Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 Next
Comments 69801 to 69850:
-
muoncounter at 02:14 AM on 24 November 2011Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 1 - Factors Influencing CO2 Emissions
MA Rodger#7: "news that atmospheric CO2 had risen 2.3ppm over the year 2010 was but conicidence." Not sure what you mean by that 'coincidence'; nor does data from MLO show 2010 was a record year for CO2 concentration increase: year delta (ppm) 1998 2.93 1999 0.93 2000 1.62 2001 1.58 2002 2.53 2003 2.29 2004 1.56 2005 2.52 2006 1.76 2007 2.20 2008 1.62 2009 1.88 2010 2.42 Those figures suggest that global economic activity (both up and down) is a factor in the year-to-year rate of change. -
shoyemore at 02:09 AM on 24 November 2011Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
#19 MarkR FOIA issues are very 2009. I think the scientists involved took their lumps back then. Remember the enquires that found no manipulation of data and no wrongdoing? Scientists were just being chary of requests for items like computer code, demanding a lot of work to add comments and explanation, and for data from weather stations they had been asked not to release to 3rd parties. They were doubly cautious when the requests came from known "skeptics" and when the requests seemed frivolous and designed to cause maximum annoyance. The equiries were critical of UEA/ CRU in information sharing, and the process has been completely overhauled. So it seems to me to be grossly unfair to try and convict scientists twice, when they have already made amends for the offence after the first occasion. If these e-mails had shown continued flouting of the recommendations of the enquiries, you might have a point. BTW, the denialist Global Warming Policy Foundation also seems to havge a problem with FOIA requests. UK Minister attacks GWPF -
muoncounter at 01:57 AM on 24 November 2011Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
HH#17: "why all 220,000 email weren't released back in 2009." Sounds like someone wanted to have 'an ace in the hole;' tucked away for a time when the denial side is running on empty. They'll play this for all its (not really) worth, with plenty of breathless exaggeration to boot. But this is a ray of sunshine: Norfolk police have said the new set of emails is "of interest" to their investigation to find the perpetrator of the initial email release who has not yet been identified. So we have an email hacking scandal combined with what starts to look like a media-manipulation/public opinion management strategy. Isn't there a major self-proclaimed 'news' outlet already involved in such activities? -
MarkR at 01:54 AM on 24 November 2011Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
Tom Curtis @ 15 Post #19 was aimed at you, and I meant to conclude that I therefore still think that the data should have been made available asap. Although from a personal PoV, I understand that for the individuals involved it would have been a big sacrifice. They would have been prevented from doing real work whilst they cleared up the misunderstandings and smears that would come from the release, all to deal with the miniscule chance that there was a major correction needed to their work which would be found thanks to this. -
MarkR at 01:51 AM on 24 November 2011Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
But Tom, ethically I can't see any reason not to accede to FoI. As a public funded scientist your data and methods should be available to the public on demand. It's that simple IMO. Knowing that others will manipulate, lie and just plain fail to understand the science to help spread ignorance... I can see why some people would see this as 'extenuating circumstances'. I'm not certain of the ethics of it myself, but I would still lean towards saying it should all be available. Even if you _know_ that liars and spinners will be horrendously immoral in their use of it. -
Anne-Marie Blackburn at 01:48 AM on 24 November 2011Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
There is an excellent article in The Guardian - Attacks on climate scientists are the real 'climategate'. The reaction in the UK has been fairly muted - everyone, including the Daily Mail, is questioning the timing of this release. And everyone, from what I've read, has made it clear the work of scientists was found to be reliable following Climategate 1.0 even if there were problems with FOI requests. It looks like a spectacular own goal by whoever released this batch of carefully selected quotes. -
Bob Lacatena at 01:44 AM on 24 November 2011Newcomers, Start Here
