Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 Next
Comments 72951 to 73000:
-
Riccardo at 05:59 AM on 9 October 2011Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
John Hartz #17 I know you're being provocative, it's not about being intelligent. You americans have a different cultural and political background than us europeans. You tend to be kind of allergic to any Government intervention. As anything, there are two sides of the coin and now you really need to "break on through to the other side". As someone (Joe Romm?) recently said, Rick Perry is the best competitive advantage europeans have. If you do not change something you'll be left behind. Let me conclude with europeans' other side of the coin: "Only one in five said they took personal responsibility, with more people saying it was the responsibility of national governments, EU authorities and businesses." -
Riccardo at 05:53 AM on 9 October 2011CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
See, tblakeslee, there's something that makes me (and probably others) stop paying attention and responding: "The map I posted before shows how this pattern is not unusual." (emph. mine) Either you mean that this pattern is typical under global warming, which is true, or your claim is meaningless. -
Tristan at 05:51 AM on 9 October 2011Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
John: I don't see it mentioned much, probably because it's a pretty dark observation, but the current incidence rate of poverty in the world may well be what saves everyone from the more extreme effects of climate change in the future. There's an extraordinary little PC game (developed with the aid of various environmental bodies) called 'Fate of the World'. If you reduce poverty too quickly, baseload energy demand skyrockets and you get a catastrophic GFC. I can't decide whether to laugh or cry at the poverty/AGW relationship. -
tblakeslee at 05:43 AM on 9 October 2011CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
No, but I think issuing a press release that it was the hottest month shows how unsound the global average is for decision making. The map I posted before shows how this pattern is not unusual. Global warming is really arctic warming.Response:[DB] Alright, no more off-topic comments (and this applies to everyone). If anyone wishes to pursue any of this further, please take it to the appropriate thread. This thread is about CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate.
tblakeslee, part and parcel of adherence to the Comments Policy of this website is staying on-topic to the OP of the thread you are posting on. Nearly 5,000 other threads exist here at SkS on virtually anything related to climate science. Please use the Search function to find the most appropriate thread for comments not pertaining to this thread.
-
r.pauli at 05:42 AM on 9 October 2011Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
As I read of anti-science tactics, I can't decide whether our species is mostly stupid or just immoral. The denialist strategy has always been to block any constraints to carbon commerce. To increase guilt-free fossil fuel consumption, their tactic has been to plant doubt and denial -- hence prolong debate and confusion. Then the momentum and sloth of any generation takes over: "It cannot possibly be MY USE of carbon that causes the problem" which soon becomes "Well it is too late for me to change now" Carbon energy capitalism is based on short term decisions. The battle for a long-term, rational public policy is lost, and the marketplace has conquered the high carbon consumer... but the future will reveal this to be an un-intentional Pyrrhic victory. -
Tristan at 05:38 AM on 9 October 2011Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
'Thoughtful skepticism' might have been defensible in the 90s. -
John Hartz at 05:09 AM on 9 October 2011Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
Are Europeans inherently more intelligent than Americans? “The Eurobarometer poll suggests that the majority of the public in the European Union consider global warming to be one of the world's most serious problems, with one-fifth saying it is the single most serious problem. Overall, respondents said climate change was the second most serious issue facing the world, after poverty.” Source: “Europeans fear climate change more than financial turmoil, poll shows” Guardian (UK), Oct 7, 2011 To access this important article, click here. -
Philippe Chantreau at 04:20 AM on 9 October 2011Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
"damned if you do, and damned if you don't." Exactly. The dishonesty of the science's critics is blatant and manifests through all sorts of devious ways. Look at Mann and the "non statistically significant warming" journalistic trap. An endless stream of this junk flows through the so-called skeptic outlets. Seriously, they even had to create a pseudo-journal devoted to giving an appearance of serious to "papers" so miserable they could never make it in the real litterature, unless they use underhanded ways that have been exposed recently on this site. And no matter how extreme or ludicrous, as in Monckton's tilted graphs or Beck's idiotic nonsense, there is a large crowd of people so eager to believe that they will swallow the all thing, hook, line and sinker. -
Dave123 at 04:01 AM on 9 October 2011Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
And it's damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Deniers also magnify any statement (including IPPC statements) about uncertainty into "we don't really know anything about anything". The honest question of how much certainty do you need is subject to constantly moving goalposts. My thought has been the following for I blush to say over 30 years- NOW while we have an infrastructure and fossil fuels and the ability to execute large scale, global scale capital projects is when we should be taking steps. Waiting till after peak oil, till when we are pressed against it is a recipe for magnified disaster. -
