Recent Comments

Prev  1772  1773  1774  1775  1776  1777  1778  1779  1780  1781  1782  1783  1784  1785  1786  1787  Next

Comments 88951 to 89000:

88951. Gilles at 19:04 PM on 13 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       "There already exists perfectly feasible substitutes for oil, but its going to take time to make the switch-the fact that you continue to choose *not* to accept that such a switch is possible only speaks to your ideological-based blindness on this matter." I'm curious to know which "ideology" I'm supposed to have - it's just a matter of productivity of liquids hydrocarbons, you know. You can check that it has been used by *every* ideology, religion, or culture. Just take the list of main oil producers in the world, this is enough to see that oil is used by all industrial societies, totally irrespective of any ideological or cultural origin: Saudi Arabia Russia (former Soviet union) USA Mexico Iran Canada Nigeria Brazil "A) it is possible when non-intermittent and steerable hydro and geothermal power is available - otherwise, it's just wishful thinking up to now." Well, so you keep on claiming, but you've not exactly been too upfront with too much *evidence* to prove your point"" Marcus I am not *claiming* anything, I'm *asking* you if there is a country whose electrical grid is mainly power by non-hydro , renewable sources. It is not a *claim*, it is a *question*. Do you understand your own language ? I'm really curious to know which ideological common feature you can find between all these countries ... B) "....and, yet again, you've provided *no proof* that they aren't economically feasible. " Again, I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm asking you to explain why, if you think it is possible, it has never been achieved anywhere, even in the most favorable cases. I concentrate on Iceland because it is a perfect benchmark for me, since everything converges to make it an ideal case. If it has *not* been achieved there, where the hell do you think it will be ? "The reality is that *no* source of energy was, at its outset, economically feasible-but that didn't stop them being adopted." Actually, the reality is just the opposite, but you may need to refresh some historical facts : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Rockefeller For electric furnaces , i repeat : we don't know how to reduce economically iron oxide without carbon - and that's true even in electric furnaces. If you want to produce the current steel production with charcoal - do it. Good luck. "C) "well, not bad ... what do you think is the growth rate ?" Totally irrelevant. Those numbers were from 2 years back, & are simply *proof* that it *is* possible to substitute oil for our transportation needs & that, as the infrastructure is put in place, that substitution will continue apace. " No - it is simply a proof that a rich country can make some advertising on "green technologies" on a very small scale, but quickly stops spending useless money when they're in deep economic trouble, and cannot afford anyway these expensive "danseuses", as we say in French. http://www.eenews.net/public/climatewire/2009/07/01/1
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Please can both sides steer clear of discussion of ideology. Many thanks in advance.
88952. Bruce Frykman at 18:56 PM on 13 April 2011
       There is no consensus
       This is index number 329
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] There has been some deleting of posts that contravene the comments policy, but some replies to those comments may still be present. Please can we all re-start the discussion in a more moderate impersonal tone, and try to keep on-topic.
88953. Dikran Marsupial at 18:44 PM on 13 April 2011
       Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
       RSVP@366 Sorry RSVP, you can't ignore observations that refute your theory by saying there are "just a bump in the road". If the warming is due to waste heat, the warming would be highest were it is generated and would be less the further away from where it is generated as the heat diffuses out. The faster rate of warming in the Arctic than elsewhere directly refutes that theory. [incorrect P.S. snipped]
88954. RSVP at 18:32 PM on 13 April 2011
       Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
       Bibliovermis 365 "You are still wrong and no amount of repetition of your misconceptions will make them correct" It doesnt matter if I am wrong, in the sense that the waste heat that is accumulating doesnt care if you are right or I am wrong. No amount of beautiful theories about GHG is going to stop it. Anyone really paying attention will start looking for a good place to live. In the end, (as as always) its going to be every man for himself.
88955. Gilles at 18:29 PM on 13 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       [snip]
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Gilles, Marcus made many substantive points in his post that you could usefully address, notably provision of evidence, rather than concentrating on a (now moderated) inflamatory throw-away line at the end. Please do so, so that I don't need to waste any more of my time moderating your inflamatory responses.
88956. RSVP at 18:26 PM on 13 April 2011
       Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
       DM 364 You might want to browse here: http://www.epa.gov/heatisld/ ...where it says, "In the evening, the difference can be as high as 22°F (12°C)." Are you telling me that temperatures are over 12°C in the Artic? I doubt it. Heat can only transfer from something warmer to something cooler, and will always tend to spread as well. So while you may have a local change, the net energy flow will always be towards the Artic, not from the Artic (assuming the Artic is an overall cooler place). On the otherhand, I will not deny an acute non linearity affecting temperature in polar region's if there is now water where before there was ice. This situation however is just a bump in the road as we are talking about "global" warming.