136, imthedragn, A rise in humidity would cause warming, but what would cause the rise in humidity other than warming? And as soon as something else (anything else) swung temperatures back down, humidity would drop. The key to this is that humidity is almost entirely dependent on temperatures. If temperatures rise, for whatever reason, humidity will increase, raising temperatures even further. If temperatures drop, again for whatever reason, humidity will drop, decreasing temperatures further. Of course, unlike CO2, H2O is not entirely "well mixed" in the atmosphere. There are moist and arid regions of the earth, and since it is heavily dependent on the temperature of the air, humidity changes with altitude. Changes are seasonal and latitudinal (the further from the equator, the cooler and therefore less humidity). Water is transported by advection far more than diffusion. This is why you can't get a good, hard number for the percent H2O in the atmosphere, because it is not evenly distributed and it is constantly changing. The basic facts are: 1) Humidity is dependent on temperature 2) Increasing temperatures increase the ability of the atmosphere to hold water 3) The change in lapse rate will also increase the ability of the upper troposphere to hold water 4) Increasing temperatures will increase evaporation, providing the water 5) Increases in humidity further increase temperatures 6) H2O acts entirely as a feedback, not a forcing, because the response to temperature is so relatively fast as compared to other factors (like melting ice-albedo changes, out-gassing of CO2 from warming oceans, and ecosystem changes that release CH4 and CO2) -
Stephan Lewandowsky at 01:34 AM on 24 November 2011The Debunking Handbook Part 4: The Worldview Backfire Effect
@3. Well put. That's exactly what the literature suggests: Reframe the issue and go straight to the solution. Sadly, that doesn't always work; there is astroturfed opposition to renewables too, often conducted with the same emotional venom. Apparently windmills, too, can be communists. -
imthedragn at 01:05 AM on 24 November 2011Newcomers, Start Here
[DB] Thank you for your response. I will definately follow those links. I understand that humidity precipitates out of the atmosphere while GHGs linger for decades. You mention that rising temperatures cause higher humidity which causes even more warming. Wouldn't any rise in humidity cause enough warming to raise humidity? if raising temperature raises humidity which further raises temperature, then humidity alone should cause the same effect. I am not trying to say that CO2 is not causing any wamring, I only question the warming causing humidity feedback loop. Lastly, if CO2 is more effective than an equal amount of water vapor at retaining heat, why then isn't Mars noticably warmer. Mars does have over 10 times as much CO2 in its atmosphere than Earth.Moderator Response: For practical purposes, humidity cannot be raised above the level that the current temperature supports. Of course there are small and temporary deviations above that level, but they are so short-lived (about 10 days) that there is inadequate time for any significant warming. Remember also that that nominally single level really is an average across lower and higher levels spread spatially and temporally. In contrast, CO2 and other warming causes last long enough for significant warming to occur. See also the Argument "Positive feedback means runaway warming."Regarding Mars: Although there is relatively much more CO2 in Mars's atmosphere than in Earth's atmosphere, the absolute amount of CO2 is still far too small to, by itself, trap (delay) much infrared radiation. More importantly, there are almost no other greenhouse gases in the Martian atmosphere, so CO2 is left to do the entire job by itself. In particular, there is no H2O in the atmosphere to feed back the warming. See the online text "The Planets" by Seligman.
-
imthedragn at 00:48 AM on 24 November 2011Newcomers, Start Here
CBD.. The 1.5% is just a number I threw out to as a basis of scale. I nor anyone else knows the exact average atmospheric H20 content. I have seen numerous sources that indicate water vapor as between 1 and 2 percent and as high as 4%. I just grabbed 1.5% as a starting point. The actual numbers don't really matter as much as the point that co2 has a greater effect than an equal amount of water vapor. I have been struggling for year to find something difinitive. So far everytyhing seems to point to pure conjecture based on observed warming. Your comments nonetheless are appreciated. I agree that my values and calculations are incorrect, they weren't meant to draw any conclusions, only to make an oversimplified point. -
Hyperactive Hydrologist at 00:44 AM on 24 November 2011Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
