of idiotic nonsense. It works, although mostly with the Anglo-Saxon public, with the exception of New-Zealand. They are careful with how they deliver their message, with the best propagandist methods known to date. Perhaps that's what you meant by careful, it does not add anything to the message validity.
-
Keithy at 14:16 PM on 17 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
No, nigelj, the problem does not speak for itself.
Most people don't care unless they are made to... Al Gore made sweeping statements that big business knew had to be refuted because investment certainty is a must in big business.
He lit a fire under their posterior.
All he did was use the age old political trick of making some noise(read: HEADLINES) and then massaging the message when he gets the required attention.
Welcome to the conversation fed by deniers...
-
Keithy at 14:07 PM on 17 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
Phillipe, didn't you ever consider that deniers have to be careful with their line of argument?
The voter is also a consumer... as such they can invest in publicly listed companies... publicly listed companies have reputations!
Like I said: the deniers are essential to any conversation or else there is no conversation.
-
Keithy at 13:50 PM on 17 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
The denialists are simply making sure the numbers are in before they have to make drastic investment decisions. They have every right to question the significance of the data.
It's their money and everyone needs them to give them jobs.
(You don't become a blue chip company by listening to every Tom, Dick and Harry!)
-
Dawei at 13:20 PM on 17 September 2020Skeptical Science New Research for Week #37, 2020
3. Also hovering over 'PDF' opens an explainer on the side for probability density function :P
-
Dawei at 13:18 PM on 17 September 2020Skeptical Science New Research for Week #37, 2020
Great to see the update with Unpaywall! Two comments:
- Sometimes I see 'PDF' but it's not a clickable link, e.g. for Characterization of long period return values of extreme daily temperature and precipitation in the CMIP6 models: Part 1, model evaluation and Global aridity changes due to differences in surface energy and water balance between 1.5 °C and 2 °C warming.
- Is it necessary to include the DOI URL separately from the hyperlinked title? You could just do away with the journal-specific URL altogether and make the DOI URL be the URL for the hyperlinked title, no?
- Sometimes I see 'PDF' but it's not a clickable link, e.g. for Characterization of long period return values of extreme daily temperature and precipitation in the CMIP6 models: Part 1, model evaluation and Global aridity changes due to differences in surface energy and water balance between 1.5 °C and 2 °C warming.
-
scaddenp at 08:40 AM on 17 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
From years of looking at the debate, I would say denialist arguments are mostly either strawman or cherry picks. (With a dose of "its a hoax" and conspiracy theories when public facts dont match expection).
Strawman arguments work because you have to know what the science actually says to spot them.
Cherry picking works because people are poor at looking at the data and thinking "Gee I would have expected that record to be longer", and finding the full dataset is work.
Either way, getting educated on the science is best defense.
-
Postkey at 18:20 PM on 16 September 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #37
Steve @5
“The IPCC report that the Paris agreement based its projections on considered over 1,000 possible scenarios. Of those, only 116 (about 10%) limited warming below 2C. Of those, only 6 kept global warming below 2C without using negative emissions. So roughly 1% of the IPCC’s projected scenarios kept warming below 2C without using negative emissions technology like BECCS. And Kevin Anderson, former head of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, has pointed out that those 6 lone scenarios showed global carbon emissions peaking in 2010. Which obviously hasn’t happened. So from the IPCC’s own report in 2014, we basically have a 1% chance of staying below 2C global warming if we now invent time travel and go back to 2010 to peak our global emissions. And again, you have to stop all growth and go into decline to do that. And long term feedbacks the IPCC largely blows off were ongoing back then too.”
www.facebook.com/wxclimonews/posts/455366638536345
'Limiting global warming to two degrees Celsius will not prevent destructive and deadly climate impacts, as once hoped, dozens of experts concluded in a score of scientific studies released Monday. A world that heats up by 2C (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit)—long regarded as the temperature ceiling for a climate-safe planet—could see mass displacement due to rising seas, a drop in per capita income, regional shortages of food and fresh water, and the loss of animal and plant species at an accelerated speed. Poor and emerging countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America will get hit hardest, according to the studies in the British Royal Society's Philosophical Transactions A. "We are detecting large changes in climate impacts for a 2C world, and so should take steps to avoid this," said lead editor Dann Mitchell, an assistant professor at the University of Bristol. The 197-nation Paris climate treaty, inked in 2015, vows to halt warming at "well under" 2C compared to mid-19th century levels, and "pursue efforts" to cap the rise at 1.5C.'
phys.org/news/2018-04-degrees-longer-global-guardrail.html#jCp
If 'change' can be implemented?