88957. Bruce Frykman at 18:25 PM on 13 April 2011
       There is no consensus
       RE: les - 323 "Ammeter time in argumentation, I see. Make a vague statement that something ill defined doesn't exist and ask for it to be refuted? You will really have to raise your game if you want to engage here." Let us see if this one meets your profile: If "we" [excludes the power elite].... don't break "our" [your] "addiction to fossil fuels" [access to free energy markets], then "n years from now" [after we are all dead] the earth will experience a "feverish" temperature rise that "may" [or equally may not] be .6 C above "natural variability" [that we cannot hope to quantify]. Now "deniers" have never been able to disprove this wonderful scientific theory. Therefore AGW science is "settled" Help, the coulombs are melting my computer.
       Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Still have yet to see any actual evidence on any of these points. Forget the ammeter, worry about the credibility meter.
88958. Gilles at 18:15 PM on 13 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       DM : "evidence" of what ? I'm just reminding that the 0.9 W/m2 value is by no means the outcome of measurements - there is no "evidence" to justify or deny, it just that it hasn't been computed from experimental values, but from computer modeling, which has never been considered as experimental evidence in any field of science I know.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] You know perfectly well that the plot you gave was intended as evidence of the uncertainty in the energy budget. However, you were overstating your case by using raw measurements rather than cross-calibrated ones. The fact that you haven't simply admitted that and are still blustering speaks volumes. In science, the best approach is to present the strongest argument that the opposition cannot pick holes in, not just the strongest argument you can present. Why do you think Trenberth (and indeed the majority of climatologists) openly discusses the weak points in the science?
88959. Ken Lambert at 18:06 PM on 13 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       Gilles #63 Quite right. The CERES imbalnce is actually +6.4W/sq.m which is 'corrected' down to +0.9W/sq.m. There have been several threads on this site which discuss this 'imbalance' problem and the circular argument which rationalizes it to a 'measured +0.9W/sq.m. The 0.9W/sq.m comes from maths and modelling (Hansen 2005) and is reported in IPCC AR4 Fig2.4 (+1.6W/sq.m) *plus* Dr Trenberth's estimate of climate responses which sum to a total of (-0.7W/sq.m). +1.6 - 0.7 = 0.9W/sq.m
88960. MichaelM at 18:05 PM on 13 April 2011
       There is no consensus
       Well Bruce @326, at least you seem to be in agreement with the main topic of this thread; there is scientific consensus on global warming. It is the orthodox position and if you are going to challenge it I suggest providing evidence.
88961. Bibliovermis at 17:58 PM on 13 April 2011
       Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
       RSVP, We've been round & round on this back in October and before. You admitted that anthropogenic heat flux radiates just like solar heat flux does, but still insisted that anthropogenic heat accumulates. Trains and oranges and lakes, oh my! You are still wrong and no amount of repetition of your misconceptions will make them correct. Increasing the input will only cause a level increase if the output is restricted.
88962. Gilles at 17:45 PM on 13 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       DM : of course you can try to correct from systematics from each instruments, but this is notoriously difficult, and again Trenberth himself states very clearly that the 0.9 W/m2 number is *not* the outcome of precise measurements.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] All instrumental data is "imprecise" by definition, there are always sources of bias, drift and other calibration issues. These always need to be properly considered. Rejecting evidence because it is not the outcome of precise measurements is irrational, uncertain meaurements still contain information. In science, overstating the strength of your argument by inappropriate use of evidence is considered a bad thing. Investigating the ACRIM-v-PMOD difference and re-stating your argument based on less over-stated evidence would have been far more useful than the above bluster. Oh well, you can lead a horse to water...