Riccardo at 03:17 AM on 9 October 2011CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
tblakeslee do you want to build a climate theory on the anomaly of one single month? Given that you changed the graph to better meet your needs, I'd still call it cherry picking or trolling. As for why the arctic is warming more, look for "polar amplification". -
Tom Curtis at 03:13 AM on 9 October 2011Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
Critical Mass @8, anyone who has read any of the IPCC reports know that its comments are all hedged about with explicit acknowledgments of uncertainties and lack of knowledge, where ever appropriate. Despite this, we are repeatedly told that the reason the case for AGW is not being accepted is because of lack of acknowledgement of uncertainties. Bullshit! The reason the case for AGW is not being accepted is because a denialist propaganda machine is trying to spread doubt and lies as fast as they can. You have obviously decided to enlist yourself in that role - but next time you try spreading such blatant falsehood, bear in mind that a high proportion of commentors here have actually read the various IPCC assessment reports and know that what you are saying is blatantly false. No doubt this comment will fall foul of the comments policy, but sometimes (-snip-) are so blatant they need to be called for what they are!Response:[DB] Inflammatory snipped.
-
Composer99 at 02:45 AM on 9 October 2011Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
critical mass: Climate scientists' errors are usually handled within the context of peer-reviewed journals, as are indeed all other research scientists. Perhaps you could name a few thoughtful skeptics whom you feel are unfairly pilloried? Such claims, when devoid of content, are usually given an unflattering description. Also, if you read through the many articles on this site, as well as other excellent resources such as RealClimate, you will find that there is an enormous consilience of empirically-derived evidence demonstrating the existence, magnitude, and seriousness of global warming. Uncertainties remain in some details, yes, but as a species we now have more than enough information on the phenomenon to insist that action be undertaken.Moderator Response:unclosed tag fixed
(DB) Thanks for indirectly teaching me a new word: tergiversate.
-
tblakeslee at 02:35 AM on 9 October 2011CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
I asked a question because I am trying to find the truth. It appears that global warming is primarily an effect in the arctic area. Planetary averages simply mask the causes. CO2 is uniformly spread over the planet while magnetic fields are much stronger near the poles and of opposite polarity in the two hemispheres. In post 107 I posted some graphs showing excellent correlation of temperature anomalies with solar activity in the arctic. The responses rejected it with nitpics about the CO2 plot not being logarithmic. (Since there was only a 27% increase in CO2 the plot would have been virtually identical.) Denial makes it very hard to look at data that conflicts your beliefs but I suggest you look again with an open mind. The very idea that a world maximum temperature was reached in February 2010 is based on the averaging of world temperatures which was distorted by the very high numbers in the arctic. Here is a map of temperatures in that month:
http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/0210.jpg?w=500&h=339
If we are going to find the cause we must focus on the problem itself and not destroy data by averaging out most of the effects.
Moderator Response: (DB) Actually, the truth is global warming is but one aspect of a much larger issue: climate change. -
Mal Adapted at 02:16 AM on 9 October 2011There is no consensus
I posted this on RealClimate a few days ago: "Los Alamos National Laboratory is hosting the Third Santa Fe Conference on Global and Regional Climate Change Oct. 31 thru Nov. 4. A lot of good science has come out of LANL, but the conference program is dismaying. I’m not familiar with many of the names on it, but I do know a few of them, e.g. Lindzen, Singer and Monckton! What can the conference organizers be thinking?" In response, Gavin pointed out that one of the organizers is Petr Chylek, who leads a Remote Sensing team at LANL. It appears Chylek is attempting to bolster the scientific credibility of AGW denial, as he has done this kind of thing before. His strategy may backfire, by diminishing LANL's reputation for producing high-quality science. -
John Hartz at 02:12 AM on 9 October 2011Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
The crux of the problem? ‘There's no excuse for the sort of half-fictions and outright lies that too often make up the climate-change-denial machine, but it's human psychology — as much as politics — that's preventing us from dealing with one of the greatest threats the species faces. The most powerful denial machine of all may be the one inside our heads.” Source: “Who's Bankrolling the Climate-Change Deniers?” Time, Oct 4, 2011 To access this insightful article, click here. -
Riccardo at 01:36 AM on 9 October 2011CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
So, in tblakeslee's opinion, global warming is not global because a fraction of the earth (ocean to be precise) arounf 60° S is not warming. Talk of cherry picking! Not breaking news, though, GISS shows a similar plot here. -
Paul D at 01:35 AM on 9 October 2011Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
Agreed Riccardo. Critical mass... Actually business usually want two things. A combination of stable regulatory environment and an equal playing field. Within those parameters most businesses are happy. Many businesses actively campaign for legislation and regulation, including legislation on CO2 emissions. Why is this? Well most want to do business and aren't interested in political ideology. -
Mal Adapted at 01:32 AM on 9 October 2011Clouds Over Peer Review
[DB] Please refrain from the usage of all-caps. Thanks!
