Recent Comments

Prev  335  336  337  338  339  340  341  342  343  344  345  346  347  348  349  350  Next

Comments 17101 to 17150:

17101. ubrew12 at 02:10 AM on 1 November 2017
       The F13 files, part 1 - the copy/paste job
       

       from part 3: "Cook et al (2013) [2] found that only 0.7% of their sample rejected AGW, so F13 references them 50 times more than one would expect of an unbiased sample."  That's clear evidence of bias.  How does a 'review article' get away with such egregious cherry picking?  And the mention, much less discussion, of 'cosmic rays'?  What is such speculative 'research' even doing in a review of established climate science?

17102. ubrew12 at 01:50 AM on 1 November 2017
       The F13 files, part 2 - the content analysis
       

       Excellent job breaking down the fallacies in a deeply flawed review article!  Regarding F13 ch 2.2, pg 3: F13 claim 'the temperature increase... precedes the CO2...increase [at Vostok]'.  Here's my understanding of a natural transition out of a glacial period: when Earth's precession (top spin) goes from vertical to canted (every 100k yrs or so), the poles get more sunlight, Northern ice melts a bit, floods the N Atlantic, the AMOC shuts down, this warms the Southern Ocean, which vents/doesn't absorb CO2, which causes the globe to go from 'glacial' to 'interglacial'. So temperature leads CO2 by 800 years, for Antarctica (and only Antarctica!), but lags CO2 by hundreds of years everywhere else. The orbital tilt is not enough, by itself, to cause that thermal transition. After all: Earth is a sphere, it's tilt shouldn't be affecting solar insolation at all, theoretically.

       Also, regarding F13 ch 2.5, pg 3: "F13 argue that CO2 is beneficial to plant life", I would call that a major fallacy, rather than minor, because its been so pernicious and completely without an 'Earth-scale' observable basis.  It's simple enough to say to farmers and others of limited understanding, but when the Hadley Cell swallows the American Midwest, the grain belts of Southern Europe and Spain, and most of Australia, its going to be short shrift to those farmers to know there's more CO2 in the atmosphere as they are praying for rain.

17103. ianw01 at 00:49 AM on 1 November 2017
       New data gives hope for meeting the Paris climate targets
       

       Unfortunately actual CO2 levels are rising at a record pace. According to the WMO yesterday, "The record increase of 3.3 ppm in CO2 from 2015 to 2016 was larger than the previous record increase, observed from 2012 to 2013, and the average growth rate over the last decade."

       They do partly attribute it to the recent El Nino, but still, I find it hard to celebrate this apparent decoupling in the face of such news.

17104. CBDunkerson at 22:46 PM on 31 October 2017
       New data gives hope for meeting the Paris climate targets
       

       wili, the data in question didn't come from the Chinese government. The chart showing Chinese emissions leveling off is based on independent research by the EU.

       Digby, there is a difference between the recent 'decoupling' and previous 'mismatches' in the data. Specifically, previous discrepancies were of degree (i.e. one factor shifted by a larger percentage than the other) and timing (i.e. one factor moved a year or two before the other). The recent differences have also been of direction (GDP growing while emissions are declining) and duration.

       Also, if you follow the link at the bottom to the full article you will see a third graph showing California GDP growth of ~35% over 16 years, while emissions shrank ~7%. Similar results have been observed for various other locations... making clear that the decoupling of GDP and emissions is not some statistical phantom. It has been observed in specific regions for a long time, and has now grown to the point that it is visible in the global data.

17105. Green Hammer at 22:33 PM on 31 October 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #43
       

       why can’t david attenborough bring himself to say climate change or global warming? he will mention human activity but that’s about it. 

17106. NorrisM at 14:33 PM on 31 October 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       michael sweet @ 113 and Moderator

       I think I have previously acknowledged having read the Abbott paper highlighted in your  post which points out some of the practical problems with nuclear power even leaving aside costs. 

       I have now read his other January 2010 paper which analyzes the various competing alternatives to FF including further information on why neither nuclear fission nor nuclear fusion will work based upon some pretty interesting data.   His "order of magnitude" approach of asking whether any particular source could alone meet the world's 15 TW energy consumption per second is fascinating for exposing problems with a lot of the sources.

       Maybe I am easily convinced but he makes a good argument for the "low tech" solution of solar thermal collectors (even if it would cover about 5 times the area required by PV Solar).

       Moderator, I appreciate this is not the thread to carry on such a discussion of the Abbott second paper.

       Could you suggest a better thread?

17107. NorrisM at 14:17 PM on 31 October 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       michael sweet @ 184

       I appreciate that the IPCC 2013 assessment is based upon the information at that time.  Here is what the summary says:

       "It is very likely that the global mean rate was 1.7 [1.5 to 1.9] mm yr–1 between 1901 and 2010 for a total sea level rise of 0.19 [0.17 to 0.21] m. Between 1993 and 2010, the rate was very likely higher at 3.2 [2.8 to 3.6] mm yr–1; similarly high rates likely occurred between 1920 and 1950. {3.7.2, 3.7.4, 5.6.3, 13.2.1, 13.2.2, Figure 13.3}"

       Until the IPCC reexamines all of the papers at its next assessment, it seems reasonable to assume that we are around 3.2 mm/yr but knowing that things logically could accelerate assuming that the temperature does increase as projected.  Attempting to use averages over a 5 year period seems to be problematic in the same way that arguments were made relating to the well-known 10-13 year "hiatus".  On this very graph above, the rate of increase seems to have levelled off after the El Nino was finished.

       It is interesting that in the above IPCC quote we had similar "high rates" during the period 1920-1950.  Curious as to whether there is any explanation of that anomaly.   

17108. wili at 13:48 PM on 31 October 2017
       New data gives hope for meeting the Paris climate targets
       

       I'm more with Digby on this one. Don't the Chinese have a history of presenting 'official' stats on various fields including carbon emissions, only to 'revise' them, sometimes rather drastically later?

       Of course, we all want this to be true...all the more reason to put on our 'Skeptical Science Spectacles' (say that ten time fast!) to critically examine the bases of these claims.

17109. Digby Scorgie at 13:21 PM on 31 October 2017
       New data gives hope for meeting the Paris climate targets
       

       I'm not so sanguine about this decoupling of CO₂ and GDP.  From the graph there appears to have been a similar "decoupling" around 1980.  I reckon one would need to wait a few more years to see if this recent "decoupling" is a real trend.

17110. CBDunkerson at 21:55 PM on 30 October 2017
       What does a sexist Google engineer teach us about women in science?
       