88963. Marcus at 17:34 PM on 13 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       @ Gilles. "and what is the point that oil is needed for transportation ? (but also for fishing for instance, and some left is used for heating where geothermal warmth is not available). Isn't transportation necessary for a modern economy ?" I keep on telling you, Gilles, but you keep on choosing *not* to listen-its a *very* annoying habit of yours. There already exists perfectly feasible substitutes for oil, but its going to take time to make the switch-the fact that you continue to choose *not* to accept that such a switch is possible only speaks to your ideological-based blindness on this matter. "A) it is possible when non-intermittent and steerable hydro and geothermal power is available - otherwise, it's just wishful thinking up to now." Well, so you keep on claiming, but you've not exactly been too upfront with too much *evidence* to prove your point. There are plenty of examples, across the globe, where various renewable energy technologies are *already* being used in a non-intermittent & steerable fashion. That's not wishful thinking, that's *here* & *now*-again, its only your ideologically based *blindness* that prevents you from seeing that (you'd much rather rely on fossil fuel industry propaganda). B) "again - you mix up technical feasibility and economical one - the issue is to replace them at no cost, for a given standard of living." ....and, yet again, you've provided *no proof* that they aren't economically feasible. Seriously, I might accept some of your more outlandish claims if you could provide even a *shred* of data to back up your claims-well, data from sources that aren't obviously fossil fuel industry propaganda (which, it seems, is all you bother to read). The reality is that *no* source of energy was, at its outset, economically feasible-but that didn't stop them being adopted. It took *decades* & many billions of dollars-in todays money-to get coal-fired electricity prices down, even to the level that fuel cells & renewable energy *started* at. However, your attitude seems to be that, no matter there starting cost, we should *never* ever switch to renewable energy-even though those starting costs are already competitive, with fewer subsidies, with fossil fuels. "Electric furnaces only oxidize carbon rich iron cast, or recycle already used metallic pieces, either by mixing them with iron cast, or by using carbon electrodes." Again, you've proven your inability to *read*. I never said otherwise. Funny, though, how more & more smelters are switching *away* from blast furnaces & towards arc furnaces. I guess you'd better tell them that they're *all wrong* to do that. "We don't know how to produce the current quantity of steel without coke." Again, so you keep claiming, but once again your claims are short on *facts*. As I've already said before, all you need is a substance that is as "willing"-if not more-to give up electrons to the metal oxide as carbon is. Not that I can see any reason why the carbon has to be fossil fuel based. I've already read about how they're using organic sources of carbon (like Biochar) to reduce metal oxides. Seems thats another claim thats short on actual fact, but long on ideology. C) "well, not bad ... what do you think is the growth rate ?" Totally irrelevant. Those numbers were from 2 years back, & are simply *proof* that it *is* possible to substitute oil for our transportation needs & that, as the infrastructure is put in place, that substitution will continue apace. [small snip]
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Please can we keep the discussion as impersonal and scientific as possible (whatever the perceived provocation).
88964. Dikran Marsupial at 17:12 PM on 13 April 2011
       Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
       RSVP@363 So can you explain why the Arctic is warming faster than the industrialised regions that are actually producing the waste heat?
88965. Tom Curtis at 16:59 PM on 13 April 2011
       There is no consensus
       Bruce Frykman @323, the correct suposition when a debater breaks up his opponents sentences line by line, or into even smaller fragments, as you do, is tht the debater is dishonest, and cannot rebut their opponent when the sentences are taken in context. This impression is reinforced when they treat metaphor as literal utterances. I have no time for such fools, and hence not time for you. I will only comment that if you are going to push conspiracy theories of science (as you are), then at least be honest enough to call it what it is. If scientists are deliberately not reporting adverse results, and discuss together how to avoid the adverse results coming to light as you maintain, then they are involved in a conspiracy.
88966. Gilles at 16:46 PM on 13 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       "Hang on!!! What?!? No cost? Why? Given the huge costs of inaction, it makes perfect sense to do this even at substantial cost," but it is at the expense of a substantial cost, how wouldn't it affect economy ? I'm rather lost in your various estimates of what increasing costs can produce, following what you're arguing : sometimes they don't produce anything (for instance in SRES BAU growth scenarios, the fact that cheap conventional resources will be exhausted and replaced by expensive unconventional resources doesn't seem to have any effect on their consumption !) , sometimes it is supposed to provoke recessions (peak oil fears), sometimes it just lead people to switch to other sources ... the economic rules seem to be very flexible following what we want to demonstrate !
