Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 Next
Comments 76301 to 76350:
-
muoncounter at 21:05 PM on 27 August 2011ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
RickG#14: How many full-throated deniers read even a short press release all the way to the last sentence? Headlines tell you everything you need to know, don't they? -
RickG at 20:21 PM on 27 August 2011ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
I think the last sentence of the CLOUD press release puts everything into perspective. "However, it is premature to conclude that cosmic rays have a significant influence on climate until the additional nucleating vapours have been identified, their ion enhancement measured, and the ultimate effects on clouds have been confirmed.? My emphasis in bold. -
scaddenp at 18:21 PM on 27 August 2011GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
In case I am sounding hyper-critical, then let me explain my wish for effective solutions. Firstly, it's no good to say "I support" without explaining the political action to make that solution happen. Second, effective is hard. A Kyoto-type solution would require reducing GHG emissions by at least 25%. However, an equitable distribution (same emissions per capita for whole world) of GHG emissions would require reducing US emissions eventually from around 200khw/p/d of FF energy to around 60. (MacKay's "Sustainable Energy without the hot air" has figures for other countries). This does not take into account energy imported embodied in goods. If you demanded historical equity, then emissions would need to drop to around zero. Figuring out how to do that means looking at exactly how FF is used currently and proposing a means to change that. MacKay's book is good resource for physical limits to efficiency. Rising fuel prices are likely to deal to transport FF but at the expense of greater demand for electricity. This cannot come from coal. Ending the building of any more coal-fired generation is fundimental. -
jyushchyshyn at 17:16 PM on 27 August 2011Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
Dana @ 48 [snip] but please do not make claims that just because Canadian governments are not out to shut down the oil sands, they do not "give a damn about the environment." Alberta is a world leader in reducing natural gas flaring and venting.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Please keep the discussion impersonal and free of rhetoric. I somehow doubt the environmental impact of gas flaring approaches the total enviornmental cost of oil sand extraction, so the assertion is reasonable. -
jyushchyshyn at 16:56 PM on 27 August 2011Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
Interesting article Badgersouth. I noted some comments at the end which point out that the Keystone Pipeline could be to export bitumen to Europe. I don't know if that is true, but if it were true, I would not approve. -
Marcus at 16:29 PM on 27 August 2011ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
Hang on though-even if cosmic rays are significantly linked to cloud formation-then shouldn't we be seeing a *cooling* effect right now? After all, decreasing sunspots also means increased GCR's. Increasing GCR's means increased cloud formation (or so the "skeptics" tell us) & increased cloud formation means increased albedo-hence an overall *cooling* effect. If I were a "skeptic", I'd be trying to *disprove* the link between GCR's & clouds ;-). -
scaddenp at 12:59 PM on 27 August 201110 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change
Not sure what your point is, but the fossil carbon is millions of years of sequestered carbon. We are releasing it over few hundred years. Does this imply CO2 was higher in past? Yes, it was but sun was weaker and the issue is the rate of change not the absolute temperature. -
scaddenp at 12:16 PM on 27 August 2011GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
For further resource on US energy use, the Wikipedia article has useful data and diagram too. -
scaddenp at 11:56 AM on 27 August 2011GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
Further thought on US energy use - coal powered electricity doesnt support much industry, but then it appears that is because most manufacturing and industry happens in Asia using coal there. The ideals of consumerism creating a vibrant economy with abundant jobs (eg as in Landon's "Ending the Depression Through Planned Obsolescence") are doing wonders for creating wealth there. Got a plan for changing that? -
scaddenp at 11:45 AM on 27 August 2011GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
Another Bee. Interesting comment. Some thoughts. Some thoughts and possible approaches:- The other problem with micro-generation is that it is expensive. There are real economies of scale in energy conversion. Does a zeal for independence from government and foreign power extend to paying higher prices? "In general, the Right has a philosophical dislike for state subsidies." I would have thought so, but you wouldn't think so looking at the actions of the right when in power. Subsidy involves the governments picking winners. I have no problem with subsidies on health and education but I think they are almost always bad when applied to industry apart from supporting research. -
scaddenp at 11:32 AM on 27 August 2011GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