I am curious as to why all 220,000 email weren't released back in 2009. If there was a genuine cover up by scientists then surely releasing all the emails would expose this and clear up the debate once and for all. However, if your objective is to confuse and cast doubt then releasing a few carefully selected emails, which could be taken out of context and spun by the denial PR machine, would be more effective. This also allows you to release a second batch at a later date to cause more confusion. I think the main stream media has learn't from the original debacle and the impact of this release will be significantly diminished. -
Enginerd at 00:28 AM on 24 November 2011Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
This obsession with e-mails is really tiresome. I have encountered a handful of people in the last two years who told me they have spent many hours reading the stolen e-mails from Mann, Jones, etc. Yet, when I asked these same people how many journal articles they have read from these scientists? You guessed it. Zero. Like Robert (#9) noted, the content of some of these messages is not very flattering to the authors. However, I am honestly not too bothered by this. When a respected researcher publishes a scientifically sound article indicating, for example, that we are looking at possibly 2 meters of sea level rise by the end of this century, do I really care if that person occasionally wrote some unpleasant and critical e-mails? -
CBDunkerson at 00:18 AM on 24 November 2011The Debunking Handbook Part 4: The Worldview Backfire Effect
Following on from Kevin and JMurphy; To borrow a phrase from 1984, 'We have always been at war with Eastasia!'. Some people are quite capable of firmly believing things that their own memory should tell them are untrue. They will rewrite their own memories, facts, friendships, arguments/logic they supposedly find compelling, and nearly anything else in order to preserve the viability of 'sacred Truths' in their own minds. Generally, the only way you can get something past such a distortion filter is if you can figure out the underlying beliefs and then somehow get the facts to fit within that fictional framework. For example, here in the U.S. most people in rural areas are Republicans and thus 'know' that global warming is just an evil scheme by commie liberal elitist government types out to destroy the American way of life. However, wind power companies have managed to make headway in many of these areas by presenting themselves as ways to be self sufficient ('we don't need no elitist government bureaucrats sticking their noses in our business, we can generate our own power') and 'patriotic' ('this is American wind we are using... not commie terrorist oil') and never ever mentioning that they will reduce global warming. -
Tom Curtis at 00:16 AM on 24 November 2011Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
MarkR @14, that is a very astute comment. Indeed, as most of the FOI requests came from McIntyre, or people closely associated with him, Phil Jones knew that no matter how good his methodology, the released information would be distorted into an attack on his integrity. No wonder he was non-cooperative. -
MarkR at 00:03 AM on 24 November 2011Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
Several of the comments look terrible to me: mostly related to FoI requests. On one level you think: what is there to hide? Repeated tests of the science, like BEST, have shown that the work is generally good. It seems like they'd have nothing to hide. Until you see the misrepresentation and spin (intentional or unintentional) in the media and blogosphere. You know, the spin which turned poor tree ring data into 'global temperatures are declining', which is just flat out ignorance or lies. The aggressive smear campaign by think tanks and ideologues makes scientists act more defensive, which is used to raise more suspicion about scientists... -
JMurphy at 23:53 PM on 23 November 2011The Debunking Handbook Part 4: The Worldview Backfire Effect
It was even more striking (following on from Kevin C's comment) to see the number of those people who have subsequently reverted back to doubting any form of warming anyway, meaning that their denial about their previous views was also a denial ! (If you see what I mean...) -
MA Rodger at 22:30 PM on 23 November 2011Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 1 - Factors Influencing CO2 Emissions
Success after a fashion. The links @7 yield images of twice the linear size which is rather useful for reading the annotations.
Response:[DB] The comment box field can accomodate image widths up to 500 pixels, if need be. Image posting advice is located here.
-
Kevin C at 22:28 PM on 23 November 2011The Debunking Handbook Part 4: The Worldview Backfire Effect
Only 2% of participants changed their mind (although interestingly, 14% denied that they believed the link in the first place).