“LONDON, 19 February, 2020 − Virtually all the world’s demand for electricity to run transport and to heat and cool homes and offices, as well as to provide the power demanded by industry, could be met by renewable energy by mid-century. This is the consensus of 47 peer-reviewed research papers from 13 independent groups with a total of 91 authors that have been brought together by Stanford University in California.”Will there be change?
“Today’s global consumption of fossil fuels now stands at roughly five times what it was in the 1950s, and one-and-half times that of the 1980s when the science of global warming had already been confirmed and accepted by governments with the implication that there was an urgent need to act. Tomes of scientific studies have been logged in the last several decades documenting the deteriorating biospheric health, yet nothing substantive has been done to curtail it. More CO2 has been emitted since the inception of the UN Climate Change Convention in 1992 than in all of human history. CO2 emissions are 55% higher today than in 1990. Despite 20 international conferences on fossil fuel use reduction and an international treaty that entered into force in 1994, wo/man made greenhouse gases have risen inexorably.”Moderator Response:[RH] Please add to the discussion rather than just reposting links and quoted passages. I believe there have been previous warnings on this matter. Please take a moment to review the SkS commenting rules.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 10:51 AM on 16 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
I object to the term "debate." A debate can happen when participants are arguing in good faith. That is clearly not the case with deniers.
-
nigelj at 07:30 AM on 16 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
Keithy @9, I am struggling a bit to understand your point of view. I do not think Al Gore chose drama over facts. His book and movie sounded very facts based to me. Did you mean he emphasised drama over just a dry delivery of the facts?
I think Al gores book was good, but over simplified a few things. It could have better explained why CO2 lags temperature in the ice age cycles and generally how the thing worked.
But either way, I do concede there was a big element of drama and theatre in Gores book and movie, and that this would attract the denialists. But I'm not sure we really needed the denialists involved to advertise the climate problem. The problem speaks for itself.
Like PC says the climate change denialism is just misleading rhetoric and assorted nonsense. I think we can live without this frustrating public debate that seems to never end.
However Gores book and movie would probaly grab public attention. I read Al gores book and it did focus my attention on the climate issue because it was well presented. However it probably didnt go down well with the right wing in America, given Gore is a rich democrat. But whats done is done.
-
nigelj at 07:02 AM on 16 September 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #37
Steve @5, yes clearly industrial civilisation is harsh on the planet. Green technologies would at least improve that situation, along with eliminating or drastically reducing waste. Going further would mean we have to stop using things like computers and cars. Are you prepared to do that?
-
Philippe Chantreau at 03:25 AM on 16 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
Keithy "without them there is no conversation in the public square."
Well then it's a catch22 because there is no conversation possible with them either. They deny, they mirepresent, they mislead, refuse to acknowledge evidence, portray minor issues as if they could distract from the weight of the evidence, etc, etc. They are so dishonest that there is really no communication possible. They do, however, have good techniques, inherited from various industries who practiced denial before them, and are advised by experts in mind manipulation techniques, so they are convincing for the masses with little scientific literacy and limited critical thinking skills. That does not make them right or legitimize the so-called "conversation."
Deniers do not "advertise" (whatever that may mean) the "whole problem." They fool their audiences with methods in comparison to which Al Gore's small shortcomings are essentially negligible. They make an argument, shown to be entirely wrong, only to turn around and then pretend that the initial argument was not applicable anyway, not acknowledgeing that they initiated it. The list of their dishonest behaviors is almost as long as the myths listed on this site, or the the catalog that can be found in Wikipedia under "logical fallacies." Calling their participation a conversation would be a joke, if it was funny.
-
Nick Palmer at 02:40 AM on 16 September 2020My Climate Story: Coming full Circle
Good to see Greg Craven getting a mention and the Manpollo crew of whch I was a small part which involved staying up late to ridiculous times researching for Greg's book which is an underappreciatede masterpiece.