You can achieve the same effect with italics, as shown here. -
Riccardo at 01:23 AM on 9 October 2011Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
I don't think the point is being always right or wrong. Indeed, even Galileo has been wrong several times. -
tblakeslee at 01:23 AM on 9 October 2011CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
Here is a map of temperature trends from satellite data that shows that global warming is not really global but rather concentrated in the arctic region. Note the graph on the right shows a slight cooling in the southern polar region:
http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#msu_amsu_trend_map_tmt
Much more info at: http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/GW_NotGlobal.htm
The influence of the sun's magnetic field is clearly visible in these regions by the northern lights aurora displays. Can someone tell me the explanation for this focus on the north polar regions under the theory that CO2 is the primary cause?
Response:[DB] Besides the obvious cherry-picking, using information derived from a known disinformationist website (appinsys) tremendously undermines your credibility here.
-
critical mass at 01:16 AM on 9 October 2011Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
The assumption in John Cook's piece is that climate scientists can do no wrong and all fault lies with the skeptics. Hence the Galileo analogy. In such polemics the thoughtful skeptic gets labelled and pilloried with the likes of ignorant populist creations like Sarah Palin and Rick Perry. Big business can always make money out of any regulatory regime - in fact the various ETS and Carbon Credit schemes are a potential playground for the spivs who brought us the GFC to trade in a whole new world of derivatives. Business is only interested in getting there first.The case for AGW would be stronger if the proponents were more receptive to telling the public about the range of uncertainties and deficiencies of knowledge which accompany the science.Response:[DB] "thoughtful skeptic gets labelled and pilloried with the likes of ignorant populist creations like Sarah Palin and Rick Perry"
The "thoughtful skeptic" seems to be a truly rare creature then. If you have actual examples of such happening by any here please give a link to them.
Unsubstantiated allegations of impropriety struck out. You must of missed those many thousands of instances of uncertainties being detailed in every chapter & verse of the various iterations of the IPCC.
For example, in the IPCC AR4, WG1, the words, "uncertain," "uncertainty" or "uncertainties" occur 1,372 times.
-
Alexandre at 00:45 AM on 9 October 2011Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
Hey, that small group includes a bunch of people who are not scientists. How about sorting them into different categories in the liked page?Moderator Response: fixed link -
tblakeslee at 00:29 AM on 9 October 2011CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
Nice theory but here are a couple of quotes that disagree: "Jet contrails differ from ship tracks by forming where water vapour traces in the air are able to condense on fine particles of soot ejected from engines after the combustion of kerosene." http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/10/14/ship-trails-stop-rainfall-in-its-tracks/ also here is a quote from a research paper on jet airplane contrails: ". Soot controls ice formation in contrails for high number emission indices including the range of current global fleet values. A fivefold reduction of soot emissions from average levels of 5 × 1014 − 1015 (kg-fuel)−1 approximately halves the initial contrail visible optical depth. " http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008GL036649.shtmlResponse:[DB] Please take the discussion of contrails to a more appropriate thread, like CO2 is not the only driver of climate.