88967. les at 16:44 PM on 13 April 2011
       There is no consensus
       316 Frykman "My primary support of this is the near certain fact that any such funding is either minuscule or non-existent. I look forward to your refutation of my proposition." Ammeter time in argumentation, I see. Make a vague statement that something ill defined doesn't exist and ask for it to be refuted? You will really have to raise your game if you want to engage here. To help you do that I suggest you look at a certain Mr. PoopDrecks list of "anti-AGW publications". The reason to do this is that what you'll find is that the whole idea is totally meaningless in reality. The reality of the practice of science is no one has ever had a grant or got a job to prove or disprove AGW. Working scientist - which I'd hazard you have absolutely no experience of - get jobs and grants (public funding, at least) to go measure things, do analysis, build models; which reflect and improve our understanding of reality - another thing I'd hazard you are a stranger to. If you find a public funded grant which sets out to prove or disprove an ideology - that would be a bad thing and should be queried. That's been tried here and there - see, for example, Cucinelli V Mann - and, to date, has failed. The failure of such law suites is, so far as it goes, a legal refutation of your proposition. However, none of that applies to private funding, as for example the funding of the Koch brothers - which is targeted specifically at people who promise, although may fail, to disprove AGW. I've no doubt that's a waste of typing. And, unless you take advice and raise your game; you won't get much more.
88968. RSVP at 16:44 PM on 13 April 2011
       Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
       muoncounter 361 One could ask a similar questions about AGW. A so called GHG "fingerprint" would show up as higher high temperatures in arid sunny climates. I dont know if this has been observed, but I have not seen anything mentioned on this. On the other hand, a waste heat "fingerprint" would be all temperatures everywhere generally going up as this heat slowly gets spread around, which is what I do think is happening. This is space ship Earth, not unlike the satellite I described in 359. We are taking everything with us. We are liberating stored energy that has been trapped for millions of years and dont even realize why it getting warmer. Eventually something will click. Perhaps when fussion makes this more obvious.
88969. Gilles at 16:41 PM on 13 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       202 : My argument was that the natural increase of the resource extraction cost would have exactly the same effect - and actually this increase has been much larger than any tax these last years. You seem to miss a point : that the amount of FF that could threaten the Earth in FF intensive scenario can only be produce at an expensive cost anyway, because cheap FF are much less than that. So why would a carbon tax discourage people from using FF that would be sold anyway at a much higher cost than that a tax can produce ? either they're not discouraged by the extraction cost - and won't be either by a tax. Or they would be discouraged by a tax - but by high extraction costs as well. In both cases, the tax doesn't have any significant effect - which is precisely what is observed. Historically, taxes had some interest in the past when FF were cheap - the interest of sparing them and making them last a little bit longer. But this time is mainly over.
88970. RSVP at 16:33 PM on 13 April 2011
       Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
       KR 360 If my "thesis" were false, there would be no such thing as social security... the idea that if you tuck away a small amount over time, after many years there will be a significant pile left over. Another simple analogy is electronic circuit drift. In this circuit, "ground" is floating, and slowly rising. Unless for some natural causes the overall backdrop average temperatures were decreasing, there is absolutely no reason for this energy not to accumulate, whereas you say "there is no plausable mechanism". It is my understanding that AGW assumes "all things being equal" in terms of the natural average trend, so if all things are equal, the added heat can only be accumulating. I am sure you would feel cheated if the gov. told you they spent your social security pension, and you might want to remark on this if you care to reply.
88971. e at 16:19 PM on 13 April 2011
       There is no consensus
       Bruce >"My primary support of this is the near certain fact that any such funding is either minuscule or non-existent. I look forward to your refutation of my proposition." >"Oh, finally is Dr Landsea now a "kook" or a "denier?" http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/landsea_bio.html" Oops, I think you just scored an own goal. Your argument was that skeptics are pressured out or unfunded by the government, but then you went and posted a link that shows a) Landsea is still in the employ of the government and b) listing the extensive research Landsea has been able to perform since since his IPCC resignation letter. What point are you trying to make again? If your argument is specifically about the IPCC, then please take it to one of the multiple IPCC threads listed here. This thread is about general consensus among climate scientists.
88972. Dan Moutal at 16:17 PM on 13 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       @ Gilles " the issue is to replace them [FFs] at no cost, for a given standard of living. " Hang on!!! What?!? No cost? Why? Given the huge costs of inaction, it makes perfect sense to do this even at substantial cost, even though the best estimates show the costs are minimal, and if history is any guide overestimated. I think you really need to stop, and take some time to think this through. It is abundantly clear that you haven't.
88973. Dan Moutal at 16:13 PM on 13 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       @ Gilles You are missing the point. Of course we don't know exactly how to create a fully FF free energy system. If we did we would just get the government to mandate the solution. But we don't know and that is WHY you implement a price on carbon. So the free market can figure out all those pesky details. It is damned good at doing just that. Nothing beats it. This has been explained often to you in this thread, and again in the interviews I asked you to listen too. But you continue in missing the point. Is it too much to ask that you keep on topic?
88974. Gilles at 16:05 PM on 13 April 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       after these interesting, on topic,s thoughts, do you have news from Lincoln sea ? where is it to be found online BTW ?