Indeed; it was striking in the week after the BEST data came out to see the number of statements from people had suddenly never previously doubted that the world was warming, but merely doubted the cause. -
MA Rodger at 22:08 PM on 23 November 2011Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 1 - Factors Influencing CO2 Emissions
PeteM @3 The spectacular record rise in CO2 emissions in 2010 were really due to the recovery from the reduced emissions of 2009, although I should stress the trend over the last decade (averaging 2.4% per annum) iis seriously bad news. See graph down this link Graph of carbon emissions The news that atmospheric CO2 had risen 2.3ppm over the year 2010 was but conicidence. The 2010 record rise in emissions comprised 0.5 million tons of carbon above 2009 emission totals. That 0.5 million into the atmosphere would add roughly 0.1ppm to the CO2 level. As the WMO news release said, annual rises has been averaging 2ppm per annum. Again CO2 concentrations do wobble about but the trend is increasingly upwards. See graph down this link. Graph of CO2 concentrations (I will now have a try at posting them onto here as graphs but I'm not sure of their size & my record with web links is not good.) -
Paul D at 21:49 PM on 23 November 2011Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
Apparently Benny Peiser at GWPF has refused to hand over emails. Smacks of double standards: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/22/chris-huhne-lawson-think-tank -
Tom Curtis at 21:37 PM on 23 November 2011Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
Robert Wray @9, I doubt any scientists are perfect, and so see no reason why climate scientists should be different in that regard. If deniers think they have genuine case against climate scientists, let them eschew the ridiculous conspiracy theories, and build a case by quoting entire emails with their full context carefully explained. When they have sufficient confidence in their case to do that, then and only then need we take the accusations seriously. As it stands, the emails as presented can tell us nothing about any wrong doing by scientists. They are taken out of context. The texts are culled for anything that can be misinterpreted, then quoted and in some cases redacted to encourage that misinterpretation. Their presentation, in fact, resembles nothing so much as a trial for witchcraft:Moderator Response: [Sph] Shrunk embedded video to 500 width -
Kevin C at 20:53 PM on 23 November 2011Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
Robert: I sort of agree, but there's an issue of perspective here. How would your email box fare under that kind of scrutiny? I suspect mine contains a lot of things I would regret saying. What I see in the emails are scientists who are no better people than me, struggling with communicating across two spheres with conflicting, contradictory approaches to information - from science to politics. People who have already been selected for their science aptitude, that same aptitude rendering them ill equipped for communicating to the political sphere. Some of the emails do cast an unflattering light on the scientists involved. But only in comparison to an unrealistic ideal of what a scientists should be, one which people in other professions don't being to live up to either. I think a significant factor here is that the structures and conventions of science - which have evolved over the past couple of centuries - have allowed science to produce robust results even in the face of the fallibility, cognitive biases, and even rare cases dishonesty of individual researchers. And thus the leaks have not lead to even one paper being retracted, or the identification of one additional error in the IPCC AR4 report. -
skept.fr at 20:49 PM on 23 November 2011Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 1 - Factors Influencing CO2 Emissions
perseus : "However, the expanding economies of China, Brazil and India have more recently become major emitters" You're right, and we must recall that, according to the last IEA WEO 2011 report (commented on SkS previous week) "over the next 25 years, 90% of the projected growth in global energy demand comes from non-OECD economies; China alone accounts for more than 30%, consolidating its position as the world’s largest energy consumer" Main driver of world economic and energy growth is no more OECD, but the development of emerging countries in Asia, Africa and Americas. I'll enjoy to read the 2nd part of your text. -
lurgee at 20:44 PM on 23 November 2011Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
Thus far, the most 'exploitable' line seem to be Phil Jones's comment about the IPCC being above national FOI requests, which seems a reasonable enough statement when referring to an international body (isn't this international sharing what prevented him releasing data previously?). He might need to clarify what he said about deleting emails to 'cover yourself'. Again, it's obviously an innocent suggestion of a way to prevent data being released or requisitioned inappropriately (Oh! The irony that we're now talking about it!) but I can see it being spun eternally ... -