Eric (skeptic). Delighted to see you on the thread. First off - I doff my hat to Cato. I didnt think they had it in them but it certainly allays my feats that they were simply a political ploy to support Koch. Coal is cheap - but subsidies dont help and clearly arent necessary. The crux of the problem for getting off coal is a way to make other options cheaper. Subsidy removal is just a start. What else? Your comment about the Hansen carbon tax idea suggests you would be in favour of pigovian taxes. Our government has a Fiscal Responsibility Act, which basically requires a government to balance the books in the medium term. Has any US government done this since 1900? Sounds a good idea, but dont see how it would reduce carbon emissions. most fuel is wasted driving to pointless service and paperwork jobs. I frankly do not believe this to by true. Please show some figures to back this assertion or withdraw it. After manufacture, transport is the most expensive. US Energy use can be found here. More electricity from coal goes to residential and commercial where it is spent largely on heating/cooling and lighting. You really think the only barrier to alternative energy and localized manufacture is zoning laws? I find that surprising to say the least. How else would you encourage local small-scale, low energy manufacturing? (I do actually like this idea but I think rising fuel prices will do this more effectively than anything else). I understand most US citizens live in urban environment, and it seems 36% of total housing is flat/apartments. Their self-sufficiency options are somewhat limited I would think, but you know your country better than me. -
Doug Mackie at 10:30 AM on 27 August 2011OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
The comment from Dr Jim refers to the last few lines of post 15. No. I am sorry, but you have made a common mistake. In freshwater the Ksp values for calcite and aragonite are indeed on the order of 10-9. but in SEAWATER the values are, as given, on the order of 10-7. Though the currently accepted values are little different, this paper explains things quite well. I like this paper because it has 3 of the biggest names (though I confess that in my opinion Wally's star has shined the brightest) in the business on one paper – sort of like the αβγ paper. -
muoncounter at 10:15 AM on 27 August 2011ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
davidkirtley#11: "claiming that this new study shows that climate models are all wrong. " The prediction here didn't have to wait long. Multiple choice: a. The deniers are reading too much into the new study b. The new study doesn't reach a firm conclusion c. The new study doesn't deal with climate models d. The deniers have read the news release and not the paper; the two do not say the same thing e. All of the above See comments above, the RC analysis and the prior It's cosmic rays thread. -
David Kirtley at 10:07 AM on 27 August 2011ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
It seems like a lot of the deniers are claiming that this new study shows that climate models are all wrong. For instance here And here Could someone please explain the connection and if they are right or are they reading way too much into the findings of the CLOUD study? thanks -
muoncounter at 09:52 AM on 27 August 2011It's not bad
Continuing from here. ClimateWatcher: "our ancestors were not troubled by natural variations in climate" Tell that to the Anasazi: Climate change is thought to have led to the emigration of Chacoans and the eventual abandonment of the canyon, beginning with a 50-year drought in 1130. Tell that to the Akkadians: Geochemical correlation of volcanic ash shards between the archeological site and marine sediment record establishes a direct temporal link between Mesopotamian aridification and social collapse, implicating a sudden shift to more arid conditions as a key factor contributing to the collapse of the Akkadian empire. Tell that to the Mayans: A seasonally resolved record of titanium shows that the collapse of Maya civilization in the Terminal Classic Period occurred during an extended regional dry period, punctuated by more intense multiyear droughts centered at approximately 810, 860, and 910 A.D. And tell it to whoever these folks were. A severe drought in parts of low-latitude northeastern Africa and southwestern Asia ~4200 yr ago caused major disruption to ancient civilizations. Seems like drought is a common theme in these 'troubles'. This drought forecast should be troubling:
Or as one Texan put it more succinctly,
-
muoncounter at 09:52 AM on 27 August 2011Climate Ethics: What Can Science Tell Us?
CW#3: "not troubled by natural variations in climate" Off-topic; take it to 'It's not bad'. -
PCB at 09:23 AM on 27 August 201110 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change
Please explain how carbon in fossil fuels becomes 'newer' than the fossils it came from by using it. . -
Dr. Jim at 08:03 AM on 27 August 2011OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
Your solubility product for calcite is wrong. You are off by a factor of 100. Solubility product of calcite is 10-9 not 10-7. Hope that its a typo. -
John Hartz at 07:02 AM on 27 August 2011Climate Ethics: What Can Science Tell Us?
Speaking of the areas of the world being impacted by climate change... "The severe drought in the Horn of Africa, which has caused the death of at least 30,000 children and is affecting some 12 million people, especially in Somalia, is a direct consequence of weather phenomena associated with climate change and global warming, environmental scientists say." Source: "Global Warming Behind Somali Drought" by Julio Godoy, IPS, Aug 26, 2011 To access this in-depth article, click here -
John Hartz at 06:31 AM on 27 August 2011Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
Reinforcing the central thesis of the above article ... "Despite Rick Perry, consensus on climate change keeps strengthening" by Brad Pulmer, Washington Post, Aug 23, 2011 To access this article, click here -
Bob Lacatena at 06:29 AM on 27 August 2011Climate Ethics: What Can Science Tell Us?