-
Ger at 18:23 PM on 8 October 2011True Cost of Coal Power - Muller, Mendelsohn, and Nordhaus
First step to take is an extraction tax at the source. Second step emission pricing as a kind of regulating mechanism in that area. SO2 and such do have effects in the close proximity of the emitter and not that much worldwide. A lot of fossil carbon ends up in products being burned after their lifetime but are really not taxed in the country of first use. Take second hand cars and other goodies being exported for re-use and such. Taxing of biomass, when the biomass is grown sustainable will work out as non-taxable. Monitoring sustainability/biodiversity can be paid out of the emission pricing for those plants so conversion techniques have an advantage to be carbon-negative e.g. producing bio char and materials do be used as fertilizers not to be exported out of the region of production. -
OUTSIDE OBSERVER at 17:48 PM on 8 October 2011True Cost of Coal Power - Muller, Mendelsohn, and Nordhaus
This is not, of course, entirely about the greenhouse effect, but it adds some justification to government efforts to reduce dependence on fossil fuels in general and especially coal. Nothing new about estimating the externalities of coal combustion - I recall one Professor B. Cohen writing about the subject in Scientific American around 1975 . In those days, there was little public interest in the greenhouse effect. If I recall, Cohen's articles mentioned figures of 25 deaths per year per power station, not to mention thousands of cases of lung disease. (I let others verify the accuracy of these quotes)Needless to say, identifying the victims is not so simple. There is no doubt that scientists have a harder job than statistical economists. As well as acid rain, do not overlook the effects of toxic metals, including mercury, arsenic and barium. Oh, and one more nasty - uranium. Thousands of tonnes of uranium and a little radium have been emitted into the environment over the years from coal power stations. Considering the public and political hysteria (e.g. in Germany) in relation to the Fukushima nuclear power station disaster, it is remarkable that even the informed public has been so tolerant (and skeptical) for so long over these radioactive emissions from coal thermal plants. -
trunkmonkey at 15:44 PM on 8 October 2011Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
How long ago was it that skeptics were Gallileo? Too many inquisitions, too little science. -
Philippe Chantreau at 14:47 PM on 8 October 2011CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
I don't remember where that fantasy hypothesis about contrails came from. Contrails are a fairly well investigated and well understood phenomenon and, as a long time pilot and flight instructor, I am yet to read about any link between them and cosmic rays (?!?). Any scientific reference discussing this would be welcome. The burning of kerosene in an airplane's engine yields CO2 and H2O, i.e. water vapor. Contrails form because the addition of water vapor pushes the air past its saturation point. The most important factor, indeed the only factor of demonstrated importance in the formation of contrails, is the relative humidity at the altitude where the gases are released. In very dry air, contrails do not form at all, or dissipate shortly after their formation. Interestingly, aiplanes can also leave distrails, in which the increased temperature has the effect of decreasing relative humidity and returning water to the gaseous state. And they do this even when there is already plenty of CCN available, since clouds formed in the first place. Contrails are somewhat different from the condensation that can be seen forming in the cores of vortices generated by airfoils. They are due to a locally decreased temperature (pulling the air to its dew point) caused by a decrease in pressure due to the high angle of attack of the airfoil. These can be seen when airplanes fly slow in air that is very humid. High performance airplanes pulling high G maneuvers will sometimes create fog in the resulting area of low pressure, most often near the upper surface of the wing. Supersonic airplanes will create a cloud of fog at the boundary of the shock wave when passing the sound barrier, once again because of pressure drop. Interestingly, there is another fruitcake variety of conspiracy theory, postulating that contrails are some sort of "gubmint chemical spraying operation." It got way more attention than it deserved, as is usually the case with that kind of crackpottery. -
Bob Lacatena at 14:47 PM on 8 October 2011It hasn't warmed since 1998
118, Dikran,...but it does show in hindsight that it has warmed since 1998.