skept.fr at 20:35 PM on 23 November 2011World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
Adelady : thanks, I’ll try to charge the Bloomberg report (just access to the press release for now, not the primary source). Agnostic : I’ve problem with your link. In my mind, we are not discussing here if some non-carbon energy sources are competitive (of course they already are in better – sunny, windy, etc. – places, and even more with a carbon price), but at which conditions a 2K / 450 ppm can be targeted (IEA WEO report). It is very different to get, say, 20 % of your total energy mix (not just electricity) and to get 50 or 80% of it from non-carbon sources. A majority of models are unable to rely just on RE (see IPCC SRREN) and that’s why coal with CCS, biofuel, nuclear are supposed to be included in the mix. -
chriskoz at 19:58 PM on 23 November 2011Pielke Sr. Misinforms High School Students
rpauli @33, Your analogy, although interesting ethically, is incorrect. Encouraging to drink driving is illegal, while 'skeptic' opinion about AGW is perfectly legal, and even boasted by some as an example of democracy, or first amendment in Pielke's country, rights of commons or other 'noble priviledge'. Unfortunately for you, law and ethics are totally different things. The anology similar to yours, would be: what if Tony Abbott in Australia after June 2012, starts talking to mining magnates: "don't pay those carbon taxes, this taxation is a big scam based on a lie, it's OK if you don't pay it". I'm sure Tony is very keen on that but not silly enough to actually say that (after June 2012) and say good-buy his career and possibly his freedom. Same applies to Pielke and your analogy: he's not silly enough to publicly promote illegal behaviour. -
robert way at 19:12 PM on 23 November 2011Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
To be honest I'm going to be frank and say there are parts of emails in there which I am not happy about. I have heard some of these things privately from others and I think that we have to be careful not to "cheerlead" the AGW side. There are elements that we should rightfully be critical of and elements where skeptics will take things to extremes. We have to be with the science even more so today. -
les at 18:50 PM on 23 November 2011Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
Have to say, my heart goes out to Mann, Johns et al looking at the prospect of another witch-hunt looming just in time for Christmas. -
paulchevin at 18:43 PM on 23 November 2011Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
Karl @ 2 Gavin Schmidt over at Realclimate is already busy providing the context you demand. -
Rob Painting at 17:27 PM on 23 November 2011Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
Karl @ 2 - even though the turkey is two years old, it sat in the freezer for at least a decade. That's how old some of the e-mails are. We will be offering point-by-point rebuttals in the future. -
scaddenp at 17:13 PM on 23 November 2011Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
Nothing to stop anyone getting a supply contract and building a refinery. Oil companies dont need to control refinery capacity to make money. The problem is maintaining production. IEA figures for 2012 are not looking promising in that department. Need a big depression to keep demand down. Looks like Italy and Greece are answering the call. -
Philippe Chantreau at 17:03 PM on 23 November 2011Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
I say that, for the sake of "transparency", McIntyre and Watts should release all their personal e-mails too. Since they are not scientists, and their opinions are not officially part of policy making, it should be no big deal, right? -
Philippe Chantreau at 16:53 PM on 23 November 2011Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
whistle blower, my left toe. I'm having deja moo (the feeling that I've heard this bull before). How qualifed is Karl to determine that the research reporting is "shoddy?" Nonsense piled on top of more nonsense. The buffoons arguing that 2.5 billions people live on less than $2 a day should take their complaints to those who hold more of the world's wealth that any human can possibly have a use for. As far as plaguing the world's economy, we've seen how costly speculation and bad financial practices can be. Why is nobody releasing e-mails from Charles Schwab, B of A and so forth? The buffoons must have their strings pulled by some pretty selective authority... -
cbp at 16:40 PM on 23 November 2011Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
@Karl_from_Wylie Quotes have already been addressed, see here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php -
Karl_from_Wylie at 16:27 PM on 23 November 2011Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
Attack the "whistle blowers". Don't address any of the quotes other than say their "out of context" It's time to admit that shoddy research reporting lessens the credibility of one's work.Response:[DB] Unless it is proven that "whistle blowers" were involved the skeptical thing to do would be to presume the emails were hacked, as no "whistle blowers" have come forward under the shield of whistle blower acts designed to protect them.