3, ClimateWatcher, That's pretty funny. Yeah. It's pretty nice that their tribal, hunter-gatherer lifestyles were able to survive dramatic climate change, often by physically up and moving, when there were probably a total of 100,000 people on the planet. And it's too bad that so many less developed and less-than-technological civilizations were destroyed by repeated regional droughts that simulate but do not reach the magnitude of the climate change that we are wreaking on the entire planet. But enough civilizations survived, to get us here. I wonder how our particular civilization will do, though? With seven billion people? I guess that's not important, though. I mean, if you're going to be happy hunting, and gethering, and killing anyone else who gets in your way (assuming you're one of the lucky ones who survives), then why worry? -
John Hartz at 06:28 AM on 27 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
On the good news front... "Despite Rick Perry, consensus on climate change keeps strengthening" by Brad Pulmer, Washington Post, Aug 23, 2011 To access this article, click here -
ClimateWatcher at 04:34 AM on 27 August 2011Climate Ethics: What Can Science Tell Us?
I'm so glad our ancestors were not troubled by natural variations in climate and proceeded to establish civilization in spite of the environment. -
John Hartz at 04:15 AM on 27 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
More bad news from the USA… “House Republicans Seek to Remove U.S. Funding for UN Climate Efforts: Their primary targets are the IPCC and UNFCCC, key programs designed to educate policymakers about climate science and slow warming worldwide.” by Elizabeth McGowan, SolveClimate News, Aug 26, 2011 To access this in-depth article by Elizabeth McGowan, SolveClimate News, Aug 26, 2011, click here -
Andy Skuce at 03:58 AM on 27 August 2011Climate Ethics: What Can Science Tell Us?
As grypo demonstrates, the largest contributors to the problem are often also those who suffer least from the consequences. Even if (a big if) cost benefit analysis were to show that mitigating CO2 was not economic on a global basis, this would not be sufficient to recommend inaction because this is not a problem where we all share equally in the causes and consequences. Ultimately, climate change is a question of the disproportionate violation of certain people's rights by the disproportionate actions of others. Imagine if I were to build a fence that, by mistake, encroached a little onto my neighbor's land. I could argue that the encroachment impinges only slightly on his property value and that this marginal amount is less than the cost of me moving the fence, so the cost-benefit analysis indicates that doing nothing is the only rational course of action. I can only guess what his response might be... -
Eric the Red at 03:56 AM on 27 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
Be careful. Don't get burned. -
actually thoughtful at 03:52 AM on 27 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
Actually thoughtful: "...Better to educate the less knowledgeable than to invoke some sort of "truth lies in the middle between science and ideology" pablum. There be dragons." EtR": "...Your last quote could actually come true." Dragons! This sounds very interesting! I want one. -
pauls at 03:07 AM on 27 August 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC FAR
However, as noted above, the actual GHG increase and radiative forcing has been lower than the IPCC BAU, perhaps because of steps taken to reduce emissions like the Kyoto Protocol, or perhaps because their BAU was too pessimistic. Global carbon emissions have actually accelerated since the Kyoto Protocol was ratified. Over the 90s emissions growth was relatively slow, partly due to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Mt. Pinatubo eruption. That would explain some of the difference. I think large factors in the lower GHG forcing have been the Montreal Protocol, which wasn't fully in place when the FAR was released, and the abrupt slowdown of methane growth (with various proposed causes). Current concentrations of CFCs are below even the Scenario D projections. Could you do a version of Figure 5 with an overlaid comparison to the original post-1990 BAU projection? That would show the importance of forcing differences. -
John Hartz at 02:31 AM on 27 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
Suggested reading: "Why Rick Perry Would Put the World on a Fast Track to Total Meltdown: From calling the BP disaster an "act of god" to responding to his state's drought with prayer, Perry's anti-environmental resume is extensive." To access this informative article by Tara Lohan posted (Aug 25)on Alternet, click here. -
Eric the Red at 02:23 AM on 27 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
Muon, That was the first report in 2008; it had 400 signers. The second in 209 had 700. The most recent had 1000. Just a possibility. As I said previously, this is not the best way to do science, although there are many here who seem to think so. -
John Hartz at 02:03 AM on 27 August 2011Climate Ethics: What Can Science Tell Us?
