Recent Comments

Prev  1671  1672  1673  1674  1675  1676  1677  1678  1679  1680  1681  1682  1683  1684  1685  1686  Next

Comments 83901 to 83950:

83901. Bob Lacatena at 02:31 AM on 3 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       209, J. Bob,

       Humans are late comers to the ball, and while we may know some of the steps (physics), we just may not know it all.

       You see, this is the problem in a nutshell. Modern science, and most people here, do in fact know a whole lot more than you know yourself, or think we know. That's the problem, and another flavor of denial. You think there's this gaping hole in our knowledge, and we're conveniently ignoring our ignorance, because you and others like you are not bothering to fill in the gaps in your own understanding of climate physics. So do everyone a favor, instead of responding with an outraged diatribe, stop posting comments, and start reading. Every posted comment is a missed opportunity to learn more, and there is a huge, huge wealth of knowledge (knowledge = things we know) out there to be consumed. You are not a skeptic if you say "we don't know."
83902. Ganesha at 02:28 AM on 3 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       KR - Sorry, you are correct. I'll repost there and maybe a kindly mod can delete this post and my post @ 215?
83903. MichaelM at 02:28 AM on 3 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       There is Skeptic and Denier but we are missing the third category: Idiot. When Spencer shows on his web site how global warming works and how it does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics there are still people who cannot grasp basic physics. What's the best method of dealing with that group?
       Response:

       [DB] "we are missing the third category: idiot."

       Please, let's not go there (but I feel your pain).  That somehow "clouds cause ENSO" evokes your perjorative label quite quickly, however.