-
Composer99 at 15:26 PM on 23 November 2011Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey
As it happens, two-year-old, stale, reheated CRU conspiracy theory comes conveniently wrapped in tinfoil from which very fashionable and practical hats can be assembled. -
muoncounter at 15:05 PM on 23 November 2011Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
scaddenp$54: I guess it depends on who is doing the refining. Here's a USEIA database of US % refinery utilization that shows the peak was in 1998; 2010 was back to the same level as 1991. BP enjoys a considerable margin on refining: Global average refining margins improved to $10.0/bbl in 2010 from $9/bbl in 2009 with oil demand returning to growth. Chevron's not doing so badly either: Chevron, the second-largest American oil company, had a 43 percent jump in quarterly profit, beating estimates as high oil prices and increased refinery margins offset weaker output. Chevron’s profit rose to $7.7 billion, or $3.85 a share, from $5.4 billion, or $2.70 a share, a year earlier. Profits are indeed up; gasoline prices are just high enough to keep people driving - and finding costs, which spiked in 2008, are back down in the $15/bbl range. Last I checked, WTI was over $95. Like they used to say in Texas, "If you don't have an oil well, get one!" -
Norman at 14:24 PM on 23 November 2011Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
Tom Curtis @ 122 Thank you for your very thoughtful and interesting post. Good ideas in there to consider. I do appreciate the effort. -
scaddenp at 14:12 PM on 23 November 2011Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
muon, I am in no position to assess the expertise of Consumer Union researchers but I do see some issues with that report. Firstly, if crude production is constrained while demand increases, then I cant see how profits can do anything except go up. The cost part of the production goes up only modestly while retail price goes up a lot. If refining capacity has been artificially limited, then surely someone can make a buck reopening a refinery or building a new one? The real issue with refining is that they cost a huge amount build and need to operate 20-30 years to return a profit to investors. But 30 year supply contracts are rather thin on the ground. Compare that article with this one "Many refiners struggle to make money currently as refining margins slide back to $2-5 per barrel. My own refinery model clearly demonstrates this phenomena and finished product prices will have to rise substantially" -
Eric (skeptic) at 13:32 PM on 23 November 2011Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
Humor is obviously acceptable, there have been many good examples here. But the political humor in the last sentence in the OP should be removed and/or left out of future articles. -
mandas at 13:17 PM on 23 November 2011Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 1 - Factors Influencing CO2 Emissions
I have commented on this particular issue over and over again, and hopefully we will start to wake up to the very simple fact that there are too many people in the world. Our use of resources is NOT sustainable, and there is zero doubt that we are heading for a population crash in the not too far distant future. Climate change is just one part of the jig-saw, and it isn't even really the problem - it is just a symptom of the real problem. Over-exploitation of resources, wildlife habitat fragmentation, climate change, pollution - these are all symptoms of there being too many people. I have seen it over and over again where a species undergoes exponential growth because of lack of predation, disease or competition. And in every single case such growth is simply unsustainable, and the population eventually crashes because of lack of resources and because their environment becomes virtually uninhabitable. Humans are not different. And the result WILL be inevitable unless we change our ways - which we won't or can't. -
muoncounter at 13:01 PM on 23 November 2011Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
pirate#47: "a product that you can offer and make a profit, would you limit yourself?" All corporations are expected to limit themselves - they must stay within the law. For the time being, the US still has a Clean Air Act and an EPA. How do your precious companies respond? They buy themselves enough representation in Congress to influence lawmaking. Since the 1990 election cycle, the oil and gas industry has contributed more than $270 million to political campaigns, committees and causes. Republicans received 76 percent of the total money. ... What companies are contributing the most? The people and PACs affiliated with Koch Industries, ExxonMobil and Chief Oil and Gas were the top three political donors during the 2010 election. How've the oils done during this time period? ... the U.S. oil industry made $100 billion in windfall profits since the late 1990s, largely by eliminating refining capacity that paved the way to drive up prices at the pump. Those price increases have added more than $1,000 a year to the average family’s gasoline bill. The analysis, entitled “Debunking Oil Company Myths and Deception: The $100 Billion Consumer Rip-Off,” found that the difference between the cost of crude oil, and the price at the pump (net of taxes) is now about 40 cents a gallon higher than historical averages. That spike comes as a small number of large oil companies control both oil production and refining in the United States. Great system; I was a part of it for 25 years (until I got a real job). No wonder Congressmen don't have to show up for briefings - or do anything that helps the people they were sent there to help fleece. Just "Drill, baby, drill." -
r.pauli at 12:54 PM on 23 November 2011Pielke Sr. Misinforms High School Students
Thanks for your analysis of the science. It is most important. I humbly request you reconsider publishing my analogy: what if a scientist answers email questions from HS students about drinking and driving - and opines that a small amount of alcohol blood level is OK - imprecise science there would be harmful. -