88975. scaddenp at 16:04 PM on 13 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       Oh and on "those subsidies were put in place to encourage exploration because a reliable fuel supply is absolutely necessary to ensure the security of our country. " You mean the government was deciding what was the most reliable fuel supply instead of the market? I don't buy it. If FF was the best answer then it didnt need a subsidy. Nuclear or renewables might be answer to current problem but I still wouldnt back subsidies for them. Set it up so market finds the best answer.
88976. Gilles at 15:54 PM on 13 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       Marcus : and what is the point that oil is needed for transportation ? (but also for fishing for instance, and some left is used for heating where geothermal warmth is not available). Isn't transportation necessary for a modern economy ? now for 187 : A) it is possible when non-intermittent and steerable hydro and geothermal power is available - otherwise, it's just wishful thinking up to now. B) again - you mix up technical feasibility and economical one - the issue is to replace them at no cost, for a given standard of living. For steel - it seems that you don't fully master the chemistry of oxidation and reduction. Electric furnaces only oxidize carbon rich iron cast, or recycle already used metallic pieces, either by mixing them with iron cast, or by using carbon electrodes. The carbon consumption is much lower just because you start basically from already reduced metals, and just have to reduce the small amount of oxides produced by roast. They don't work for mineral oxides. We don't know how to produce the current quantity of steel without coke. C) Well Iceland currently has around 50 hydrogen powered buses, both at home & abroad-which isn't bad for a program only started in 2005. well, not bad ... what do you think is the growth rate ?
88977. HumanityRules at 15:37 PM on 13 April 2011
       Solar Hockey Stick
       37 dana1981 There is nothing in that link about land use change or natural variation. There is nothing in the IPCC figure used in that post about these as well.
88978. Bruce Frykman at 15:36 PM on 13 April 2011
       There is no consensus
       RE: # scaddenp at 15:17 PM on 13 April, 2011 RE: "If you found replacement for current theory of climate that got human's off the hook, then a noble prize awaits e of you." The assumption you are making is that politically funded science is presumed to be of noble purpose. ( -Snip- ) RE: "You also seem to have the mistaken idea that funding is for "pro" and not "anti". In fact funding is for finding out what we dont know and the funders of science (unlike SPPI, Koch, Cato etc) are indifferent to what the outcome of the research is." ( -Snip- ) RE: "Your assumptions sir are flawed." This is simply cheap characterization lacking any proof.....Sir.
       Moderator Response: [DB] Political/ideological statements A-R-E-N-O-T-O-K. Discussion of the science = OK. Be advised: Last warning. Sir.
88979. Gilles at 15:34 PM on 13 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       les : I agree : it's a pity that so few people really read the papers and understand them. In Trenberth's paper , it is clearly stated that the 0.9 W/m2 is not the result of accurate measurements : " The Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) measurements from March 2000 to 2005 were used at top of atmosphere (TOA) but adjusted to an estimated imbalance from the enhanced greenhouse effect of 0.9± 0.5 W/m2 (with 90% confidence limits) [7]." So they're adjusted to an estimated imbalance level. And later : "We cannot track energy in absolute terms because the accuracy of several measurements is simply not good enough. This includes the TSI [4] and the Earth’s TOA energy budget [6,7,15]" Again : we don't have accurate measurements of the TOA energy budget, including the total incoming radiation on the Earth, with an accuracy enough to measure so a small imbalance of 0.9 W/m2. I think Trenberth himself states it very clearly. It's only a theoretical value -which hasn't yet been confirmed by measurements.
88980. HumanityRules at 15:31 PM on 13 April 2011
       Solar Hockey Stick
       Here's the last 2000 years of the SBF09 data for comparison.
88981. e at 15:26 PM on 13 April 2011
       There is no consensus
       Bruce, When you are sick, I presume you go to a doctor. Why not simply consult a bright engineer friend who reads about medicine as a hobby? After all, doctors are paid to heal illness; there are clear monetary pressures at play. They also possess the same "human weaknesses that the rest of us do." Why then should anyone bother listening to doctors at all? This is not a question of "are scientists perfect", it is a choice between opposing viewpoints. You can choose to listen to a) political pundits / bloggers / industry spokesman or b) scientists. Instead of telling us why we should not choose option b, how about you explain why you think option a is the more rational choice?