It also shows that his choice of 3rd order polynomial fit doesn't fit, unless that brief foray into La Nina land continues non-stop for about a half a decade. -
Bob Lacatena at 14:29 PM on 8 October 2011Understanding climate denial
Lloyd, Yes, absolutely, the American denial machine is it, and it is founded on the right. But you have the source wrong. It's founded, I'm pretty sure, almost entirely on the recent trend towards equating wealth with liberty, prosperity, and happiness, and a 100% free, unregulated market as the only path towards wealth. Anything, from taxes to regulations, that interferes with the free market is interpreted to be a harbinger of doom. Climate change implies the need for regulation, which the American right has been programmed to believe will destroy the economy, which will cost jobs, which will hurt everyone, even if you're not a member of the 1% of the population that qualifies as wealthy. Corporations must be free to fire employees, hold wages down, drill for oil where ever they find it, build coal plants, and to compete entirely without interference from the government. Somehow, though, billions a year in subsidies and tax breaks for already immensely profitable fossil fuel companies is okay. -
CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
tblakeslee - "If it gets hotter you win." No, if it gets hotter, we all lose. This isn't a contest, tblakeslee, it's life, it's reality. Not a rhetorical contest, not a "who's hypothesis is bigger" comparison. Unfortunately, it gets hotter is what we can expect if you actually look at the data. -
Lloyd Flack at 12:11 PM on 8 October 2011Understanding climate denial
DSL, Sphaerica, I know that Australia seems to have the next worst denialist machine or possibly being an Australian it is particularly visible to me. Even so it is considerably weaker than the corresponding American movement. Also it seems to me to take its cues from the American denialists. Granted this is partially numbers. What I was trying to get at is that denialism's main home seems to be in the American right, not so much the right in other countries. And that perhaps it is in interaction between right wing ideology and values that are more influential in the whole of the US than they are in other countries. Perhaps it is the downside of American anti-authoritarianism and egalitarianism. -
tblakeslee at 11:39 AM on 8 October 2011CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
Wow! That's a lot of words you are putting in my mouth. I never said that CO2 doesn't contribute to warming but I have consistently been saying the same thing: The sun's magnetic field influences cloud formation and clouds affect temperature more than CO2. Cosmic rays are affected by the sun's field. Contrails and ships trails show that conditions exist for cloud formation with a little help from a nucleus or ion. You will soon see who is right when the effect of the change in sun activity shows itself even more dramatically with cooling climate. If it gets hotter you win.Moderator Response: [DB] All unsupported assertions. You have been repeatedly shown the errors of your ways yet you continue. That is your choice. As is the choice of all here to disregard those selfsame unsupported assertions in favor of science and physics. -
nigelj at 09:36 AM on 8 October 2011Clouds Over Peer Review
It seems a lot of the published research by the Sceptics floats there own alternative hypothesis. Im not seeing much that actually tries to specifically refute mainstream published work. One assumes they simply cant. I admire Lindzen, but I dont think its possible to take Spencer seriously, not given the comments in item 4 above. -
pielkesr at 07:40 AM on 8 October 2011Pielke Sr. and SkS Disagreements and Open Questions
SkS - Here are answers to several of your questions: 1. Regarding "the global energy imbalance must be able to explain the change in surface temperature. There are also some good paleoclimate analogues to the current climate, like during the Pliocene and the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM).' I disagree. These events occurred with vastly different land distribution, ocean current etc. 2. Regarding "However, Santer et al. concluded that a minimum of 17 years is necessary to identify human effects in the temperature of the lower troposphere (TLT), so why look at the 13-year trend? Moreover, as Pielke notes, there was a very strong El Niño in 1998, and TLT data is very sensitive to changes in ENSO. We wonder, will Dr. Pielke will acknowledge that 1998 was a poorly-chosen start date for this analysis?" I did not start in 1998 because it was the warmest in the record. I started after that when the MSU LT became ~flat. We can wait 4 more years to see if the LT starts to warm. Then lets revisit. :-) It certainly has to warm up quickly if Santer's signal will be seen. 3. Regarding "will Dr. Pielke agree that his previous assessment of zero Joules accumulated during this period was incorrect, and that the timeframe (since 2003) and depth (700 meters) is insufficient for a suitable assessment of the climatological trend? I agree it is positive from http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/ but relatively small. In my Waterloo talk, I used a value of 1/4 of the rate in the early decade. I would, however, like to also convert this to the heating rate in Watts per meter squared and assess how close it is to Jim Hansen's estimate from GISS of o.6 Watts per meter squared [see http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/1116592hansen.pdf]. This is a short time period (~7 years). Nonetheless, I hope you will support me in recommending the adoption of this metric as a primary assessment tool to monitor global warming. -