83904. Eric the Red at 02:27 AM on 3 June 2011
       Database of peer-reviewed papers: classification problematics
       CB, The only thing relevent to the climate sensitivity is the total effect attributable to CO2. If the total impact to temperatures attributed to CO2 is 0%, then the climate is insensitivity to CO2, and the climate sensitivity (to CO2) would be 0. If it was 90%, then the climate is very sensitive to CO2, and the climate sensitivity would be high. I chose solar to be the next highest because it was used in the example above. I could have chosen any other forcings and numbers, but the only pertinent value is that associated with CO2. You could determine a separate albedo sensitivity, if you like, but it would not impact the effect of CO2. My intent was to determine at which point a paper ceases to become pro-agw and turn neutral, which is the essential question for which this thread was started.
83905. Bob Lacatena at 02:27 AM on 3 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       216, KR, Sorry, I just saw your response to where this properly belongs. Agreed.
83906. Bob Lacatena at 02:26 AM on 3 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       212, Tom Curtis, That's an excellent point, even as it relates to the redistribution of wealth issue. The beneficiaries of publicly funded interstate highway and rail systems are inevitably the very wealthy. While we may not enjoy the selection as much, people could very, very easily live a good life style using more locally produced goods, which require less roads and rail infrastructure. Certainly, our current society depends on those two, but by far, the beneficiaries are the extremely wealthy who then accumulate more wealth than they otherwise could. So a "fair" tax on roads and rail really should be on a per-use basis (in which case the small, local businessman would be far more competitive, and the consumers would have a better choice, and free market forces would include that hidden expense of long-distance-transportation infrastructure... but the wealthy would never stand for such a thing).
83907. KR at 02:19 AM on 3 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Jigoro, Ganesha, Tom Curtis, etc. - Please, can we move the 'taxation' discussions to the CO2 limits will harm the economy thread? They are completely OT when discussing deniers vs. skeptics, which is the current topic.
83908. Ganesha at 02:13 AM on 3 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Jigoro @ 200 Let's make sure we have the facts straight here. You have started by speaking specifically about the US, but have then taken the global financial information for a $370B multinational conglomerate and presented tax information in a way that makes it seem like these are US taxes. US income tax to Exxon: $1.2B Non-US income tax: $21.1B US Sales tax to Exxon: $6.2B Non-US Sales tax: $22.4B See Page F-59 And the Headquarters? $2 million in income tax. Everything is in the subsidiaries, not the parent.
83909. apiratelooksat50 at 02:07 AM on 3 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       DB @ 192 My comment to #2 was solely to the last phrase. Thanks
83910. Eric the Red at 02:02 AM on 3 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       J. Bob, I have some to add to your response to Scaddemp on where the energy is coming from. The primary energy source is the sun, with very little attributed from interenal radiation. The energy emitted from the sun has not changed appreciably, however, the amount reaching and absorbed by the surface may. It is not a question of an energy source, rather of an energy filter (clouds) and energy absorber (albedo). The other question that is not being asked is what natural processes (if any) will work to alleviate the additional heat. The most efficient means of removing added heat is to move it to the area which will result in the greatest removal, in our case, the poles.
83911. Tom Curtis at 01:53 AM on 3 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Jigoro Kano, I also find it utterly risible that people claim that public transport is inefficient because it requires subsidies to operate, while completely ignoring that users of private transport never pay the full cost of the roads they use. If you were serious about eliminating public subsidies of transport, you would place the road system up for tender; and only permit its expansion by voluntarily negotiated purchases of land (not state resumption of land). You would then allow the successful tenderer to charge what they liked for use of their roads. Of course, nobody sane would accept any such system. They'ld much rather accept their hidden subsidies and then complain about the inefficiencies of public transport.
83912. KR at 01:50 AM on 3 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Regarding carbon taxes, cap and trade, etc: might I suggest moving that entire discussion to the CO2 limits will harm the economy thread?
       Moderator Response: Yes, everybody, please do so.
83913. Tom Curtis at 01:46 AM on 3 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Jigoro Kano @200, the obligation to pay lawful taxes was a condition of purchase of every property in the Western World. Arguing after that purchase that a condition of purchase is "theft" indicates that you entered the contract fraudulently. If you think that you should not need to pay tax, the correct course of action is to explicitly renegotiate your property rights, and good luck with that. In the meantime, protestations that taxation is theft is just an elaborate con game by the well off to shirk their obligations.
83914. J. Bob at 01:46 AM on 3 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Scaddemp @ 178, You say “How come it looks a lot less terrible complex non-linear if you assume that climate will conform to known physics and is thus a function of total forcings?”. A couple of clarifications might be in order. The first is “knowing” all the physics, and the definition of “forcings”. An example might be the physics of natural convection are “known”, to a high degree. How they might apply in various situations, known & unknown, is another matter. As far as “forcings” go, it could range from a complex model including gas, fluid & thermo dynamics, to a simple constant coefficient linear equation, with a first order lag. So you might want to refine what your term means. Your other question, “If the warming is coming from some natural cycle, then where is that energy coming from ie - how is 1st Law maintained?”. I’m not sure of you phrasing, but there are at least a couple of primary energy sources to the earth, solar & if I remember my geology correctly, internal natural radioactivity. As far as the earth’s surface properties, you might look at it as a energy dance, of many participants, involving conduction, convection, radiation with the land masses, ocean & atmosphere. Some participants may more faster then others, in many patterns. Humans are late comers to the ball, and while we may know some of the steps (physics), we just may not know it all.
83915. pbjamm at 01:40 AM on 3 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Sphaerica@196 "WUWT is not a good place to start, it's a travesty of misinformation, misrepresentation, conspiracy theories, vitriolic anger, and quite simply time wasting." I disagree with you on this. Not with your accurate description of what is to be found at WUWT but that it is not a good place for the uneducated seeker of knowledge to look for information. People who are genuinely interested in learning will immediately recognize WUWT for what it is and go in search of science. When they discover RC or SkS (perhaps from a WUWT rant) the contrast in tone and content will be shocking. It is then pretty clear who has logic on their side and who has ideology. I know because that is how I got here.
83916. Tom Curtis at 01:39 AM on 3 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Eric(skeptic) @197: 1) I did not argue for property rights with unlimited taxation. The US has quite strict limitations on taxation within the Constitution, and significant restrictions on changing the constitution. But any tax that is a) Constitutional; b) Can pass both houses of Congress; and c) Is not vetoed by the by the President is built into the contract of any property rights in the US. If people purchasing property rights wish thereby to purchase exemption from normal laws, present or future, then they need to negotiate that when they purchase the property. If they do not, then claiming exemption based on faulty philosophy is just an attempt to welsh on their deal. Of course, if they don't like that restriction on their property rights, they can always indulge their libertarian right to sell up and go elsewhere. 2) I did defend the remarks you left out, and quite strenuously. In particular, I quoted them; I indicated their significance; and I defended the basic principle they appealed to. The only thing I did not do was defend Hansen's particular view of the facts, although I did show he had good (but not conclusive) reasons for those views. Your only response to my defence has been a conjured outrage at supposed, but non-existent insults; and now a misrepresentation of the view expressed which amounts to an obvious straw man. Specifically, it is a crime against humanity if you: a) Know that your actions have the forseeable consequence of hundreds of premature deaths; b) and propagate, or pay to be propagated information which you know to be false or misleading; c) with the intention that the false or misleading information will result in no effective action being taken to prevent our actions which will lead to the mass deaths; and d) As a result the deaths eventuate. The bona fides (or lack of them) of the organisations you pay to propagate the information known by you to be false or misleading is irrelevant. What is relevant is the knowledge and motivations of the persons who may have committed a crime, not of other parties. I note that the requirement of (d) is arguable, and I suspect that Hansen would argue that it is not necessary. Some might think that (b) and (c) are unnecessary, but that would only be due to insufficient thought. Manufacturing cars, for example, more or less guarantees a large number of deaths. Society is aware of that cost, and accepts it as being necessary for the health of the society. Therefore GM is not guilty of a crime against humanity just because it manufactures cars. Neither would Exxon be guilty of a crime if it openly refined and sold oil products while being very clear about the future costs. But once you attempt to take the choice to accept the cost away from society by deceiving the people, and/or their representatives, the full moral responsibility of any subsequent deaths become yours. Further, the issue of knowledge of the probable deaths, the false or misleading nature of the information, and the intent to deceive are essential features for the crime to be a crime, for only by making them essential features can free speech be preserved. I will note that if you take a strong libertarian stance on property rights such that society cannot prohibit the refining and sale of oil products, or place any restriction there-on, the issue of deception disappears. Because society cannot choose to prevent the deaths by restricting the property rights, the sole responsibility for the deaths becomes that of the holder of the property rights. Of course, Libertarians, as always will want to eat their cake and keep it to, and logic be dammned. That has always been their way.
83917. Bob Lacatena at 01:38 AM on 3 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       200, Jigoro Kano, This is wandering way OT (Mods: Where does this discussion belong, if anywhere?), and the moderators will end it very quickly, but breifly:

       Redistributive taxes (money) is most certainly theft.