If you are interested in exploring the issue of climate ethices further, you will want to peruse the postings on the Climate Ethics section of the website of the Rock Ethics Institute of the University of Pennsylvania. -
muoncounter at 01:52 AM on 27 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
EtR#68: "Perry is referring to the growing numbers who are signing reports" Growing numbers, signing reports; sounds like a groundswell of opinion is building. However, EtR fails to mention that the date of this report is December, 2008. Old, irrelevant biased 'news' (it was written by Marc Morano). Badgersouth: This particular tree had no roots in reality; hence it made no sound at all. -
noble_serf at 01:42 AM on 27 August 2011Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
Thanks to Stephen Leahy and Badgersouth for the links and terminology correction. I've also been reading over at http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/ where they have a collection of great reports. Like this one Preparing for the public health challenges of climate change (PDF) -
John Hartz at 01:27 AM on 27 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
Sphaerica et al: Re Eric the Red's baiting posts... "If a tree falls in the forest and no one's around to hear it, does it make a sound?" -
DSL at 01:14 AM on 27 August 2011ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
Muon: "DSL, I'm shocked; I don't let my high school students get away with reporting unsupported experimental conclusions - or using words like 'could be' and 'seemed' in their writeups." Neither do I, as they discover in the feedback they receive on their first drafts. And these are college freshmen (essentially high school students at that point). The comment was lightly ironed. I agree. It's more than disappointing that Nature would cave to market forces and publish that report with that title. -
muoncounter at 01:02 AM on 27 August 2011ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
#6/#7: I'm sorry, I find that kind of reporting to be misleading in the extreme. The paper talks about ammonia in parts per trillion as providing nucleation enhancement; this introduces an entirely new independent variable. The news release barely mention this; it is nothing more than a restatement of the premise of the original experiment. The RC analysis (mentioned on the original It's cosmic rays thread) takes this apart even further: ... despite going to a lot of trouble to make sure the chamber was ultra-free of contaminants, the researchers found that within most of the aerosols that formed, there were traces of organic nitrogen compounds that must have been present in almost undetectably low concentrations. So there are uncontrolled contaminants in the experiment. Oops. And then there's the energy question: From the news release, high-energy protons seemed to enhance the production of nanometre-sized particles from the gaseous atmosphere by more than a factor of ten. Great, that's what they were looking to find (although the use of 'seemed' makes it a tad ambiguous). However, as reported earlier here, a similar experiment ... found that this effect also took place when they used a radioactive sodium source, which produces gamma rays. So which is it? High energy GCRs, simulated by a particle beam in a contaminated chamber? Low energy naturally occurring gamma rays? They may as well have written a news release that it could all be caused by LGM rather than GCR. Yeah, it could be. That's crappy science reporting; no doubt the deniersphere will run with it. DSL, I'm shocked; I don't let my high school students get away with reporting unsupported experimental conclusions - or using words like 'could be' and 'seemed' in their writeups. -
Michael Le Page at 01:02 AM on 27 August 2011ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
Reading some of the responses to the story I wrote on these results for New Scientist made me realise there is a major misunderstanding on the part of those hailing these results as “proof” that climate rays affect climate. Gavin did explain this in his RealClimate post, but it might be worth restating here in plainer terms: The CLOUD team did find cosmic rays produced a relatively large increase in the aerosol nucleation rate. However, they were comparing no cosmic rays with having cosmic rays (the chamber was shielded). That does not reflect what actually happens in reality: our atmosphere is always being struck cosmic rays, there is never a time when there are no cosmic rays. Changes in the sun's activity produce only tiny changes in the average number of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere, which means changes in the nucleation rates in the atmosphere due to changes in cosmic rays intensities are going to be much smaller than the 2 to 10 times factor reported in the study. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128274.900-cloudmaking-another-human-effect-on-the-climate.html -
Bob Lacatena at 00:52 AM on 27 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
68, Eric the Red, Signings like this are a complete joke. They are the equivalent of a commercial for toothpaste saying4 out of 5 housewives, midwifes, little children, college graduates and trash collectors surveyed prefer Zango toothpaste over the leading brand for adequate thermal reduction of invasive oral compounds.
From Eric's link (as if this is a positive):The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore.