       It seems to me that there is a clear link between the kind of pseudo-science and disinformation that Damore used in his screed and the same in climate science.

       What is the difference between all those pointing to the individual studies Damore cited for his claims of biological differences and climate change deniers pulling up papers by random cranks to advance their agenda? In both cases they are ignoring the overwhelming body of research which disputes their position.

       Damore was fired for publicly posting a sexist screed. As he should have been. The company would have been opening itself to massive liability otherwise.

17111. CBDunkerson at 21:53 PM on 30 October 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #43
       

       Half a dozen European countries have committed to zero coal power production between 2022 and 2030... thus, the 2050 limit cited does not seem impossible. It seems that China and India are turning the corner and likely that any future industrialization (e.g. Africa) will follow a renewable path from the start. Political forces in the US and Australia are still desperately pushing coal, but they are clearly losing the battle... and the day is coming when coal companies won't be able to afford to buy politicians any more.

17112. John Hartz at 06:14 AM on 30 October 2017
       CO2 is plant food
       

       Recommended supplemental reading:

       Global warming threatens nutrition levels in staple crops by Adam Wernick, Public Radio International (PRI), Oct 29, 2017

17113. One Planet Only Forever at 05:07 AM on 30 October 2017
       Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
       

       nigelj@28,

       Your reply has prompted me to some new thoughts and recognize important 'paradigm shifts' that people need to be 'educated to understand' (deprogrammed may be a more appropriate term than educated).

       When the ethical requirement is defined in ways consistent with the many ways I stated it in my comment @26, what is being discussed should not be called a Carbon Tax or Carbon Fee. It should be called a Carbon Fine or Carbon Penalty. The following are example statements regarding Ethics definition from m comment @26:

       • Ethical - "understandably unacceptable options must not be allowed to compete for popularity or profitability"
       • Ethical - "...action is required to terminate the creation of increased harm by pursuers of personal benefit from the ultimately unsustainable burning of non-renewable fossil fuels."
       • Unethical - "... people focused on unjustifiably getting away with obtaining self-interest benefits for only a portion of humanity to the detriment of current day Others and to the detriment of all of future humanity."
       • Unethical - "... implying that the protection of the public interest from the potential actions of a pursuers of personal benefit should be compromised/balanced with a private interest for more personal benefit."
       • Ethical - "Good results are sustainable improvements of the living circumstances of the least fortunate and future generations."
       • Unethical - "... trying to limit awareness and proper understanding of climate science through misleading marketing ..."

       Calling something a Fee or Tax implies that it is OK to do as long as you can afford it (like parking, or being a user of a State or National Park). And sometimes taxes are collected on activities that only harm the person choosing to do them (such as Liquor, Cigarette and Marijuana consumption), implying that those actions should be limited but a person should be free to knowledgeably choose to do them (other legal penalties are applied to harmful activities related to those 'personal self-harming choices', such as advertising to deliberately increase awareness and temptation to do the self-harming activity).

       The implication of fees or taxes is that if you are richer you are justified to do more of the activity that is being taxed or fee-charged if you choose to. That implied justification is not appropriate for GHG creation. We do not have Speeding Fees or Drunk Driving Taxes, and we should not have Carbon Fees or Carbon Taxes. The use of Carbon Fee is more marketable than Carbon Tax, and both are more marketable than Carbon Fine or Carbon Penalty. But the marketability of unethical things is part of the problem to be corrected.

       The creation of GHG emissions is not like those Taxed self-harming items. The person doing it obtains a benefit, almost no self-harm experienced, while objectively creating harm to others. And the activity needs to be terminated, not just be reduced or limited.

       The understanding developed by climate science is that it is unethical for some members of a current generation of humanity to benefit from creating additional GHG by burning non-renewable fossil fuels. The further implication is that the more fortunate people are expected to be 'less harmful/more helpful' because those who are more fortunate can 'afford to behave better and understand how to' and should be leading by example (they should not be free to choose whether or not they will behave better or be more helpful and less harmful).

       Making additional GHG is not a limited opportunity that the more fortunate should be able to benefit from as much as they can 'legally afford to'. CO2 has already been pushed beyond 400 ppm, so the creation of additional GHG is an activity that needs to be rapidly reduced to zero along with actions to reduce amounts of already created GHG (350 ppm is an appropriate understood upper limit to avoid imposing harm and challenges on future generations. Higher values than 350 ppm are into the realm of unjustifiably compromising the Public Interest for limited Private Interests. The future generations and the least fortunate cannot be excluded from consideration just because they have no financial, legal or marketing power).

       Ethically, the only people with an excuse for trying to benefit from new GHG creation are the least fortunate (due to the urgency of their need and likely lack of awareness and understanding). And the least fortunate should be helped by the most fortunate to sustainably develop to live a basic decent life in ways that create the least possible additional GHG (because the less new GHG that gets created the less GHG reduction has to be done).

       What needs to become understood is that Sovereign Rule of Law is only legitimate when it is Ruled by Ethics, constantly being updated/corrected to address new awareness/understanding of what is unacceptable. Sovereign regional efforts to make-up Bad/Unethical Rules of Law cannot be excused as 'legitimate Rule of Law' no matter how regionally popular that type of unethical Law-making-up may regionally be.

       The new and improving understandings of climate science have exposed some major 'Unethical Legal Matters' and related misunderstandings. Freedom of speech is abused to excuse unethical excuse-making by already fortunate people unethically pursuing more personal benefit from the understandably unsustainable and harmful burning of non-renewable fossil fuels. The following are other examples of corrections (paradigm shifting) of 'Dogma/Beliefs that can be objectively shown to be misunderstandings that need correcting':

       • Legal is not the same as Ethical (unethical harmful making-up of laws or enforcement happens)
       • Popular and Profitable are not reliable measures of success or legitimacy (less ethical behaviour can be popular and profitable even when understandably harmful)
       • Taxes are not inherently Bad (effective use of taxes to sustainably improve the circumstances of the least fortunate is Good, and more Good is Better)
       • Paying a Tax does not necessarily legitimize an action (paying a Carbon Tax does not make the creation of new GHG 'acceptable/ethical')
       • People being freer to believe whatever they wish and do as they please is unlikely to develop a Good Result (unless everyone ethically self-limits their behaviour, the reality is that some people will always try to Win by getting away with less ethical behaviour).