       Redistribution is a difficult thing to argue about. To take an extreme point of view, who is better served by the trillions that go into defense? The poorest 10%-30% of society really could care less if they are ruled by a healthy democracy or a despotic authoritarian regime. In any case, they are still poor and struggling to live day to day. In contrast, even the very, very wealthy benefit from the U.S. Social Security system, because without it the social structure and economic system of the U.S. is unsteady and unpredictable, and any effects on those who benefit directly from S.S. would ultimately undermine the positions of the wealthy (and funding for S.S. comes most directly from the poor and middle class). So in the end, all of that money spend on national defense really only serves to support anyone who sees an advantage in the current system. Obviously it's something we all want to do (unless you're very poor), but demanding that the costs be distributed evenly is more than unfair, because the benefits of the expense are far from evenly distributed. My point is simply that an argument about redistribution of wealth is a Pandora's Box, and to me in the end it's just another excuse for inaction. It's yet another flavor of denial, although I'll admit that those sentiments are probably the root cause for most cases of denial.

       Making gas more expensive (carbon tax) will at best make us all poorer...

       No. Quite simply, no. There are many aspects of society for which there is no direct cause and effect, such as public education, the common defense, and pollution control. Left to a free market system, every one of those priority initiatives would fail. Similarly, weaning our society from a fossil fuel infrastructure is not going to happen all by itself until the economic pressures are deadly. It's just like social security. It's too late to start saving when you're 60, but it's human nature to do so more often than not. And we have two reasons now that we need to act sooner rather than later: dropping fossil fuel resource availability, and climate change. Making gas more expensive now will force investment in the future at a time that is appropriate, rather than when it's too late. It's far more complex than a mere redistribution of wealth, or perception that making a particular resource more expensive will make everyone more poor (in the short term).
83918. Alexandre at 01:28 AM on 3 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Jigoro Kano at 01:11 AM on 3 June, 2011 says Redistributive taxes (money) is most certainly theft. What's your suggestion for a mitigation policy? (forgive me if I missed it in some previous post of yours. I did not follow your whole conversation.)
83919. Alexandre at 01:26 AM on 3 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Eric (skeptic) at 00:48 AM on 3 June, 2011 The variable price of electricity depending of demand is a great idea. FF subsidies are another thing I'm sure we agree to ban. I don't think that alone can balance the externality problem of GHG emissions, though. Good to know you admit the existence of some government. I've had less productive debates in the past. Paraphrasing Einstein, the solution to a problem should be as simple as possible, but not simpler than that.
83920. Bob Lacatena at 01:25 AM on 3 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       197, Eric,

       And if you insist on making my "out of context" quote into an issue, why don't you defend the remarks that I left out? Do you really believe that funding an institute that supports liberty is a crime against humanity?