Doug Hutcheson at 12:31 PM on 23 November 2011The Debunking Handbook Part 3: The Overkill Backfire Effect
DrTsk@1, 6 Your original comment was "Keep It Simple for the Stupid". My point is that most of the population are not scientists and, if intelligence distribution follows a Bell curve, most of the population is of average intelligence and not stupid. Thus, I was trying to show that we should keep things simple for the masses, in order to make our information accessible to and digestible by the greatest number of people. In my experience, we tend to gloss over the 'too hard' bits in information we process and only go back to try for a deeper understanding if the topic interests us, or if we need the knowledge for an exam. This has been an entertaining and informative thread of comments. I have certainly learned some useful tips. -
adelady at 12:30 PM on 23 November 2011Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
"I don't know of a better system worldwide" Apart from the specific issues noted by scaddenp, the glaring problem in democratic decision making in the USA from an Australian point of view would be voter registration. Here there's a neutral agency which handles voter registration, according to rules clearly set out in legislation and regulation. They apply equally to all Australian citizens, no variations state by state. Having an impartial, universal voter registration system would be a vast improvement for USA democracy. At least from the view on this side of the Pacific. -
John Hartz at 12:21 PM on 23 November 2011Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
@Pirate #47: You convenitnetly ignore the fact that the five companies listed have been in the vanguard of creating and perpetuating the Climate Denial Spin Machine. In addition, their environmental track records have been abysmal. BTW, Coca-Cola's environmental track record has also been abysmal. -
skywatcher at 12:14 PM on 23 November 2011Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
#47 pirate, if you think the US system is the best political system in the world, you haven't looked into other political systems. First, as scaddenp says, money utterly talks in US politics. You can't be a US candidate unless large sums of money are donated to you personally, allowing all manner of corruption from vested interests. It's all to easy for principles to take a back seat when an organisation comes up to a budding candidate and offers hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations, but might hint that taxes on rich/coporations might be best left low, and that it's not a great idea to act on climate change, for example. Secondly, due to the filibuster rules, US politics necessarily relies on compromise and discussion between the parties, something that just isn't happening at present with Republicans having sworn to make Obama a one-term president and oppose every single thing he does. So nothing gets agreed, even on debt or budget. Between these two facts, US democracy appears from the outside to be broken just now. You don't like the source of John's article. Do you have evidence that energy / FF companies are not using some of their profits to influence politicians in the USA? Here's some evidence in a Guardian article showing that even foreign FF companies got into the act before the US mid-term elections. I much prefer democratic systems like NZ or even the UK (and I think many European countries) where private funding of campaigns is much more limited, such as in scaddenp's post above. It doesn't prevent corruption, but it certainly doesn't aid it as in the US. -
WyrdWays at 11:54 AM on 23 November 2011Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 1 - Factors Influencing CO2 Emissions
@Kevin : Ultimately sustainability DOES equal austerity. But maybe austerity does NOT equal human unhappiness. I bet there are levels of material sufficiency that are lower than the developed world's current profligacy, but which could actually enrich us all in that most precious commodity - that of human happiness. We do need to reduce carbon intensity, and fast. But reducing GDP, however taboo, is both necessary, and potentially hugely rewarding. Necessary, because even if we 'solve' the carbon intensity issue, our endless striving for economic growth is exhausting most of the world's ecological resources. Hugely rewarding because, in a society where 30-50% of our labours is no longer required, just to fill the coffers of landowners; where the mass-consumer beast is finally dead and buried; where real needs are met, and false ones are no longer inflated -- in that society, we might all actually be able to achieve that fabled work/life/security balance. (And no I don't mean 'going back to the Stone Age'!) -
PeteM at 11:45 AM on 23 November 2011Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 1 - Factors Influencing CO2 Emissions
I recently reads that there has been a record increase in carbon consumption and I've also seen that we've added 2.3 ppm Co2 to the atmosphere. Is the 2.3 based on the record fossil fuel consumption or is that going to hit next year's figures ? -
scaddenp at 11:39 AM on 23 November 2011Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
"Sure, successful companies can hire lobbyists and influence decision making on the political level. I'm no fan of that either, but I don't know of a better system worldwide. " Hmm. Well here in NZ, we have: - public funds used for election campaigning. Each party gets a share based roughly on recent popularity. This is an anathema to many but it puts campaigning on an even footing. - limits on campaign expenditure - no anonymous advertising. - political donations over NZ$30,000 (from memory) must be declared. The idea is severely limit the power of money to influence policy. To me, the US democracy look corrupt. It offers a way to buy power and influence. The world needs US citizens to fix it. You know you have succeeded when you dont have lobbyists (in the sense of people hired to talk directly to politicians).
Prev 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 Next