       The Sustainable Development Goals, Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement are consistent with that understanding of what is ethical (in different ways to different degrees). And it is those Objective Ethical Understandings and Requirements that many people fearfully/angrily react to because of the cognitive dissonance with their preferred personal beliefs and desires (they have developed perceptions of prosperity and opportunity and believe they should be able to win any way they can get away with - including developing and supporting excuses for unethical behaviour, hoping that regional popularity of understandably unacceptable actions will Win them more undeserved but desired personal benefits).

17114. nigelj at 04:41 AM on 30 October 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #43
       

       Kiwiano, you have raised an interesting point there, people in denial about sea level rise out of fear of admission and action leading to property price crash. It would be interesting to do polls on opinion on climate change in low lying areas and higher ground and compare the results.

17115. Philippe Chantreau at 04:38 AM on 30 October 2017
       Climate's changed before
       

       jop3v2 says "The planet is warming. On this we all agree."

       Actually, no. I have been around the mind manipulation wars on climate for a good number of years. There are countless fake skeptics who in fact disagree with that and have made a living of attempting to spread doubt about that very point. Most famously, Anthony Watts, who was proven wrong in his assumptions very early on by an amateur going by the handle of John V. He was proven wrong again later by NOAA and finally by his own publication. It was a fairly inconsequential paper, that still took him years to produce; it did not lead him to disavow his years of accusations of fraud against others, encouraging his readers to harass scientists by putting their personal addresses on his site, or putting up posts so grotesque that only the scientificaly illiterate could take him seriously (Antarctica carbonic snow comes to mind). And he is only one of many; some are in the highest positions of power. Your concluding statement is verifiably wrong. Perhaps you should have said: "we, people amenable to reason, all agree with that." I would concur if phrased that way.

       Another part of your argument to which I object is the "humans too small to affect anything." It is common and sometimes comes from people who are religious minded. However, it is not valid either. Imagine all the carbon dioxide released from volcanic activity happening naturally on Earth over a year. Now, multiply that by approximately 100 (give or take); that's how much we have been and are still releasing, year after year. Any argument that this does not constitute a geological scale event is wrong, purely from simple quantitative considerations. Geological scale events have geological scale ramifications.

       The per volume fraction of CO2 is seemingly small, but that does not change the physics. If CO2 was not transparent to visible light and we could actually see its increase just by looking at photos of now vs 35 years ago, we certainly would be more enclined to take the threat seriously, because that's the kind of animal we humans are. We also are very bad at anything truly long term, although this has become far worse in the recent past, under the pressure of an extreme ideology of maximizing short term gains at any cost, present or future.

       There is more to discuss about the fact that we weren't around as a global civilization in the time periods you mentioned and that we developped as such in a certain range of conditions; we then built some pretty heavy infrastructure that is already compromised by rapid seal level increase. We established industrial agricultural practices that, for all their machinery and chemical underpinnings, are nonetheless most dependent on rainfall, seasonal cycles, and low probability of extreme events. The rapidity of the change we are witnessing now is far more relevant to us than the actual position of equilibrium in a past when we were just tagging along with all the other critters.

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] can I ask all responders to jopv32 to reply on an appropriate thread? You can place a pointer to your reply here.

17116. MA Rodger at 04:11 AM on 30 October 2017
       Climate's changed before
       

       jop3v2 @577,

       Concerning your self-description "I'm an AGW skeptic because I find it difficult to accecpt that only 0.03% of the atmosphere is responsible for controlling changes in Global Climate." Consider the following analogy:-

       I live in a house that I estimate contains about 60 tons of material in the walls (333mm x 3m x 10m x 4walls with sg =1.5). The atmosphere contains today 400ppm by volume and 610ppm by weight of CO2, or 0.06%. Studies suggest that if CO2 were entirely removed from the atmosphere, the greenhouse effect would effectively disappear and global average temperatures would fall 33ºC. There are a lot of things that result from the removal of atmospheric CO2 (as described in the linked SkS article) so the analogy with my house is not exact. Also note the planet's troposphere contains a 75ºC temperature drop while the inside/outside temperature difference across the walls of my house is no more than 20ºC, even in winter. So consider if I take the front door off my house in mid-winter. There will be a dramatic change in the room temperature, very likely reducing the average inside/outside temperature difference by more than 50%. If the front door weighs 36kg, it would constitute 600ppm by weight of the house. (It probably weighs a lot less.)

17117. michael sweet at 03:48 AM on 30 October 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       I saw a note from Dr. Nerem at CIRES regarding sea level rise.  He showed this graph:

       

       source .  He states: "While we are still completing this research, it appears that long-term sea level rise has accelerated from roughly 2 mm/year in the mid-1990s to 4 mm/year today (2017)."

       I calculate that if sea level rise continues at 4 mm/yr until 2100 the total rise would be 58 cm (83 X 0.4 + 25 cm = 58 cm).  If acceleration continued at the current rate (0.1 mm/yr),  total rise would be about 95 cm. Of course, if temperature continues to increase the acceleration can also increase.

       The IPCC is well known to be extremely conservative in it's estimation of sea level rise.  The 5th reports estimation was much higher than the 4th reports estimate.

17118. jop3v2 at 03:00 AM on 30 October 2017
       Climate's changed before
       

       First, please note that I'm a skeptic of AGW theories. I believe that at best, Mankind may have the capacity induce a relatively minor impact relative to the sources of natural variation.

       Holocene is considered an Ice Age with the last Glaciation endingn ~11K to 12k years ago. I don't know the catalyst that shifts from an 'Ice Age' to a 'Warm House'. (Need to research that) We do know it has happened many times before our arrival. 
       
       Looking at temprature records of the 12 Periods in the current Era, 84.7% of the time the Globe was several degrees warmer. It seems logical to assume the planet tends to gravitate to that level with ouside events triggering major cooling events. 
       Consider:
       84.7% of the Phanerozoic Eon was on average ~3+ degrees warmer than current. 
       Holocene is considered an Ice Age. (Something cooled things off, but the planet is trying to return to its 'normal' balance which is closer to that 84.7% of the time level.)
        
       Is it possible the current Ice Age has ended due to some factor we have not yet considered? 
       What I am really asking is; How many global climate factors are there that we have we do not yet fully understand? How big could their impacts be? What is the likelyhood that there are significant factors that we do not yet understand and or have not discovered. 
       
       I'm an AGW skeptic because I find it difficult to accecpt that only 0.03% of the atmosphere is responsible for controlling changes in Global Climate.
       Statistically speaking: 0.0003 could be viewed as a rounding error. (This point is for dramatic effect only) 
       
       The planet is warming. On this we all agree.