       Wow. Did you really say that? Do you really not get it? Can you really not see how you've twisted things? Go back and re-read the full Hansen quote, in context. If you need to, underline the parts you think are important. Then re-read what you said at first. Then re-read what you just posted. Can you not see the differences, and the point? Hints: No one ever said or implied anything as ridiculous as "funding an institute that supports liberty is a crime." You are either purposely or foolishly misunderstanding and twisting people's positions.
83921. Alexandre at 01:21 AM on 3 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Eric the Red at 22:34 PM on 2 June, 2011 Carbon tax instead of cap-and-trade: I agree. C&T looks beautiful in theory, but it's all too vulnerable corruption. The carbon tax is simpler to understand and enforce. Besides, it's a much clearer price signal to investors of renewables. Never heard of the idea of phasing it out. The idea would be to gradually increase it to garantee the complete phase out of fossil fuels. Unless we find a way to efficiently sequester carbon from the air, much of the coal will have to stay on the ground. I only see it happening if we keep it prohibitive.
83922. apiratelooksat50 at 01:19 AM on 3 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       DB at 192 My statement in #2 was referring to the last phrase of the referenced paragraph. "starting points" And, thanks, I am in a walking boot and stitches are out.
83923. Jigoro Kano at 01:11 AM on 3 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Tom Curtis @ 193 Redistributive taxes (money) is most certainly theft. What then is the difference between me as individual redistributing your money to me, or having a third party (the government) do it on my behest. Carbon tax schemes simply facilitate this redistribution. By the way a de facto carbon tax is already in place. Looking at Exxon Mobil 2010 financial statements you will see $28.5 billion was collect as sales tax. Ostensibly, these monies are to cover road and highway maintains. In actuality, 1/3 of those collection support public transportation. So although I do not ride light rail I pay for it. Every public transit system, e v e r y one, in the US loose money every year. The sole occasional exception (twice is the last 13 years) is MTA (NY city transit). And all these transit systems are horribly inefficient. You need only consider the resistive breaking systems and idle waste. Making gas more expensive (carbon tax) will at best make us all poorer, at worst make us poorer and move oil company headquarters...redistributing an industry to a more friendly countries. Likely this move will increase the companies bottom line. Exxon's 2010 profits before income tax...$53 billion. Exxon's 2010 income tax liabilities...$21.5 billion. Exxon's 2010 profits after income tax...$31.3 billion.
83924. michael sweet at 01:09 AM on 3 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Eric(skeptic) I still do not see why you insist that fossill fuel companies should get to pollute the air we all live in for free for ever. This pollution that will eventually kill millions of people should be stopped. The method Hansen has proposed to stop this unabated polluion of the atmosphere is to use a carbon tax. Why do you insist that FF companies should get to pollute my air for free?
83925. DSL at 01:00 AM on 3 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Actually, it's not Exxon doing the release of the CO2. They simply provide the drug. Like illegal (and legal) drug operations, they'll buy the cops and judges, and they'll hit hard against anyone who threatens their market. But they will not take responsibility for the results of the addiction. After all, drug use is a choice--right? There is one of the core problems for the libertarian philosophy. The culture that normalizes drug use, smoking, and unlimited fossil fuel consumption starts in childhood. When do children become fully responsible ethical/moral agents capable of simplifying the world into a series of contracts? When do they begin thinking beyond mating (the drive that blots out all other concerns), into their long future? If a young adolescent engages in smoking in order to be cool (attract a mate), as I did (and everyone else I know who smokes), did I have the ability to make a rational choice, knowing the consequences? Tobacco companies and addictive drug suppliers depend on young adolescents not having the ability. Children are easy targets. And once the behavior is normalized, it's very difficult to stop. The tremendous growth of the last 150 years is largely based on easy energy and the productive engine of capitalism. Both have been used with very little concern for either the externalities or sustainability. Whose fault is it? Who developed the culture? How is the cultural momentum maintained? When responsibility is subdivided and allowed to be bought and sold like any other commodity, then there is no responsibility. Whose responsibility is it, Eric (skeptic), when your carbon escapes your private space and enters mine? Get it out, or I'll start litigation. You'll have another, more complex lawsuit coming when your carbon redirects a third party's infrared heat and causes me discomfort. Ridiculous? It is, but it all lies on the same slope of private property relations. Garethman, the "right wing" is not "fringe"; it is currently the cultural norm in the U.S.: capitalism and Christianity. I'm not saying everyone wants or believes these features, but they do dominate everyday cultural reproduction.
83926. Eric (skeptic) at 00:48 AM on 3 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Eric the Red, yes we are different and I agree with you. Alexandre, my ideology is to have the government put the least amount of restriction on market efficiency. For example, I am unable to save money by using less peak power in my not-smart grid despite having lots of energy flexibility, some solar and batteries, etc. The problem is not particularly government but often local governments will run electric monopolies into the ground by preventing rate increases that would allow smart grid or even basic reliable service (in Maryland for example). On the Federal level, almost every Federal energy program is a waste, the Feds should stick to basic research. Many Federal policies work against energy efficiency, for example irradiation of food used mainly to promote long haul shipping. In contrast my local flea market has a ton of wholesome food without any way to spend food stamp money which has to be spent at the large supermarket. Tom, property rights with unlimited taxation are hardly rights. And if you insist on making my "out of context" quote into an issue, why don't you defend the remarks that I left out? Do you really believe that funding an institute that supports liberty is a crime against humanity? If so, I disagree most strongly. If not, please explain if Hansen meant something else. Utahn, the tobacco analogy is too stretched and is now broken. The science and economics promoted by CATO is not the same as denying the tobacco-cancer link, as the paper JMurphy linked above shows (property rights + rigorous analysis = good policy). CBD: very humorous, but that bar would soon go out of business.
83927. CBDunkerson at 00:35 AM on 3 June 2011
       Trenberth can't account for the lack of warming
       Well, the words before the start of the quotation you give are, "...analysis of model results suggests that...". Basically, they found that 'slowdowns' in upper ocean warming similar to what has been observed recently also show up in many model runs... and when they do the reason is consistently that the heat has been deposited deeper in the oceans. That is suggestive but certainly not definitive.
83928. Bob Lacatena at 00:30 AM on 3 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       192, apiratelooksat50,

       On another website...

       People being rude and angry on the Internet? What a shock! Who'd have thunk it? So look at a site (like some you have mentioned) where the regulars routinely gang up on and belittle anyone who disagrees with the site's party-line (i.e. WUWT), and treat it as you should when you were the recipient of the vitriol, i.e. get the heck out of there. By contrast, look at a site where the conversation tends towards logical dialogue. Because it is a controversial subject with passionate participants, you must expect a fair degree of frustration and anger to eventually get through. But I would point out that if you read most comment threads (not this one, because the subject is so not-science) you will find that the little, subtle digs and the nastiness tend to come from the deniers, and that the number of purely abusive comments is nothing compared to the threads on Watts' or Nova's sites. [On those sites, when you start to make incontrovertible scientific points, a legion of people descends with nothing more to do than cast aspersions on the commenters themselves.] Most of what you see here is [snip]s and complaints about moderation from deniers who want to be able to unilaterally bypass the comments policy, because they're right so they deserve to get the word out. At the same time, they perceive the gravest personal insults themselves in others' comments (because they literally can't see the difference, they are so blinded by their own anger and personal opinions). Sorry, but you don't have a leg to stand on with a complaint about either behavior, or moderation, if you think WUWT is a great place to visit.