88982. shawnhet at 15:23 PM on 13 April 2011
       Solar Hockey Stick
       muoncounter:"I'm not sure what you think this means." It means that sometimes the relationship btw GCR and TSI is can be represented as TSI times a constant value and sometimes it can't. dana:"when you're talking about long-term temperature trends, which is what we're doing here, then it's the long-term trends in the forcings that matter. Short-term variations don't cause long-term trends." Well, I suppose that if you reduce all the data in a set to two linear trends then you can clearly represent value 1 as value 2 times a given factor. However, this value doesn't have a physical meaning. Further, there is nothing you can do with this. OTOH, by comparing the specifics of how these two values vary with respect to one another you might be able to tease their relative forcing values. Cheers, :)
88983. dana1981 at 15:21 PM on 13 April 2011
       Solar Hockey Stick
       HR:

       "Does your answer here not raise alarm bells for you?"

       Nope. As I've discussed elsewhere, we've measured and quantified these effects in recent decades. For example, see here.
88984. Gilles at 15:18 PM on 13 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       villabolo : I don't really see your point - but maybe you didn't see mine ? where did you see that I thought that "the heat pulse travelling down the ocean depths is going to stop where our instruments just happen to be?" I never stated such a thing !
88985. scaddenp at 15:17 PM on 13 April 2011
       There is no consensus
       Bruce. Bizarre I am sorry. In science you only get advancement and recognition by doing something different. If you found replacement for current theory of climate that got human's off the hook, then a noble prize awaits you. You also seem to have the mistaken idea that funding is for "pro" and not "anti". In fact funding is for finding out what we dont know and the funders of science (unlike SPPI, Koch, Cato etc) are indifferent to what the outcome of the research is. Your assumptions sir are flawed.
88986. Bruce Frykman at 15:15 PM on 13 April 2011
       There is no consensus
       RE: KR - 314 RE: "That word substitution does not change the core of your post: that scientists are conforming to political opinion/pressure rather than doing honest science." ( -Innuendo into character snipped- ) ( -Innuendo into character snipped- ) I do hope that you will take this opportunity to disabuse me of my impressions in this regard. ( -Ideological/political statements snipped- ) RE: "I consider it (although I'm not a moderator) well outside the limits of the Comments Policy." ( -Moderation complaints and ideological statements snipped- ) Tom Curtis - 310 "I can confidently tell you that your [my] theology is not better than your [my] science - which is deplorable." ( -Moderation complaints and ideological statements snipped- ) RE: KR at 14:37 PM on 13 April, 2011 "Space and time? Or lack of actual content?" The former, space and time. RE: "Landsea didn't provide evidence regarding his claims as far as I can tell;" Do you have evidence that Dr Landsea didn't have evidence? Silly argumentation isn't it. Please read Dr Landsea's letter of resignation and tell me why Dr Landsea needs to provide you more proof of what he said is what he said. http://sppiblog.org/news/dr-chris-landsea-leaves-the-ipcc#more-743 Oh, finally is Dr Landsea now a "kook" or a "denier?" http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/landsea_bio.html
       Moderator Response: [DB] Adherence to the Comments Policy is NOT optional. Further perambulations, both off-topic and ideological, will cause comments to be summarily deleted.
88987. Gilles at 15:14 PM on 13 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       58 - but the diagram cannot be about precise measurements - even the incoming Total Solar Irradiance isn't known with this accuracy? Look what a required 0.9 W/m^2 accuracy would really correspond to :
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Your diagram shows the raw output from the instruments on the individual satelites, without taking into account the biases and drift affecting each individually. That does not mean that the uncertainty in measurements in TSI is as large as the differences between the raw measurements. The differences between homogenised products e.g. ACRIM-v-PMOD give a better indication. Those differences are rather smaller (although quite possibly still greater than 0.9 W/m^2).
88988. HumanityRules at 15:12 PM on 13 April 2011
       Solar Hockey Stick
       35 dana1981 Does your answer here not raise alarm bells for you? All those same processes are going on now. For example we are presently in an extended period of low volcanism, land use changes have likely accelerated in the past 100 years, natural variability is, I assume, still going on. Why are these processes not accounting for 0.4oC of warming in the present day as in the MWP? This seems exactly where the disagreement between a large chunk of the skeptics (lukewarmers) and the concensus lies. Any chance that you might think the IPCC has failed to fully account for these processes for modern warming? Certainly Pielke Snr doesn't stop banging on about how land use change has been neglected.