Composer99 at 07:20 AM on 8 October 2011Climate Change Could be Expensive for Canada
Yes, I have seen comment #2. There was a subsequent reply indicating that the NRT report under discussion was part of a larger series. In addition, I now see that the rest of the NRT reports are linked to in the OP. So is your objection that the OP is still cherry-picking? I expect this objection has been addressed with the additional links. -
Jonathon at 05:39 AM on 8 October 2011Climate Change Could be Expensive for Canada
Composer99, See post #2. -
Composer99 at 05:19 AM on 8 October 2011Climate Change Could be Expensive for Canada
It would be nice if there was a point to all this, Jonathon. Is your point that Canadians in general or Ontarians in specific ought to advocate against taking action to mitigate (or even reverse) CO2 emissions in order to save a few dollars on heating (on account of savings in heating potentially outweighing increases in cooling)? Because if it isn't, then I put it to you that you are wasting your time arguing it and everyone else's time reading your posts. -
John Hartz at 05:11 AM on 8 October 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent
Suggested reading: “Young and Thin Instead of Old and Bulky: Researchers Report On Changes in Arctic Sea Ice After Return of Research Vessel Polarstern” ScienceDaily, Oct 6, 2011 To access this article, click here -
John Hartz at 05:10 AM on 8 October 2011Graphics for Sea Ice Minimum 2011
Suggested reading: “Young and Thin Instead of Old and Bulky: Researchers Report On Changes in Arctic Sea Ice After Return of Research Vessel Polarstern” ScienceDaily, Oct 6, 2011 To access this article, click here -
Dikran Marsupial at 05:10 AM on 8 October 2011It hasn't warmed since 1998
From Roy Spencers blog, here are the most recent UAH lower trophosperic temperatures
Spencer describes the 3rd order polynomial fit to the data as being "for entertainment purposes only, and should not be construed as having any predictive value whatsoever.".
It may not have any predictive value, but it does show in hindsight that it has warmed since 1998. Many thanks for debunking this one for us Roy! ;o)
-
muoncounter at 04:26 AM on 8 October 2011CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
tblakeslee: Pick a position. First it was low cosmic ray counts, then it was contrails and ship trails, then the sun's magnetic field - all responsible for most of the observed warming. Now you've switched to its cooling. There is a somewhat dated (mid-2010) thread for that (see the 'Most used arguments' panel). On that note, the existing 'its cooling' thread needs an update, especially with the fact that it's not cooling. -
Jonathon at 04:07 AM on 8 October 2011Climate Change Could be Expensive for Canada
Here is the report again: http://www.mei.gov.on.ca/en/energy/conservation/?page=heating-and-cooling-your-home_chapter-13 Whether one lives in a small townhouse or large detached house, the energy costs are proportionally; the average resident spends about nine times more on heating than cooling when using natural gas (the most popular). Different energy sources result in different costs as propane, oil, and electricity result in higher heating costs, while wood-burning stoves and Earth energy systems costs less. Do not get hung up on the $900/$100 scenario. As I said previously, it was arbitrary. Bottom line: heating is a significantly higher expense than cooling. -
Albatross at 04:03 AM on 8 October 2011Clouds Over Peer Review
MarkB @12, Yes, their paper did not state that there was a strong negative cloud feeback. They did not have to. They just had to have a paper that spoke the the could feedback and then the dog whistling could start. The press release from UAH was part of that. In that press release, Spencer misrepresented and overstated his findings. He also stood by quietly while people James Taylor (a lawyer) from the Heartland lobby group even further misrepresented and distorted his research in a ridiculous article in Forbes. There is a term for "skeptic" papers like this-- Trojan Horse papers, and they are used by the misinformation machine to confuse and fabricate debate. This fiasco has all been covered at SkS and elsewhere. I suggest reading Dr. Wagner's letter in the link provided in the previous sentence. -
DSL at 04:03 AM on 8 October 2011Understanding climate denial
GEP, search SkS for "nuclear," and find the most appropriate thread. It sounds like you're trying to argue for nuclear power as a solution. -
GEP at 03:48 AM on 8 October 2011Understanding climate denial
Ref 162. I apologize if the point was not made sufficiently clearly. The point of the comment is: there is no form of energy accessible to human society which is not previously derived from a nuclear reactor, whether that nuclear reactor is sited in our own back yard or in the sun. Should I repost it to another thread?Response:[DB] It was most appropriate where you initially posted it, on the "It's the sun" thread. That being said, in it's construction you give no context to why it was relative even there, as you make no "given this information, this _____ is _____" statement to close off the comment.