       Moderator Response:

       [TD] The percent of the total atmosphere that is CO2 is irrelevant. The only gases that are relevant are greenhouse gases, of which CO2 is one. With regard to forcings, there are even fewer relevant gases; water vapor condenses so it is a feedback, not a forcing. So a relevant percentage is the percent of all non-condensing greenhouse gases that is CO2.

       There is overwhelming, concrete, empirical evidence for an increase in CO2 causing warming.

       Human activities' contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere are not balanced by human activities' removals of CO2 from the atmosphere. In contrast, the natural contributions and removals closely balance. CO2 is removed from the atmosphere by natural processes very slowly, so human contributions accumulate.

       [PS] Please note that Sks organizes arguments into different topics. Please do not make offtopic comments. Use the search button on the top left to find relevant topics and comment there after you have read the article. Repetition of long-debunked arguments is boring.

17119. Kiwiiano at 02:54 AM on 30 October 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #43
       

       It's not just the 200mm that makes a difference in most places, it's the more ferocious, more frequent storms, that send bigger storm surges into areas previously not regarded as vulnerable. Part of that problem seems to be the reluctance of many communities to face up to it for fear that it will provoke a catastrophic collapse of confidence in property values. I guess time will sort that out.

17120. Eclectic at 19:52 PM on 29 October 2017
       What does a sexist Google engineer teach us about women in science?
       

       Megreen @8 , thanks for your definition of "neutral" — though I am somewhat puzzled by your application of "neutral" to the SkS website.  Surely, SkS exists to counter the lies & half-truths circulated by the anti-science propagandists (wrt climate science).   And thus, the issue of "neutrality" . . . is inapplicable to SkS.   SkS does not exist to counter political & religious dogma, but only to counter "anti-science".  

       As I mentioned above, a razor-thin focus on the pure science aspects cannot be maintained at precisely 100% (because the problems we face with rapid AGW, are problems which require some sociological analysis and response).   Inevitably, there will be some discursiveness in the sociological topics — but I think it is fair to say that SkS shows very little political partisanship there (and indeed, this discursion into "women in science" is quite atypical of SkS generally : and in itself this episode probably demonstrates a "Nothingburger" wrt SkS policy).

       As to the Memoist (if I may call him that) at Google : on a number of points he "chose poorly" [gotta love that modern cliche, from the movie Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade].

       He has "chosen poorly" by :-

       (A) going public, via a lengthy memo of decidedly non-PC statements, at the very time that his company (Google) is beset by problems of legal compliance & the need for PR virtue-signalling.   His "loose cannon" action seems (IMO) to show he puts his own desire to vent his opinions ahead of his responsibility to his company.

       (B) expressing ideas that were in vogue 40 years ago, but which nowadays show a poorly-scientific understanding of the relative contributions of Nature / Nurture / and Culture, in the male/female gender roles.   And in particular regarding the low importance of innate gender differences in the fields of science, technology, engineering and [here] business management.

       To quote one pundit: "... most of these sexual differences are [only] moderate in size and in my view are unlikely to be all that relevant to the Google workplace ..."

       (C) making paranoid claims about "Marxist intellectuals transition[ing]" to sabotage/attack society by means of gender warfare.

       (D) exhibiting extremist dogma that [to slightly paraphrase him]: "about 95% of hard-science scientists and soft/social-science scientists and humanities graduates are left-leaning".   This demonstrates his lack of insight into himself, and lack of insight into the nature of society.

       He fails to understand that [to paraphrase George Bernard Shaw]: "There is a desirable Goldilocks level of political correctness."

       (E) denying that a "pay gap" issue exists.  For all I know, within Google that might be so — but the Memoist's comment is expressed as though applying generally : where his statement is clearly false.

       * The Memoist's punishment was harsh — but is doubtless seen by Google as a justifiable damage-control measure.   Something rather like: "Push the cannon overboard to save the ship."  [excuse my hyperbole!]

17121. Digby Scorgie at 16:45 PM on 29 October 2017
       What does a sexist Google engineer teach us about women in science?
       

       megreen831 @2

       Nothing to do with climate science?  But the second part of the article sketches the careers of seven prominent woman climate scientists.

17122. nigelj at 15:04 PM on 29 October 2017
       What does a sexist Google engineer teach us about women in science?
       

       megreen831 @8

       I had already read the memo before posting any comments. I was not surprised by it at all.

       His claims on biological differences and work apptitudes are unsupported by real evidence, and in my view his criticism of googles attempts to force a 50 / 50 gender balance does have some credibility.

       But the point is he circulated his opinions in office time, and they are divisive on the biological issue and undermine management on the gender balance issue. I can see why google were annoyed. He seemed to be almost asking for trouble.

       I feel its more about how he went about things. It was dumb and arrogant to do in office time like that, and the sort of thing to discuss in private with work friends out of work hours, and then maybe approach google in private alone, or with others of like mind.

17123. megreen831 at 12:58 PM on 29 October 2017
       What does a sexist Google engineer teach us about women in science?
       

       What is it we tell skeptics when the show us the next great proof that AGW is a hoax?  Look at the science.  Check the sources and see if they're credible.  So, instead of just taking all the hype, I've now read the entire memo.  I know find it ironic, actually, to find this post on this particular site.  The parallel is incredible. Damore is making a simple request that the people at Google not be punished for challenging the status quo. Just imagine the people who understand the science of AGW and yet know they can't talk about it at work because they'll be punished (I know, I work in the oil business).

        

       He provides scientific data to support his positions.

       From the post above: 

       The explosive part in the memo involved comments about how biological differences explain the paucity of women in technology and leadership fields. While there are certainly both physical and mental differences between men and women, the comments about both genders are, in my opinion, misguided and offensive.

       I like how the author both agrees that there are differences and attacks Damore at the same time for saying the same thing.  If you read the memo you'll actually be hard pressed to find anything remotely offensive.  IMO, the only way one could be offended is if they are offended by scientific research. And ultimately, that was Damore's point, Google's culture was so closed to alternative ideas that even presenting scientific data could get you fired.  If a scientist presents a theory and it has flaws, is the correct answer to shame him and remove him from employment?  That's what happens at Google.

       There is one point in the memo where Damore refers to the risks of lowering the bar to increase diversity.  His point was that if your sole objective is to achieve 50% diversity of men and women, that to achieve the goal you might have to lower the quality requirements of applicants because you don't have a large enough pool of interested candidates to draw upon. I'll add to that with my own experience referenced above in my other comment.  If I had wanted to attain 50% diversity, I would have had to leave positions unfilled as I waited for women to apply, or I could have lowered the bar and started accepting people who weren't trained in the field but wanted the money. 