Of course, denialist propaganda has moved on since then and Greg's clever 'assess who's the most credible' argument probably wouldn't help much today - even if we could claim that every single scientist in the world fully endorsed the science it still wouldn't shake their rhetoric much! -
michael sweet at 01:39 AM on 16 September 2020Wildfires are not caused by global warming
Atrain1906:
I saw a report (sorry no cite) that compared fires in large areas of the USA where no fire supression is done with those areas where high fire supression is done. These were high elevation areas or areas where the trees were not valuable for timber. They found that the natural areas are burning more today than 100 years ago. That could be the basis of the conclusion that cliamte change is theprimary driver and not fuel density since in the natural areaas fuel density would not have changed.
In general scientists have measured most everything. If you want to claim that they did not include fuel density in their models you need to provide data to support your claim.
-
Eclectic at 00:19 AM on 16 September 2020Wildfires are not caused by global warming
A-Train @1 , in the above quote from the Fourth NCAR, the "burnt area" studied was for 1916 to 2003. Presumably the pre-1916 data would be too skimpy & poor to provide real value ~ and the assessed period itself contains major changes in population/settlements and multiple other factors.
A-Train1906 , one extra point you may not have considered, is that prior to 1916, going back 70 years to the Gold Rush times (and earlier, too) . . . what was the natural state of the vegetation? Natural wildfires occurred, even with the much lower human population. But what would have been the "natural" level of fuel density in those times of little or no actual fire suppression efforts? Would the untouched/unmanaged fuel density have been much different than the fuel density of recent decades?
To some extent, for climate-factor purposes, we would somehow have to compare (apples to apples) the 2000's with the 1800's rather than with (say) the 1950's or similar period of "unnaturally" lower fuel density.
-
Keithy at 23:42 PM on 15 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
Nick, Al Gore chose drama over facts because in the end the people lead and governments follow.
Governments are designed to work slowly and so only the voting public will be able to make any difference when push comes to shove.
He invites the deniers to the conversation in the public square because without them there is no conversation in the public square.
The deniers advertise the whole problem,... so Al Gore played a very good hand by making vague and sweeping statements that made the deniers have to take a stand... and the conversation began!
-
Brainspin at 19:58 PM on 15 September 2020Clouds provide negative feedback
To this layman, a new report (Saint‐Lu et al 2020) seems to support Lindzen's "Iris effect" (that high cloud cover in the tropics diminish with increased temperature), but at the same time finds that high clouds have a neutral effect on global warming:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020GL089059
-
A-Train1906 at 18:59 PM on 15 September 2020Wildfires are not caused by global warming
I didn't see any reference within this explanation to the main driver of increased fire intensity as well as acreage burned: Anthropogenic alteration of the historic fire regime. 100+ years of aggressive fire suppression has created significant carbon loads well above historical levels. We now see much larger fires now that burn with greater intensity than in the past with the primary driver being fuel density. I didn't see any study sited, or any evidence given as to what proportion of these increases in fire frequency or intensity is created by climate change and which proportion would be attributable to our altering the natural frequency of burn cycles. I'm not really sure how the fourth national climate assessment report could conclude twice the amount of acreage has burned that otherwise would not have because of climate change when fuel density wasn't used as a primary driver within their model.
-
Lachlan at 17:52 PM on 15 September 2020Five science questions to be asked at the debates
Q4 is a yes/no question, which isn't good for debates. I'd have suggested "How will you use this opportunity..."
-
Lachlan at 17:51 PM on 15 September 2020Five science questions to be asked at the debates
@Keithy, Trump didn't just do nothing. He went backwards by undoing things like vehicle mileage requirements (which help consumers in the short term, as well as the environment).
Can you think of another POTUS who has done as much damage?
-
Steve19771 at 11:04 AM on 15 September 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #37
This is my first post and I really enjoy the complex explanations involved in climate science provided by this site. While all the science behind man induced global warming seems sound the crux of the problem will remain elusive to all politicians. I fail to see any one tackle the real problem and that is our wanton lifestyle that disregards and disrespect our only home in the univese. All I can see are politicians talking a good game about actions but yet do nothing about developments in wildland urban interface. People seem to think we can develop green technology to engineer the planet so that we can bake the cake and eat it too. Sadly if we don't change our ways and lifestyle then no force except for nature itself will aright the kilter.