       ...WUWT and SKS are both good places to start...

       WUWT is not a good place to start, it's a travesty of misinformation, misrepresentation, conspiracy theories, vitriolic anger, and quite simply time wasting. Anyone who goes there to do anything but laugh at it is going to come back confused, and anyone who thinks that it is a worthwhile place to go is confused. Go to serious places, and study harder and learn more. The moment you see invective -- accusations of fraud or dishonesty, conspiracy or the word "money," anger at professional scientists for doing their jobs (right or wrong in their conclusions) or the implications of the results -- move on. That's not to say that such invective does not have its place. There are definitely dishonest scientists somewhere in the mix, in my opinion, but what the true skeptic should be doing is to develop the understanding, knowledge and skills to be easily able to identify those personalities themselves, without being told by trumpeting ideologues like certain bloggers or blog commenters.

       I agree with the denier statement, but that does not and should not cover skeptics.

       The day I meet an actual skeptic, I'll let you know. Until then, IMO, anyone who thinks they are a skeptic needs to wake up and admit to themselves that they are a denier (yourself included). Until they do so, they are closed to the truth, avoiding the actual facts and science, and fooling themselves by clinging to a belief in what they'd like to be true. [Actually I have met true skeptics... that would be anyone who believes in climate change now, because they must have been appropriately skeptical, and appropriately open minded, at some time.] The reason that I make those last statements so adamantly is because the science is very, very clear (contrary to denial efforts to portray it otherwise). There are fringe gray areas, where there is room for doubt in degrees, but overall, anyone who actually has studied and understands the science should be very, very afraid. Climate change will not obviously kill anyone in the next decade or two, but our actions are irreversible, and what we do in the next decade or two will almost certainly have dire effects on the lives of our children, grandchildren, and many generations thereafter. If you are able to find convenient reasons not to accept that fact, then you are not a skeptic, and you need to study more.
83929. CBDunkerson at 00:21 AM on 3 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Eric (sceptic) wrote: "The paper's argument is that the owner of the establishment owns the air inside of it..." Ownership of air? Good luck with that. "Hey! That's my air you're breathing! There's a $0.25 cent charge per lungfull!"
83930. michael sweet at 00:13 AM on 3 June 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
       Ken: JimHansen draws a conclusion from 6 years of Argo dat abecasue that is all the data that is available. As more comes in it will be added and the result will be more robust. When you add the pre-Argo data you get a longer record. As for you wanting to know when China will stop buying coal I agree it may be a while, that depends on the politics. On the other hand, eventually the coal will run out and China will have to stop burning it. It seems to me that you are suggesting that if the time the Faustian bargain comes due is after you are gone you do not care. Some of care about what our children and grandchildren have to deal with.
83931. Utahn at 00:10 AM on 3 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Eric(skeptic): "Exxon is simply protecting their rights to their property." I have not met many libertarians who go to this extreme, so of course they may not be "true" libertarians. So tobacco companies are within their right to deceive the public in order to protect their property too? The tobacco scientists told their companies the same thing, "we have a problem", and their companies did the same thing with that information. Garethman: "So for every extreme right wing believer, there will be an extreme left wing ideologue, for every barking mad right wing religionist there will be an evangelical atheist." Really? Is there actual evidence of this fact? I would think it depends on the decade or era you are in, the topic being considered, etc... For example, with regard to global warming action, what is the center of belief? Are there more libertarian viewpoints (no regulation of C02) on this issue, or more communist viewpoints (complete government control of C02 emissions)? In my view, the centrist view "some government regulation" exists, but outside the center, far more people take an extremist libertarian view, than take an extremist communist view...
83932. Tom Curtis at 23:30 PM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       EricSkeptic @184, 1) Hansen does not want to confiscate any property, SFAIK. He wants to tax certain emissions, but taxation is not theft, and is not confiscation of property. At its simplest, any person holding a property right holds that right from the state as societies agent. They hold that right conditional on those conditions imposed by the state in granting the property right, and one of those conditions is the right of taxation. Hansen also wants the state not to grant some particular types of property rights in the future, ie, rights to mine coal, oil shale, tar sands, and so on. But these are not property rights currently held, and no person or corporation has a right, of can have a right to compell the state to grant them property rights they do not possess. Finally, Hansen also wants the state to not continue granting permission to various entities to continue dumping their rubbish in to the commons, ie, CO2 emissions into air. But the air, as commons is not the property of any individual or corporation, so no individual or corporation has a right to use it as a dumping ground as part of their property rights in any other property. 2) It is extraordinarily hypocritical of you to first raise Hansen's statements in a misleading way, and then to condemn an explanation of them as "inflammatory". If you read my comments again, I accused nobody of any crime. I said I doubted one of Hansen's premises, and that further doubted a prosecutable case could be made in any event. I clearly stated that a fair minded person could disagree with Hansen on the factual basis in this issue. There is a real question as to what could be considered inflammatory in my 168, except by one keen to take offence and not particularly concerned if the remarks warranted the offence taken. Or perhaps you are defending your right to quote out of context and not be picked up on it? 3) I quite agree that motivation is a key issue, and did not draw any conclusions about any other funders of CATO for that reason among others. I do not even draw Hansen's conclusion about the fossil fuel industry because I am uncertain about their motives. And frankly, I don't care how carefully you claim to have studied the issue; you daily prove on SkepticalScience that your study has been sloppy, cherry picked or ideologically driven.
83933. Ken Lambert at 23:27 PM on 2 June 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
       scaddenup #19 Bern #20 I have not read the latest Trenberth paper - but I will study it over the weekend. Thanks for bringing it to everyone's attention. The ocean heat story was done to death here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=3&t=132&&n=723 Pay attention to the KL and BP posts - most informative. I did not claim 'zero' heat buildup. I said "Other OHC constructions approach zero". As far as I know VS is the only 0-2000m Argo analysis. K&D found little or none in the 0-700m layers. P&J found about 0.1W/sq.m in the deep oceans below 2000m. To be pedantic, 0.1 is closer to zero than 0.9. e - I never said 'statistically significant in referring to Hansen. I said "Maybe he thought it was significant." Would "Maybe he thought it was important" do?
83934. apiratelooksat50 at 23:24 PM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Tom Curtis @ 138 1) While the vitriol may do poorly influence the casual reader, the fair minded casual reader will probably be more concerned about the side that sends death threats along with a torrent of vitriol both by email and in blogs; Response: I would rather not wade into finger pointing. It accomplishes nothing and only inhibits progress. Both sides are guilty of ill-mannered behavior. On another website I've received death threats and was even accused of "being a Christian", as if it were evil. 2) While possibly concerned at the frustration so evident in Sphaerica's comments, the fair minded reader would have been more concerned by the casual accusations and insinuations of fraud by scientists which have been posted by deniers on this site over the last two days, and which can be found in overwhelming numbers on denier sites, often accompanied with self congratulating posts about how high a standard of debate, and how polite the debate is on those sites. It is noticable that those accusations and insinuations pass without censor from you, while you argue that the websites that started those accusations are good sites for students to use as sources when studying science. Response: I never said such. I stated that WUWT and SKS are both good places to start, but the true sources of information should be the ultimate goal (NASA, NOAA, University of Colorado, etc...). 3) Any chance of reconciliation between climate science and deniers is entirely illusory and has been for some time. This is because the scientists insist on reporting reality, and its reality that the deniers have a problem with. Response: I agree with the denier statement, but that does not and should not cover skeptics.
       Response:

       [DB] "Response: I never said such."

       Actually, you were counseled against committing such behaviour here.

       BTW, I hope your Achilles tendon is feeling better.

83935. GuillaumeDrapeau at 23:15 PM on 2 June 2011
       Amazon drought: A death spiral? (Part 3: 2005 & 2010 droughts)
       Dear all, an article by Espinoza et al. presenting the conditions that led to the 2010 drought just got accepted for publication in GRL. You can find a preprint draft following the link below: https://sites.google.com/site/jhancarloespinoza/pubicaciones/Espinoza_etal_2011_GRL.pdf?attredirects=0 Another paper by Marengo et al. was accepted in the same journal as well. Best regards, Guillaume
       Response:

       [DB] Hot-linked URL.

83936. SoundOff at 23:09 PM on 2 June 2011
       Trenberth can't account for the lack of warming
       Follow-up ... It looks like the missing heat in Earth’s energy budget has been found. Apparently, it’s in the deep ocean. The paper below concludes “the ocean has absorbed considerably more heat than reported by observations, particularly below 700 m”. Tracking Earth’s energy: From El Niño to global warming Kevin E. Trenberth and John T. Fasullo National Center for Atmospheric Research May 15, 2011 Tracking Earth’s energy: From El Niño to global warming
83937. Bern at 23:03 PM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Eric(skeptic): what makes you think the fossil fuel companies actually own the carbon they peddle? They are permitted to dig it up and sell it in return for giving the state a cut, but it's not theirs to begin with. If the state (or the majority of voting citizens of the state) decides it doesn't want them to dig it up any more, what legal right do they have to do so?
83938. CBDunkerson at 22:42 PM on 2 June 2011
       Database of peer-reviewed papers: classification problematics
       Eric the Red wrote: "In such a scenario, temperatures would continue to rise as CO2 increased, but the climate sensitivity would be low as only 30% of the observed increase was a result of CO2." I've been trying for several minutes now and I still can't get the above to make any kind of sense. How much warming is caused by CO2 vs solar vs UHI and so forth is irrelevant to climate sensitivity. Climate sensitivity refers to the response of feedbacks to forcings. The only feedback you listed was 10% of warming being due to albedo changes. Ergo, the scenario you set up has extremely low climate sensitivity because the only feedback effect which exists is changing albedo and that is generating much less warming than the three forcings and one internal fluctuation you list. You could change your numbers to 90% CO2 / 10% albedo or 0% CO2 / 90% solar / 10% albedo and the climate sensitivity would be exactly the same... determined by a single 10% albedo factor.
83939. Eric the Red at 22:34 PM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Alexandre, First note that I am not teh same Eric. A direct carbon tax may be efficient, as long as it is not set up similar to the European cap and trade. The net result is no net change in CO2 output, with vast profits made by middle men (not to mention abuse). Remember, it was Enron who first proposed a cap and trade, because they wished to make billions off the trading market similar to their profits in the sulfur market. Some argue that they bet their future on the cap and trade market, ultimately leading to their downfall (of course the company was basically a house of cards waiting to fall anyway). Going with the assumption in your last paragraph, a combination of government taxes and credits may work best, gradualy phasing out as new technologies become common.
83940. Eric the Red at 22:17 PM on 2 June 2011
       Database of peer-reviewed papers: classification problematics
       Thanks Ari, Other posters seemed unable to comprehend the hypothetical situation, they seemed to get caught up in the actually numbers that I pulled out of the air. I purposely chose a situation were CO2 was the largest factor, but did not predominate, which was my main purpose. In such a scenario, temperatures would continue to rise as CO2 increased, but the climate sensitivity would be low as only 30% of the observed increase was a result of CO2. I would tend to classify papers which portray a low climate sensitivity as pro-agw also, although on a different thread running, I have seen people who believe this called deniers. Interesting dichotomy.
83941. Alexandre at 22:06 PM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Eric (skeptic) at 20:26 PM on 2 June, 2011 It seems to me that libertarians, in its over-individualistic approach, end up ignoring some emerging properties of collectivities. Diffuse externalities are something that become a problem only when done collectively by large groups. Coase's theorem is rendered useless by the practical impossibility of individual negotiation of rights, even if the externality as a whole is huge and undesired by virtually everyone. I see the carbon tax as an efficient way to internalize these externalities. It is also a fine compromise between the need to manage the externality and keeping individual rights as much as possible - it allows much more freedom than direct regulation of who can do what, for instance. I understand the Cato approach very similar to Heartland's (feel free to explain some difference I'm failing to grasp): since you cannot solve the problem simply by laissez-faire, the way out they're left with is to deny the problem itself. I suggest an exercise of imagination: consider for a moment AGW is real, and the scientific consensus is there just because the evidence points that way. What would be an acceptable policy to tackle this that would respect your ideological beliefs?
83942. Eric the Red at 22:06 PM on 2 June 2011
       Amazon drought: A death spiral? (part 2:climate models)
       Definitely. From about 1977-2005, El Ninos predominated. It is too early to extend that trend past 2005. Prior to that (back to 1950), La Ninas predominated. Most publications maintain a cyclical nature to the ENSO index, with a period of about 30 years. Much has been written about whether global warming is causing the El Nino increase, or whether the increase in El Ninos has resulted in warmer temperatures. Either way, the connection cannot be denied. Several predictions have been made recently that globally cooler temperatures will prevail this decade due to La Ninas. Stay tuned.
83943. Eric (skeptic) at 20:26 PM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       The paper's argument is that the owner of the establishment owns the air inside of it and his customers can decide whether their health is being risked by being there. That argument and the paper have merit and I support CATO's publishing of it.