        

        

       Eclectic @7, by neutral I mean that science shouldn't be left or right of politics, it should only be the search for truth.  4+4=8 is not a left or right issue.  This site seems to use scientifically supported information that counters political or religious dogma, regardless of where on the spectrum that myth comes from.  

        

       nigelj, I recommend you read the memo.  You'll be mildly suprised 

17124. grindupBaker at 10:52 AM on 29 October 2017
       Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
       

       @11 NikFromNYC on 21 May, 2011 Your "Oh wow,...it becomes suggestive that there is a very good chance that recent warming may be a peak that is about to plunge back down, masking greenhouse warming for up to a century or more". So I'm typing this on October 28, 2017 so how did that plunging back down of GMST for the last 6 years work out for you NikFromNYC ? Time to get back to us all.

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] That participant of whom you speak recused themself from further participation here, years ago.  Due to their complete unwillingness to adhere to the Comments Policy.

17125. Eclectic at 09:58 AM on 29 October 2017
       What does a sexist Google engineer teach us about women in science?
       

       Megreen @2 , certainly you are right, in that it is hard to see any connection between AGW and "women in science".   Still, this site cannot be expected to maintain an exclusive razor-thin focus on Hard Science & its Exact Opposite [= denialism].   And you may have noticed that the more sociological topics often garner considerable interest (as judged by the amount of discussion in the comments columns).  Including your own interested comment, here!

       But it is IMO puzzling what you mean with your word "neutral" here.  It might be interesting to unpick the implications of that !

       The only "women" connection I can see, is the sociological comment that having a great many more women in political power / leadership roles, would surely have prevented the world coming to this ludicrously tragic condition of rapid AGW & snail-like political response to the problem.

       Michael Sweet @3 , your second graph is quite shocking.  Shocking that the so-called greengrocer's apostrophe should appear so prominently on a graph from the APS.   Bachelor's Degrees, indeed!!    Wot are they learnin them fizzysisters at the APS ?

       I suppose we should simply be grateful it wasn't Bachelorette Degrees.

17126. nigelj at 07:07 AM on 29 October 2017
       Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
       

       OPOF @26

       I also work in a design / technical field so completely identify with those concerns. I have sometimes experienced the conflict with the public good and technical safety codes on one hand, and clients aspirations and cost cutting desires on the other hand. Its a challenge, but important to not cut corners and compromise, and when professionals have done this they run the risk of being caught and being the ones blamed anyway.

       This is one reason engineering professions have codes of ethics and safety codes, to ensure standards are kept high and avoid client pressure by being able to show them we have no choice. As a consequnce of having codes,  its natural for people like you and I to see this extended to robust measures to reduce the climate problem.

       It seems obvious to me environmental issues are on global scale now, and we cant avoid some sort of global management and sets of rules on the issue, but balanced with allowing as much free market innovation and movement as possible within these boundaries. It cant be one or the other. it has to be both, and a carbon tax is part of it along with hopefully more enlighteend leadership. It is so obvious to me that I get frustrated that people can't see the obvious. The  denialist positions in the more libertarian leading factions seem excatly that, denialist of the obvious, and nothing more or less.

       "But learning to change their minds is the only way to resolve the anger causing anxiety."

       Yes, if only they could see this.

17127. nigelj at 06:34 AM on 29 October 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #43
       

       Many people appear to remain unfortunately scepticial or complacent about sea level rise. I think we have a sort of perception problem that explains why a lot of people seem somewhat complacent about sea level rise impacts. We have had about 200mm over the last century which is so small and slow you hardly notice, and infrastructure easily adjusts (in the main, I know we are seeing problems emerge now etc and it depends on location etc). Its generally within the margins of safety when designing building platform heights, roads, and drainage systems. Buildings last about 50 - 80 years and when replaced its easy to build slightly higher foundations if required.

       People are very conditioned to this long term pattern. It's probably very hard for many to visualise how a seemingly innocuous change to maybe 10mm per year or so and 1 metre per century would effect things quite seriously, because they have known nothing like it, and it seems distant, and just seems like a case of move to higher ground in some orderly fashion. But in fact one metre will leave many buildings and infrastructure useless well before its intended life expires, especially if we go on allowing building on low ground.

       Drainage systems just stop functioning when inundated with water, and well before actual buildings are effected, and there are not simple answers to this. They have all been designed around very low levels of sea level rise past century, not for one metre or more.

       You can keep water out of communities with barriers sometimes (at considerable expense) but thats only part of the issue. 

       Florida have already experienced quite significant sea level rise in parts recently and are starting to feel the impacts, yet remain in complete denial for the most part. It astounds me. You would think they would at least change building codes to require higher foundations, and stop developing very low lying lands for buildings.

17128. nigelj at 05:46 AM on 29 October 2017
       What does a sexist Google engineer teach us about women in science?
       

       Here is googles code of conduct: Its a most interesting, unusual sort of thing to me, but seems well intended.

       abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html

17129. nigelj at 05:31 AM on 29 October 2017
       What does a sexist Google engineer teach us about women in science?
       

       The guy that was fired from Google, James Damore, was apparently fired for violating their code of conduct in some way. Numerous media articles have covered this. I havent seen any specifics on what clause in the code was violated, but the code does have a general clause about "Dont be evil".

       Damore sent a memo around the company making rather dubious claims about biological nature of differences. IMO this seems like it has no relevance to computer work, and is  spreading inflammatory opinion.

       But If women arent applying for jobs in technology, its hard to see what employers can do. Active gender balance which maximises hiring women runs the risk of hiring people with second rate qualificiations. "If" google have such a deliberate gender balance code programme it seems in conflict with their own code of conduct, that says people should be hired on merit.

       Having said that, it would be good to see more women in techcnology, and for the record I loathe gender discrimination. This is stone age attitude.

17130. nigelj at 05:14 AM on 29 October 2017
       What does a sexist Google engineer teach us about women in science?
       

       Other reasons for women not choosing computer science. Relates to what Michael Sweet is saying.

       readwrite.com/2014/09/02/women-in-computer-science-why-so-few/

       "Computer science is the only field in science, engineering and mathematics in which the number of women receiving bachelors degrees has decreased .......One reason for this is because women have historically chosen lower-paying yet fulfilling jobs like teaching or journalism, whereas their male counterparts, sometimes considered family providers, choose high-paying careers like computer science and engineering."