Unless you are disputing the evidence behind the forces causing the waming of the climate observed. If so, depending on which part you are disputing, use the Search function in the upper left of every page to find the most suitable thread to continue the discussion there, not here.
But first read that thread (and the comments therein) before posting your comment.
-
DSL at 03:47 AM on 8 October 2011CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
tblakeslee, you say that with such confidence, yet you do so while failing to address the radiative physics of CO2. How do you explain away the warming that must be occurring with increased atmospheric CO2. I'm not saying you can't; I'm saying you aren't, and it's a major gap in your position. -
DSL at 03:41 AM on 8 October 2011Understanding climate denial
Actually, it's quite the opposite, Lloyd. People in the U.S. like rules and order, but only if those rules and that order fits their individual, self-defined interests. External authority is almost always seen as tyrannical, unless it is carefully circumscribed and limited into uselessness. In the U.S., there is a love-hate relationship with the traditional forms of authority in religion, representative democracy, and capitalism, mechanisms which offer freedom and individual empowerment and at the same time impose an external authority. -
Bob Lacatena at 03:25 AM on 8 October 2011Understanding climate denial
165, Lloyd, Note to moderators: This comment skirts very close to violating the comments policy, because it wanders somewhat into politics. I feel that Lloyd's observation deserves a response, and it is still focused on the current subject (Understanding climate denial). I see a pretty vocal Aussie denial machine. Admittedly, other countries do not seem as bad, with the exception perhaps of an occasional Lord Viscount Confabulator or two. As far as Americans and rules... Americans are instinctively (historically?) distrustful of any government, including their own. The want power to rest with the people, but know that the powerful and influential will always warp the system, so the people's only true control is through strict, inviolable rules. It is very true that we will make a rule to an extreme, such as protecting free speech, even if doing so facilitates neo-nazi hatred, predatory commercial practices, and terrorism. The same applies to the right to bear arms, even though allowing that right also increases accidental deaths and criminal acts. It's very, very hard for us to bring ourselves to invite exceptions that could later be used against us. Those aspects of strict, axiomatic rules are absolutely are a part of the American psyche. [It is actually abhorrent and absurd to us that the Brits could live with an unwritten constitution. How crazy is that?] But my own read on it is that American denialism is founded in a twisted version of conservatism that has arisen only in the past decade. It is supported by the Fox News mouthpiece, which is the first truly political-party controlled (or might as well be) national media outlet this country has ever seen, and it has no opposite number, no matter how much they might give lip service to the supposed left-wing media. The current brand of American conservatism has shifted its focus from true individual liberties, fiscal responsibility and limited federal power (to which they now only give constant contradictory and hypocritical lip service), to one of a focus on Christian morals (to the detriment of personal liberties), excessive federal power in matters of security and common defense, and a deference to business, corporations, and a 100% regulation free market system as the main ingredient to prosperity and happiness. This last element is the key to everything. It is a recurring theme in how to tax people, social entitlements, and controlling climate change. Let the market decide all. That is the current conservative credo, and leads to serious myopia on every single issue. All in all, today sees a very twisted version of conservatism when compared to anything from the Federalists and Antifederalists of 1787-1791 to the Republicans of the 1860s, 1940s, 1960s or 1980s. I just wish more conservatives would study history to understand that they are something new, different and very, very dangerous. They are not their father's brand of Republican.Moderator Response:[DB] "it wanders somewhat into politics"
Unfortunately, climate denialism and politics are an inseparable duo, joined at the hip like Siamese twins. Leeway is allowed on threads of this nature, as long as things don't go too far.
-
lord_sidcup at 02:56 AM on 8 October 2011Clouds Over Peer Review
Sorry, I should have stated that Carter's paper was published in Economic Analysis and Policy - the journal of the Queensland branch of the Economic Society of Australia. -
lord_sidcup at 02:47 AM on 8 October 2011Clouds Over Peer Review
Speaking of Bob Carter, and as an example of a paper published in a journal outside the subject area, I offer this travesty: Knock, Knock: Where is the Evidence for Dangerous Human-Caused Global Warming? (PDF)
Prev 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 Next