83944. JMurphy at 19:48 PM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Is anyone else surprised, considering previous examples of AGW deniers also being Smoking/Cancer deniers, that CATO should have published this : The Case Against Smoking Bans
83945. Eric (skeptic) at 19:25 PM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       scaddenp, in the actual case of CATO being unacceptably silent on a libertarian issue (bank bailouts in 08) I wrote an email and got a full reply and there was some change eventually. I would do the same for disinformation. Dana, you missed my point, I didn't deny that Exxon funded CATO and I welcome their support of one of my favorite organizations. CATO's support of individual rights is outstanding. Tom, is it true that Hansen wishes to confiscate the property of fossil fuel companies or not? I don't see it anything other than true, his proposed fossil fuel tax does not refund any monies to the owners of the fossil fuels. Another point you may not realize is that your 401k is probably invested in some fossil fuel corporations that are not very well known as such. As for my comment being snippable, yes you are basically correct; it violates the policy against inflammatory comments. I made it because of your comment 168 which is also inflammatory. You would probably disagree and I don't envy the moderators, a no-win situation on threads like this that are inherently political and especially this thread which directly speaks to the question of motivation. My basic point is this: the difference between deniers like Exxon who funded CATO and myself (whatever label people use) is primarily motivation. Exxon is simply protecting their rights to their property. I defend libertarian principles having carefully studied the lack of direct evidence for CAGW (vice AGW) as well as the practical aspects of policy such as international trade (exporting our carbon emissions to China, etc)
83946. garethman at 17:36 PM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Dhogaza And what does "complete belief in climate change models" mean, anyway? No modeler holds that view. No serious student of the subject holds that view. Yet, they've proven themselves useful” To say no “Modeler?” holds that view is to deny their humanity and give them some sort of quality not usually seen in H.Sapiens. I’m looking at the people side of the debate. Humanity covers a wide field of beliefs. Most are not radical. but the fringes are covered in all directions. So for every extreme right wing believer, there will be an extreme left wing ideologue, for every barking mad right wing religionist there will be an evangelical atheist. I note there is the use of the word denier here to describe posters who reject current accepted thought. They could be also called dissidents, dissenters or lots of other titles, but deniers being generally used only in holocaust or climate related subjects is a powerful term. If we take the idea that beliefs in humans are at the end of the day spread out like a bell curve withe majority in the centre and the radical at the fringe, deniers must have an opposite group. I note in reading many passionate responses from pro and anti proponents of established science and belief, but only the anti appear to have been named and quantified. Hence my question. To doubt such a situation exists with regard to how people view the world and this subject could be described as denialist in itself. So how do we describe the mirror image of climate denialists? Posters may feel that the science is objective and largely proven so these theories are not relevant, but humans are still subjective with their own beliefs, especially when all agree there is room for doubt.
83947. Ari Jokimäki at 16:45 PM on 2 June 2011
       Database of peer-reviewed papers: classification problematics
       Few responses: Eric the Red: "For instance, where would you classifiy a paper which concluded that global temperatures were influenced by the following factors in the given percentages? CO2:30%, solar: 25%, UHI: 20%, ENSO: 15:, albedo: 10%." As the CO2 is dominant factor, and without knowing anything else about this hypothetical paper, I would put it to "pro-agw" bin. The Skeptical Chymist: "1) It would be good to be able to suggest deletion of articles or movement of articles between categories." You are welcome to do it here. I have moved the American thinker paper to "online articles" instead of "peer-reviewed". Thanks for the note. The Skeptical Chymist: "A paper listed in the 2010 skeptic articles is "Marine Reserves Enhance the Recovery of Corals on Caribbean Reefs", which is also listed under the myth "Corals are resilient to bleaching". Having had a quick look at the abstract and introduction it seems this paper is not skeptical about AWG or the threat of coral reef bleaching, but has identified a mechanism which can help reefs recovering faster from bleaching events. IMHO this paper belongs in the neutral section." Agreed. I have moved it to "neutral" bin, but if someone disagrees with this, please say so (with justification - simple indication of disagreement doesn't help much). Barry: "Hey Ari, nice to see you posting here." Thanks. I have actually made a couple of posts here before. One was on deep ocean warming and other one was just recently on a new cosmic ray research. I don't remember if there were other articles too. There's also one in the works right now. Pete Dunkelberg: "Your very first word is "Database". I don't know if you mean that, or if you are using a spreadsheet." This is a SQL database we're using.
83948. RSVP at 16:29 PM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       John Donovan 181 That something cooler (an igloo's ice wall for instance) can make something warmer (the igloo's inhabitant), is nothing new, but the article unfortunately attempts to prey on the reader's lack of preparedness on this subject. As far a the diagram on back radiation, it shows vectors of equal length pointing up and down, whereas there should be an overall preference for those pointing upward to be greater, for even though the CO2 molecules will in principal want to radiate isotropically, there is a higher probability for this energy to emanate towards "something" cooler (i.e. skyward). This is not unlike resistances in a parallel circuit. As you increase the number of passive resistors in parallel, the resitance decreases.
       Moderator Response: The appropriate thread is 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory .
83949. L.J. Ryan at 15:01 PM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       ( -SNIP- )
       Response:

       [DB] You have been counseled in proper posting here at SkS numerous times now, yet you persist in posting the same ideological off-topic comment that has not passed moderation yet.  If you persist in this endeavor, your participation privileges here at SkS will be rescinded.  Your call.

83950. Tom Curtis at 14:43 PM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Just one note for the fair minded casual reader: You will notice that Eric(Sceptic) in his post 169 does not acknowledge that deliberately deceiving people in the full knowledge that it will probably result in hundreds of thousands of deaths is in fact criminal. That should put into context this (as dhogaza puts it) faux outrage. You will also notice that in his outrage that anyone should libel anyone, he slips in an utterly baseless accusation that Hansen was motivated in statement because "...he wishes to confiscate the property of those companies...". He even, again without basis accuses Hansen of using a contrived method, ie, of lying about his claims of fossil fuel funding of deniers. This clearly puts into context the contrived outrage of the deniers regarding the vitriol from a poster on this thread. Their outrage is entirely without self reflection. Frequent commentators on this site are used to fresh new deniers coming on, posting a screed of nonsense complete with accusations of fraud or worse, including the most belittling language - ie, of treating it as though the standards here are the standards of WUWT. They are then outraged to have their post snipped. Even many long term denier contributors (all for all I know) habitually include sly imputations of fraud, or insulting language on a regular basis, and complain if it is snipped.

Prev  1671  1672  1673  1674  1675  1676  1677  1678  1679  1680  1681  1682  1683  1684  1685  1686  Next