        "The advent of the home personal computer may have contributed to the historic gender gap. In the 1980s, when the PC became a standard home appliance, it was mostly men who used it."

17131. michael sweet at 04:40 AM on 29 October 2017
       What does a sexist Google engineer teach us about women in science?
       

       This graph gives some data on the subject of women in science.  Many of the PhD's are people from overseas.

       

       For anecdotal stories, I noticed in my work (biotechnology) that often there were more men in undesirable jobs.  More women worked in research (which was more interesting) and less in manufacturing (where there was more chance of promotion).  Traveling salesmen were much more likely to be men (an undesirable job because you were away from home so much).  The hot (radioactive) lab was mostly male.  There are a lot of exceptions.

       My superficial impression was that men were willing to sacrifice more for promotion or money.  There might be a better explaination.

       Not everyone wants to put in the long hours commonly attributed to tech workers.  I would not want the job, even for the big money they are reported to make.  Other things in life are more important to me than money.

       Last year teaching AP Chemistry in High School I noticed that about 80% of my students were female.  These were the top students in the school.  Other AP teachers reported more women in their classes.  

       

       The graph above shows increasing numbers of women in undergraduate science.  Perhaps in the future there will be more women than men in more areas of science.

17132. megreen831 at 03:16 AM on 29 October 2017
       What does a sexist Google engineer teach us about women in science?
       

       I try to use this website to debunk climate deniers.  Yet, when I see an article like this, which has absolutely nothing to do with climate science, and in particular seems to be filled with anecdotal information and personal attacks, I wonder how neutral this site plans to be.

       I'll counter your anecdotal data with my own and we'll be exactly where we started.  I'm a technology manager.  I've employed men and women with it being overwhelmingly

       I once had a woman on my team and she was one of two females in a team of 20 engineers.  She decided a public team meeting was the appropriate place to bring up that I didn't have enough women on my team.  She was clearly calling me a sexist (pig?).  And yet, what she failed to grasp was that I had hired every woman who applied, including her.  She failed to see that more times than not when I posted an opening for a position, I would receive only applications from male applicants. 

       Was she good at her job?  Yes, she was.  Are there good female scientists?  Yes, there are.  Does the fact that there are good female scientists and engineers mean that women aren't applying for jobs in STEM fields as much as frequently as men?  

       One more anecdotal piece of information.  Google is such a diverse place that they fire a qualified engineer just for THINKING in a way counter to Google's policies on diversion.  If they're so diverse, why isn't 50% of their population of engineers and scientists female?  

       For a scientist who looks at inputs and outputs all day, you certainly are missing that women are not applying for STEM jobs. 

17133. One Planet Only Forever at 01:49 AM on 29 October 2017
       Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
       

       Adding to my previous comment:

       As a Professional Engineer I have also encountered many cases where already developed/built items were discovered to be unacceptable from the perspective of the Public Interest. In those cases the resistance to accepting that understanding increased with the magnitude of the costs associated with correcting the problem. And in some cases those facing that 'cost or loss of benefit' went in search of different professionals hoping to find someone who would say the item did not need to be corrected.

       Fortunately, in every case like that that I was involved in the clients never did find a alternate professional who would say things were OK as they are. However, the news is full of tragedies that are the result of pursuers of private interest being made aware of the unacceptability of what they desire but seeking out and finding someone who would support/excuse their damaging desires.

17134. One Planet Only Forever at 01:19 AM on 29 October 2017
       Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
       

       A carbon tax could help reduce the rate of GHG pollution, but ultimately more responsible leadership action is required to terminate the creation of increased harm by pursuers of personal benefit from the ultimately unsustainable burning of non-renewable fossil fuels.

       Global humanity is suffering from an epidemic due to the infectious pursuit of private interest benefits that is made more virulent by misleading information delivery. The symptoms of the disease include democracies failing to ensure that their leadership deliver Good Results. The Winners in games of popularity are often the characters without Character, people focused on unjustifiably getting away with obtaining self-interest benefits for only a portion of humanity to the detriment of current day Others and to the detriment of all of future humanity.

       My Professional Engineering thoughts enlightened by my MBA training plus decades of observation, and too many other sources of information to practically list (including this OP and the comments made 'in reaction' to it), are that "understandably unacceptable options must not be allowed to compete for popularity or profitability".

       Popularity and profitability contests can be seen to result in less acceptable competitors getting a competitive advantage and Winning until/unless effective external limits are imposed on their behaviour. And more freedom for people to believe anything and do whatever they want makes it worse. That free-for-all competition can result in competition to be the least acceptable in even the 'supposedly most advanced nations'. And it can develop the related delusions that the less fortunate 'deserve their fate'.

       As a Professional Engineer I experienced many cases where I had to say No to objectively unacceptable options (options that were contrary to the public interest), that were desired by clients as well as executives in the companies I worked in. In some cases people even tried to claim that how much cheaper or quicker an unacceptable option was needed to be considered, implying that the protection of the public interest from the potential actions of a pursuers of personal benefit should be compromised/balanced with a private interest for more personal benefit.

       Correcting/restraining the likely harmful results of competition is a responsibility of Regional Governments (leaders governing the behaviour of a regional sub-set of global humanity). That responsibility of governing groups makes the Objectives of their actions the important measure. How big the government is in terms of tax funded actions does not matter. How effectively the government accomplishes Good Results is the key measure.

       Good results are sustainable improvements of the living circumstances of the least fortunate and future generations. Making an already more fortunate person even more fortunate because of the Dogma that 'lower taxes are better' (or taxes are bad) is not a solution. And collecting a tax that does not achieve the required Good Result/Objective is also not a solution.

       Freedom should be limited to those who responsibly self-limit their actions to things that are not harmful to future generations or the less fortunate (particularly the least fortunate). Without that understood limit on Freedom democracy or the freedom of people cannot be expected to develop Good Results.

       For the climate science/change issue the Objective is the rapid termination of the creation of new excess GHG combined with efforts that effectively reduce the already over-developed, and still increasing, level of GHGs.

       Irresponsible leadership resulting in a lack of proper education of global humanity has pushed humanity to the current daunting requirement for massive rapid corrections of what has developed, including the increased challenge of education regarding the massive required correction of incorrectly developed perceptions of prosperity and opportunity.

       Winners trying to limit awareness and proper understanding of climate science through misleading marketing are among the greatest threats to the future of humanity that have ever developed, and they need to be treated as the threats that they actually are.