Being a scientist, even being intelligent, doesn't qualify one to lead the world on an issue they do not understand. Quite honestly, I find extreme competence in one field to be the first and leading cause of the Dunning-Kruger afflicted. Honestly, this amounts to an appeal to non-authority. It amounts to saying "trust me, I don't know what I'm talking about, but I should, because I know about something entirely different." [And I'll bet they all stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.] -
Charlie A at 00:43 AM on 27 August 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC FAR
I note that figures 3 and 4 have different "projections" for years such as 1940 and 1960. Did the "actual" forcings prior to 1990 change between FAR and AR4 ? I assume that the 3 blue lines in Fig 4 are for climate sensitivities of 1.5C, 2.5C and 4.5C per CO2 doubling. Correct? dana1981 says "It's a GHG forcing model, so I took observed GHG changes into account." --- please explain how you took the changes into account in a way to change the plot before 1990. -
Eric the Red at 23:49 PM on 26 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
I suspect that Perry is referring to the growing numbers who are signing reports like the following: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport While the number of scientists signing these types of reports has increased, it does not necessarily indicate that more scientists are questioning global warming, just that more are coming forward. The numbers could have always been there. -
Eric (skeptic) at 23:27 PM on 26 August 2011GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
scaddenp, Lloyd, Tom, others: great thread. I think AnotherBee made a great start to answering scaddenp's (modified) challenge: "If I were convinced that CO2 emissions were to cause major problems, what political solutions would I propose" I disagree, scaddenp, that coal is cheaper due to subsidies. It also happens to be cheap: think $20 shovel and home-made coal stove. One way I would rephrase the challenge is: how would we get Hansen's carbon tax suggestion embraced by the American middle class (note, not right or left). First I would say don't borrow and spend, but save because America has gone way beyond her means (although I know that won't make me very popular). Second, encourage small scale, low energy manufacturing since after consumption, most fuel is wasted driving to pointless service and paperwork jobs. May also need to revamp and subsidize education to put more job seekers into the knowledge industry. AnotherBee's idea of appealing to self-sufficiency should resonate with middle class who, in some part, seem to embrace the idea that they can do a better job of running their lives than the government. Libertarians should also be enticed by reducing government, but also by devolving responsibility to local governments. When things are done locally they tend to be less carbon intensive. Loosen the zoning laws to allow proper passive solar construction. Same solution for allowing more local commerce and a local economy. The flea market / farmers market that I go to every Sunday is 100 times better than Walmart. -
thingsbreak at 23:03 PM on 26 August 2011ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
@5 Because their results do show the possibility that aerosol nucleation is enhanced by cosmic rays. Whether that translates into any significant effect in real world cloud cover is another story, but the mechanism has been somewhat supported. -
DSL at 22:52 PM on 26 August 2011ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
No, Muon--the headline is true. Cloud formation may indeed be linked to cosmic rays. The headline would have been just as true before CLOUD. And the fact that the title has nothing to do with the report means little. Half my freshmen do that every semester. And certainly CLOUD formation was linked to cosmic rays. -
muoncounter at 22:42 PM on 26 August 2011ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
How does NatureNews get away with the headline Cloud formation may be linked to cosmic rays when the Kirkby paper in question, entitled Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation, does not offer any new support for this claim? It's bad enough when the usual suspects are misleading and/or incorrect. Readers here should object to this error with comments on NatureNews. -
Eric (skeptic) at 22:20 PM on 26 August 2011GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
Libertarian think-tanks like Heartland and Cato Institute should be waving this banner, but I suspect that subsidy removal would cut deeply into the pockets of important donors to these institutions.Sorry, I've been very busy, but I will read all the comments and respond. First, here's CATO in 2001: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-390es.html and CATO this year: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13071 Seems to me like your suspicions are not correct.
-
Lazarus at 22:16 PM on 26 August 2011ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
Unfortunately Scientific American has a new story with the title and by line; Cloud Formation May Be Linked to Cosmic Rays Experiment probes connection between climate change and radiation bombarding the atmosphere. And at least it does include the quote; "[The paper] actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it’s a very important first step." -
Paul D at 21:36 PM on 26 August 2011ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
Environmental Research Web did a write up: http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/46965 Quote: "Kirkby shares Pierce's caution. He argues that CLOUD's results "say nothing about cosmic-ray effects on clouds" because the aerosols produced in the experiment are far too small to seed clouds." -
muoncounter at 20:54 PM on 26 August 2011ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
Kirkby's name has a 'k'; it's not Kirby. But why repost an entire article rather than just link to it on our existing 'its cosmic rays' rebuttal?Response:[DB] "Kirkby's name has a 'k'; it's not Kirby"
Fixed. It was interesting to note the sponsor of the rollover ads on the Nature Kirkby et al download page:
What's next, Pathos (the 5th Musketeer)?
-
Bernard J. at 20:33 PM on 26 August 2011ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
TWTB. Excellent summary. I was worried that this one would find it's way around the world before the truth put its shoes on, but in this instance rationality seems to be hot on the heels of propaganda. Well done. -
scaddenp at 14:53 PM on 26 August 2011GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
Fair enough Stephen, but I am not suggesting government do the innovation - just provide the conditions where the market will. Coal subsidy removal is just a start.
Prev 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 Next