88989. Dan Moutal at 15:09 PM on 13 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       @ Harry Seaward "100% return with no administrative costs???" As has already been mentioned actually more than 100% has been returned. "these innovations were not taxed into existence. They were adopted because they were better than what they replaced. Ingenuity and capitalism rule... How can you ban what is cheaper and more dependable?" As has already been discussed, the only reason why FFs are cheaper is because of the externalized costs. Or as Wikipedia says "If there exist external costs such as pollution, the good will be overproduced by a competitive market, as the producer does not take into account the external costs when producing the good." And sooner or later (actually now in some cases) those costs will rear their ugly head. Or another way to think about is is the tragedy of the commons: "The tragedy of the commons is a dilemma arising from the situation in which multiple individuals, acting independently and rationally consulting their own self-interest, will ultimately deplete a shared limited resource even when it is clear that it is not in anyone's long-term interest for this to happen" Carbon pricing is just an attempt to internalize the costs of GHG emissions, which intern allows the free market to do its thing. Significant externalities lead to market failure. This is basic economic theory. And is the crux of the problem. "then no one should receive these subsidies I hate to break it to you, but externalities function as a de facto subsidy allowing FF producers to sell their products at lower prices than would otherwise be possible. So I have to ask, what is the problem with internalizing the costs of FFs? And do you have a better way fo doing it that a simple tax?
88990. logicman at 15:01 PM on 13 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       Why are people so adamant that alternatives to fossil fuels are 'a bad thing'? Anyone (including me) would be an idiot not to favor the horseless carriage, if it was dependable and affordable. Dependable being more important than affordable. Besides, I am reliably informed by scientists that these newfangled dirty, noisy, bone-jarring horseless carriages will require - purely for the comfort of their rich owners - smoother carriageways than the sturdy and reliable horse-drawn vehicles used by the common man. And who, pray, is expected to pay for such "essential" carriageways? The taxpayer, naturally! Yes, when Mr. Ford began to build his model T there really were people complaining about how this would impact their rights and freedoms, etc. etc. Plus ça change ...
88991. KR at 14:37 PM on 13 April 2011
       There is no consensus
       Bruce Frykman - "Space and time prohibits me from listing the hundreds of similar assaults on integrity by the political process supporting AGW science." Space and time? Or lack of actual content? Landsea didn't provide evidence regarding his claims as far as I can tell; if you have any, please provide it. As to your other assertions - no evidence presented means just that, nothing to take seriously. Assertions without evidence can and will be dismissed without evidence.
       Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed text.
88992. scaddenp at 14:24 PM on 13 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       Harry, Capitalist does not equal no tax. Never has. However, while you have commented on my approach, at the base of it you stuck on idea that cheapest must be best even if isnt. You don't think climate change is going to cost us more than giving up FF. However, you still havent answered the more serious question on the linked earlier post - what IS the answer if you want to prevent FF usage?
88993. Marcus at 14:24 PM on 13 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       "The US is no longer a truly capitalist society. There are now twice as government employees as there are manufacturing employees. That can't continue." Yes, but the Global Financial Crisis had *nothing* whatsoever to do with that. It was the appalling "self-regulation" of the US financial sector-which operates under the very strictest definitions of the "Free Market".
88994. Marcus at 14:22 PM on 13 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       "Anyone (including me) would be an idiot not to favor alternative energy, if it was dependable and affordable. Dependable being more important than affordable." Didn't you read my figures for comparisons of renewable vs non-renewable energy Harry? Even with all the subsidies enjoyed by the fossil fuel energy sector, new power stations won't be able to generate electricity much cheaper than the majority of currently available renewable energy technologies. This will only become *more* the case as economies of scale kick in for renewables on the one hand (thus pushing down capital costs) & as fossil fuels become even more expensive on the other (due to demand vs supply of fuel). They're also much more reliable than some people make out-thanks to advances in storage technologies over the last 15-20 years. Of course, certain elements of the mainstream press have become very adept at reporting on the renewable sector as if it was still the 1980's or early 1990's-i.e., as if the sector hadn't made huge progress in the areas of price, unit output & reliability over the last 30 years.....and on a fraction of the tax-payer funds enjoyed by the nuclear & FF industries I might add!
88995. Harry Seaward at 14:14 PM on 13 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       Marcus @ 193 I agree with you. The US is no longer a truly capitalist society. There are now twice as government employees as there are manufacturing employees. That can't continue. A carbon tax only adds to the problem.
88996. Marcus at 14:08 PM on 13 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       @ Harry Seaward. Though its off-topic, I'd hardly call the current state of the US a great advertisement for Capitalism. The GFC was born of a very strict adherence to capitalist principles, & look where that left the US. I'm *not* advocating a 100% Socialist system, but I equally think that a 100% Free Market Economy is just asking for trouble. My experience is that those nations that have achieved the best middle ground between Socialism & Capitalism are the ones that are currently thriving.