       Education of the population about the importance of self-limiting their behaviour, understanding ethical limits to achieve Good Objectives, is the most sustainable solution. The 2015 Sustainable Development Goals are a globally applicable presentation of the measures of ethical/good objectives. These goals are open to improvement if Good Reason is provided to substantially alter part of the developed awareness and understanding that is already the basis for the Sustainable Development Goals.

       Ultimately, regions/groups of people cannot be allowed the freedom to continue to believe and do things that are contrary to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. And like all other globally unacceptable behaviour the education of the global population will ultimately have to include effective sanctions on any regional group that attempts to persist in believing that they do not need to change their minds and behave more responsibly.

       The inevitable result of the persistent reluctance of people to behave better is effective penalties that they angrily refuse to accept because they demand 'No restrictions on their freedoms of belief or actions'.

       Constantly improved objective understanding, not just climate science, is strengthening the objective basis for ethical behaviour. It also clarifies the basic understanding of equality for subjective beliefs while reinforcing that a subjective belief does not over-rule, and should not even be allowed to compromise, an objective understanding.

       That strengthening objective evidence and understanding makes it harder to maintain subjective beliefs or dogma. That has angered many people who want to benefit by holding on to subjective personal interest beliefs (dogma's and ideologies) that are contrary to constantly improving understanding of Good Objectives - Public Good. Anger is one response to the anxiety of the cognitive dissonance they face. But learning to change their minds is the only way to resolve the anger causing anxiety.

       The angry people pursuing personal interests that are contrary to the Public Good Objectives can be seen to be gathering together to support each others' understandably unacceptable wants and desires. This can be seen to be the fundamental core of many Unite the Right movements like the one growing inside the Republican Party in the USA. Rather than setting up an additional option for voters, Unite the Right groups hope to take over established conservative brands and fool responsible conservative minded people into voting for them by claiming the Conservative name/brand.

       Responsible people would disagree with the understandably unacceptable beliefs and desires of those new members now entrenching themselves inside the disguise of the 'taken-over Brand'. The hope is that those who are strongly inclined to simply like the brands 'Conservative or Libertarian' will see no choice but to support what they can understand is unacceptable. And that tactic works very well in a population raised to respond to misleading marketing messages and develop powerful Brand, Religion or Nationalist loyalty (Powerful for ISIS. Powerful for Unite the Right).

       As John Stuart Mill warned in "On Liberty": “If society lets a considerable number of its members grow up mere children, incapable of being acted on by rational consideration of distant motives, society has itself to blame for the consequences.”

       The future of humanity requires the Leaders of global humanity to understand their obligation to educate the global population and minimize the number of people who 'grow up mere children'. Climate Science and the tragic examples of the responses of people based on the 'freedom to think and do as they please' have developed a great Case Study for that education. Hopefully, sooner rather than later, the Winners who understandably do not deserve to be Winners will be effectively Re-Educated/Corrected or be restricted from significantly impacting others or the future of humanity.

       The Winners who fail to act responsibly to Sustainably Develop the Public Good are developing damaging results and will persist until they are educated/corrected to 'sustainably change their minds'.

17135. Eclectic at 22:34 PM on 28 October 2017
       The F13 files, part 1 - the copy/paste job
       

       Having a far less academic inclination than Ari Jokimaki, I am more offended by Florides's gross errors in the content of the F13 paper.  Though I appreciate that the plagiarism aspect is an easier point of attack when approaching Elsevier.

       Ari will be well aware that Florides had published some similar errors in 2009 and 2010 (possibly without the high level of plagiarism).

       Question: What is an engineer (or three) in Cyprus up to, when he repeatedly publishes statements of very bad science?  [i.e. in an area apparently outside his field of expertise].   Why the repeated gross errors?   Not to mention Florides's refusal to properly engage with criticism, plus his refusal to make corrections.

       It seems hard to go past the conclusion that Florides is simply a zealous crackpot on the subject of climate science.   A denialist who wishes to publish as well as exist as a science-denier.

       When I put on my Ten-Gallon Hat of Suspicion, I wonder whether the large amount of plagiarism in F13 might also point to the presence of a ghost-writer [a hack ghost-writer] supplying the bulk of the draft of the F13 paper (with final touches done by Florides et alia).

       Is it known whether Heartland (or similar propaganda machines) provides a ghost-writing service for amenable denialists, in order to sprinkle the scientific literature with a few handfuls of "contrarian" papers?

17136. nigelj at 16:54 PM on 26 October 2017
       Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
       

       Bchip @24, you make some good points.There appears to be general acceptance of the tax with the population at large, it's politicians who are reluctant. I suppose its a case of getting  enough critical mass of public opinion so that politicians can no longer avoid the issue. Websites like this help, talk to your local politicians, vote for environemtally aware parties.

       As someone above noted these things tend to ultimatly reach tipping points where large numbers reach a silent and similtaneous consensus that things must change, and at that point change is sometimes rapid, just look at history. But you can push people towards the tipping point as much as possible.

       One issue is big governments means different things to different people! Some resent government getting in our bedrooms, some resent taxes and rules, or capture by the banksters (which is a real problem) etc,etc. I think theres some optimal size, not too big not too small.

       As you say its also a function of real circumstances, because if automation does cause mass unemployment, theres no escaping something like a universal basic income, unless we want serious deprivation and complete chaos. In the end "reality bites hard" and makes ideological posturing seem inadequate.

       My country has made its share of mistakes. It probaly tends towards slightly big government simply because we are so small you need that for practical reasons. But we have a "fiscal responsibility act" that requires government to keep debt low. This constrains government size, but is designed to be flexible to handle recessions. It has worked surprisingly well. 

17137. nigelj at 16:23 PM on 26 October 2017
       What does a sexist Google engineer teach us about women in science?
       

       For me its hard for me to believe biological differences explain a shortage of women in technology. Its well known girls are outperforming boys at school in science and maths, which undermines any biological theory. I know plenty of talented women in science and technology.

       Theres no evidence google discriminates on gender, and they would hardly have some programme promoting gender balance if they did.

       I would think its more about career choices. There appears to be a shortage of women qualified in computer science as below.

       www.computerscience.org/resources/women-in-computer-science/

       This is due to girls seeing computer programming etc as a mans world of nerds, and computer games enthusiasts who are mainly men. I think this is probably changing, but maybe slowly.

       I dont think you can actually expect some perfect 50 / 50 balance of men and women, because the sexes just do sometimes have different preferences, which are not always sinister or anything,  but huge differences suggest some obstacle or issue of some sort to me.