-
Eclectic at 09:16 AM on 15 September 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #37
Govanguitar ~ if you haven't already seen it, then you might enjoy the video on Youtube by (science reporter) "Potholer54". Title is "The cause of Australia's bushfires" ( number #52 in the climate series ) regarding the major wildfires of early 2020 there. Duration 36 minutes - rather longer than Potholer's average - but very good value as an example of logical analysis.
The parallels are strong. Of course there are differences, some in climate, some in vegetation & management. And the western USA has also had a multi-decadal alteration in spread of plant types (versus mostly "old growth" in Australia's southeast).
But a similarity is the Murdoch media & friends, who reflexly front up with every possible excuse . . . except climate change.
-
Govanguitar at 06:36 AM on 15 September 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #37
"forestry management" not "forestry mana", putting aside any Old Testament apocalyptic allusions
-
Govanguitar at 06:33 AM on 15 September 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #37
I'm a longtime followe of this site, first time commenter.
Just want to mention what seems to be a popular broken arrow in the rhetoric quiver of climate change denialists; they are all quite eager to suggests that the conflagrations in the western USA are due to bad forestry mana practice. This may play a part, but many of them suggests it's the only thing. Hopefull, your team and a number of your readers who are forestry experts can smokejump into this location where the fire of irrationality are spreading and put this fire out. The John Batchelor show (#407) is one of these flareups. Guest is a Chicago finance academic, not a forester. Should be easy to put out.
Good work y'all.
Cheers
GG
-
Doug Bostrom at 03:37 AM on 15 September 2020My Climate Story: Coming full Circle
Time to make some ears burn: It's not really possible to choose and identify a major component of an efficiently operating engine as "the most important." But it's a plain fact that without Bärbel installed into the mechanism of Skeptical Science, delivered horsepower and torque would be much diminished.
-
Eclectic at 01:02 AM on 15 September 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #35
KR @45 , yes the WUWT blog and the Curry blog are an entertaining read, IMO.
The Curry blog is a somewhat upmarket version of WUWT , with notably less frothing-at-the-mouth . . . but only marginally less of the super-selfish political extremism (see the recent "Politics Only" thread, where the regular commenters flaunt their underlying philosophies).
Willis Eschenbach is one of my favorites ~ a guy with a high IQ and a sense of humor . . . but a bad case of Motivated Reasoning, and a sad lack of insight & common sense. Crackpot, but at least not one of the "bad actor" Shills, I think.
As you probably know well, WUWT has not only hordes of climate-deniers of the ultra-lukewarmer type and wingnut type, but also a goodly share of CO2-greenhouse deniers plus a few super-wackies who are even more extreme in their anti-science beliefs.
Pretty much all commenters there have a bad case of "We Are The Only True Scientists Remaining In The World". And it is indeed amusing to see the mutual contradictions and squabbling. But ~ they unite as one pack, to pile schoolyard vitriol onto the rare commenters (Nick Stokes and a few other brave souls) who occasionally try to fly the flag of rational scientific thinking.
The Curry blog ~ nowhere near as bad, mostly. On the surface !
Sadly, I get the impression that the Host (Hostess?) at ClimateEtc has for many years been gradually veering into less and less rationality re climate science. Perhaps her Geothermal advocacy is a single aberration of the ultra-wacky type? Or just a bigger Red Flag?
-
2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #35
Re: Eclectic and the reference to bad arguments at Judith Curry's blog:
I'm greatly amused in that article on the Ethical Skeptic and the attempt to claim global warming is due to geothermal effects to see Willis Eschenbach (long time contributor to WUWT, primarily with ad hoc and unsupportable math) as a major dissenter, pointing out that the blog post is simply unsupportable.
When other climate denialists weigh in loudly noting your argument is bad, it's really bad.
-
2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #37
NOAA (US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), responsible for much of US weather prediction, has hired David Legates as new deputy assistant secretary of Commerce for environmental observation and prediction, a position that would report directly to acting NOAA Administrator Neil Jacobs.