88997. Harry Seaward at 14:04 PM on 13 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       Scaddenp @ 174 Point 1: I think (and I repeat think) those subsidies were put in place to encourage exploration because a reliable fuel supply is absolutely necessary to ensure the security of our country. But, surprise, I agree with you. If we are no longer allowed to explore and exploit our own resources, then no one should receive these subsidies. It is a complicated issue. Point 2: How can you ban what is cheaper and more dependable? Anyone (including me) would be an idiot not to favor alternative energy, if it was dependable and affordable. Dependable being more important than affordable. My region of the US receives our energy from hydroelectric and nuclear and a small percentage from natural gas. We are very low carbon and I like that. (Even though I don't buy into AGW and I am a degreed and working environmental scientist). If a government tries to tax FF out of existence in favor of alternative energy sources, the lashback will be incredible.
88998. dana1981 at 14:01 PM on 13 April 2011
       Solar Hockey Stick
       shawnhet#31 - when you're talking about long-term temperature trends, which is what we're doing here, then it's the long-term trends in the forcings that matter. Short-term variations don't cause long-term trends. HR and Charlie - there's natural variability, volcanic forcing, anthropogenic land use changes, etc.
88999. Bruce Frykman at 13:56 PM on 13 April 2011
       There is no consensus
       RE: Les - 312 "Do you have any evidence for that [politicization or careerism as a driver of climate science] or is it just speculation or just a hollow - and rather over done, by now - polemic? This is a target rich environment; I have proposed that the political authorities who fund climate science do not countenance appeals for funds to examine the proposition that human freedom is deleterious of the earth's climate. My primary support of this is the near certain fact that any such funding is either minuscule or non-existent. I look forward to your refutation of my proposition. If you would like just one tangible example of political control of climate science, I would refer you to Dr Chis Landsea's resignation from the IPCC after politically appointed authorities put his name to the proposition that man's activities modulated both the frequency and severity of Atlantic hurricanes. Dr Landsea found no evidence to support such a claim, so his name was in fact fraudulently attributed to a proposition he would never have supported. This was not simply a mistake which would have been forgivable; when Dr Landsea asked the IPCC to redact the error they would not. We thus at least have some evidence that at one time at least some members of the IPCC were both honest and trustworthy to the extent they would not tolerate fraud committed in their name. I believe Dr Landsea is now classified by IPCC supporters as "a denier" Space and time prohibits me from listing the hundreds of similar assaults on integrity by the political process supporting AGW science.
89000. Harry Seaward at 13:54 PM on 13 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       Sphaerica @144 The 5 examples you gave are good examples of where a capitalist society uses some technically socialist methods to improve society. I say technically because I think (correct me if I am wrong) that in our society (USA) even if you are in those sectors that you listed you are compensated based on your experience, education, seniority, etc... and not a common pay. Now to the rest of your post: the carbon tax that you are in favor of assumes that it will be voted into place. Right now most Americans aren't buying into it and the trend is increasingly negative. I don't know where you are from, or what your profession is, but the general public is not in agreeance with you. Solving problems by being a capitalist is not a knee-jerk reaction. Look at every successful and every failed society and tell me what they were. I think Russia is a prime example of failed socialist (communist) society that is actually out-capitalizing the USA. I've tried for a long time to keep the politics out of this discussion and the science about man-made global warming. But, when I see comments creep in like from DSL (who hasn't answered my question) @ 55 it does make one wonder. For the record, I do believe that CO2 contributes to global warming. Anthropogenic CO2 is a factor. Reducing pollution and becoming more energy efficient is something we should all strive for. However, a carbon tax is still a prime example of redistribution of wealth that is a tenet of the socialist dogma. Taxing all citizens - taxing carbon producers - sending the collected funds back out to the citizens (100% return with no administrative costs??? Even my liberal banker friends laugh at this) - giving the "poor" citizens tax breaks, etc... If that is not redistribution of wealth - then what is it? And, how does it help? If the purpose on putting a tax on FF use is to make other energy sources more attractive, and so we tax everyone including energy, but give the money back to public as subsidies to off-set the costs of the tax... Then we are basically taking money from the deep pockets and passing it back out.

Prev  1772  1773  1774  1775  1776  1777  1778  1779  1780  1781  1782  1783  1784  1785  1786  1787  Next