Legates has a long history of climate denial, including a series of poorly written papers coauthoring with Willie Soon. This is likely another move by the current adminstration to put climate denialists and industry boosters into environmental posts, and to influence science reports with political oversight.
DesmogBlog write-up on David Legates
Washington Post article on his hiring
The next administration, assuming it's not Trump and company, will have a great deal of work to do reversing this dismantling of the US environmental and climate frameworks.
-
Keithy at 17:34 PM on 14 September 2020Five science questions to be asked at the debates
I don't think Trump was the first POTUS to do nothing about Climate Change...
-
One Planet Only Forever at 12:24 PM on 14 September 2020Participating in Al Gore's Climate Reality Leadership Corps Training
Nick Palmer @5,
BaerbelW's reply @6 deserves to be reinforced.
A reason(s) for the validity of: "not sure if any presentation by anybody about climate change can be made completely "denialist proofed"!" was presented by Al Gore in his 2007 book "The Assault on Reason".
Trump anti-truthism is not a new thing, and it is not a Trump thing.
In the introduction to the book Gore states "Why do reason, logic, and truth seem to play a sharply diminished role in the way America now makes important decisions?" That was published in 2007 and was about the Republican pursuit of dominance and power over all Others.
Climate change is a major item that is an Inconvenient Truth for the wealthy powerful people who try to defend their Status as 'deserving wealthy and powerful people' (losing that status would devastate them in may ways).
Moving beyond Gore's book, a review of actions taken by the Republicans, and many similar political parties in other nations, indicates that they are likely responding to, and resisting, the successful robust improvement of understanding what is required to achieve a Sustainable improving future for humanity. The required corrections of many harmful unsustainable things that have developed are very robustly established. The only way to resist them is a successful Assault on Reason.
Once it is decided that Logic, Reason, and Truth is The Enemy the rest is all downhill.
Tragically, as Jonathan Haidt presents in "The Righteous Mind" many people are powerfully inclined to be subservient to Their Identified Authority and believe whatever that Authority tells them. And they fear not continuing to be part of that group. They can easily be made to fear being Governed "By Reason".
The core support of the Republicans are easy targets for efforts to Assault Reason. There is likely no way to make anything that will be 'bullet-proof' to Assaults on Reason that appeal to that core group.
-
Bob Loblaw at 01:50 AM on 14 September 2020Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
Luiz @ 343:
The 29Gt is misleading? No, it is not. It is not a net flow. None of the arrows in figure 1 represent net flows. That's why there are two arrows in two directions between atmosphere and land, and atmosphere and ocean. One arrow for one flux in one direction.
There is no flow from atmosphere to fossil fuel, so there is no arrow. Any transfer from atmosphere to vegetation, etc on land is contained in the middle arrow (450 Gt). The "land use" part of the left-most 29 Gt arrow is only that portion of anthropogenic activity that causes carbon flow into the atmosphere.
There is precious little that humans have been doing that removes carbon from the atmosphere, unless you want to claim credit for crop growth, etc., that largely repsesent a replacement of natural systems, not an addition.
There are agricultural practices that can potentially increase soil carbon, etc., but on a global scale they are a drop in the bucket at this time. Agricultural practices have tended historically to lead to increased atmospheric CO2.
-
Eclectic at 00:48 AM on 14 September 2020Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
Luiz @344 , the Spanish regional study you have mentioned, is stating that the temperatures were cooler during 1600 - 1800 and have been warmer since 1800 (approximate date).
Why do you mention temperatures declining? Please explain.
-
Luiz19760 at 00:19 AM on 14 September 2020Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
High-Resolution Temperature Variability Reconstructed from Black Pine Tree Ring Densities in Southern Spain This article received in June/2020, revised, accepted and published in July/2020, shows that temperatures are declining.
-
Luiz19760 at 23:07 PM on 13 September 2020Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
According to figure 1, "The Global Carbon Cycle", vegetation, land and the ocean absorb more carbon than they produce, 17 gigatons more. Where those extra tons come from? They have to come from somewhere, or someone. The answer is fossil fuel burning and land use. Nature is not seletive when it comes to carbon, it will absorb whatever is available. And by the way, part of the 29 gigatons produced by human actions, are absorbed as result of other human actions, technologies and materials. So the figure is misleading because the net result is not 29.
Prev 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 Next