17138. bjchip at 14:39 PM on 26 October 2017
       Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
       

       The way to get the changes required is to put on the tax, not for the government to spend the money .  I agree that it'd be reasonable to additionally spend that money on changing the emissions profiles faster, but... and this is deadly important...  how do you get general acceptance of the tax.  The people asserting that big government is a hazard to the society are NOT wrong about that.  The capture of government by industry and the banksters is already  almost complete.  That is a real thing, and if you want to get a tax in place, which is the most important SINGLE thing we can do to get this change to happen, we have to pay attention to the results.  Moreover, it is absolutely true that the government will have people in it who will be motivated to keep the emitting happening to keep the money flowing.   It isn't an "entitlement, it is a refund arrangement and if society manages to survive another 20 or so years the automation of every nearly every decent job out there is going to be near complete and the government is going to be "redistributing" money anyway.  

17139. Eclectic at 09:26 AM on 26 October 2017
       Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
       

       Nigelj @22 , your Scientific American article is from 6 years ago.   While the rest of the world (especially China and India) has moved forward over that 6 years, there doesn't seem to have been much change in the USA, judging by the Yale studies [per NorrisM @21].

       If we can believe the 10-year series of Yale surveys, then 66% of Americans do not discuss [this major topic] with family & friends.   ( I wonder if football games & Kardashian games rate as poorly! )  Apparently, 50% say they never give [climate] a thought.

       All of which strongly suggests the proposal that: American households would countenance a $177 per annum fee to counter AGW . . . is a rather uninformed assessment resting on a flimsy base.   I would like to think Americans could do a lot better than 18 cents per day per person — once they achieve a properly-informed opinion, that is !

       Some things change slowly — and sometimes "a week is a long time in  politics".  And a tipping point occurs.

       There are often unexpressed depths in human thinking.  But fires floods and hurricanes can gradually chip away at the dam wall — until there's a sudden collapse, and reality comes flooding through.

17140. nigelj at 06:23 AM on 26 October 2017
       Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
       

       Norris @21

       The studies do indeed show republicans and conservatives do figure disproportionately in climate science scepticism. In fact it goes further, with conservative white males being particularly prominent as in this article from Scientific American.

       www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-conservative-white-maes-are-more-likely-climate-skeptics/

       The article explores reasons of course and there are several suggested reasons. One issue is people often take a view of climate scepticism because they 'assume' their peer group all think that way, when in reality their peer group may not be thinking that way at all or not as much as is assumed. The fact a good percentage support renewable energy suggests wider belief that we are altering the climate than might be apparent in science question polls, because of this effect.

17141. nigelj at 06:07 AM on 26 October 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       Scaddenp, I meant zero carbon legislation. I'm getting confused with the tax and dividend article. 

17142. nigelj at 05:56 AM on 26 October 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       Scaddenp @181

       To be honest, I  got most of my knowledge of the proposed  zero carbon tax just from some superficial article in the Herald. I read the Herald on line each morning, and sometimes I buy the paper version.

       When you mentioned zero carbon, I confess actually did a google to get more detail for myself, and decided to post a link for you, and in case others reading this thread are interested (probably just a couple of us now though). But I think the principle of legislation of that sort is really important, and worth promoting.

       I totally agree it could be a great thing at state level in the USA and could possibly happen there. If california can have an ETS, you would think they could have carbon legislation and bipartisan bodies to deal with things, or bodies a little separate from government. But then I dont know how much law the states are permitted to have. Its so different to our system in NZ. Trump would probably try to sabotage it as well.

       California is large and seems interested in such things, but you never know, smaller states might pick up on these ideas as well,  given smaller population sometimes means decisions are easier to make.

17143. NorrisM at 01:32 AM on 26 October 2017
       Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
       

       sauerj @ 9

       Could I just clarify the math in your post?  I am assuming you are correct that the average US emissions per person is 18t/yr.   As of June 2016, the US population was around 323MM.  The Kotchen et al September 2017 concludes that on average American households would be prepared to pay $180 ($177) per household to combat global warming.  The same study states that there are approximately 126 MM households in the US.  So that works out to 2.56 persons in each household.  So that works out to a contribution per person (not household) of $70.  If you divide this amount by the 18t/person/yr that works out to a carbon tax of $4/t/person that Americans are willing to pay for based upon their emissions.  It is certainly not more than double that figure even if you base it on adults per household.

       My only other comment I will make on this thread is that all of these studies show a very clear divide between Democrats and Republicans which would suggest a real "whipsawing" going forward in American policy dependent on which party is in power. 

       The May 2017 Yale Study shows that only 42% of Moderate/Liberal Republicans are concerned about global warming.  When you mix in the Conservatives to get Total Republicans, that percentage is just 29%.

17144. Ari Jokimäki at 00:44 AM on 26 October 2017
       The F13 files, part 1 - the copy/paste job
       

       Marco, thank you for the correction regarding the iThenticate. I have corrected the relevant section of part 4.

       I don't think I would describe the actions of the Editor-in-Chief as trying to evade the issue. I think he handled the issue sloppily, but I haven't seen any evidence that would suggest that he was deliberately trying to evade the issue.

       As was noted in the part 4, we did send our plagiarism analysis also to the executive publisher of the journal.

17145. scaddenp at 17:44 PM on 25 October 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       nigelj - likewise in NZ but you are obviously more on top of the news than me. Still prefer to digest in morning paper rather than trying to follow it all online. 

       To me, it seems like a lot of similar things like this and the UK could happen at state level in US. Not all states would be interested but the many of the most populous could.

17146. nigelj at 12:57 PM on 25 October 2017
       Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
       

       Scaddenp @179, as it happens I live in NZ. You are correct in that summary, and the policies look good to me. However details are still sketchy, and time will tell.

       This is what a zero carbon act may look like:

       zerocarbonact.nz/zca-summary/

       www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/97311756/explainer-what-a-zero-carbon-act-means-for-new-zealand

       The intention is to de-politicise it as much as possible similar to Britain by 1)having a long term act that puts things in writing with goals,  and 2) having a commission outside of politics to advise on policy. This is not going as far as the UK, but its a similar concept.

       It all reflects similar policy approaches in NZ where we passed a fiscal responsibility act in the early 1990s that requires governments to keep government debt low. Its worked well, and parties on both left and right have followed the act quite well. I dont think anyone would dare change the act, its quite broadly accepted now and fundamentally makes sense.

17147. nigelj at 12:23 PM on 25 October 2017
       Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
       

       Why not divide the tax dividend like this: 50% given back to the public, 25% carbon sinks, 25% help with renewable energy?

       The only way to sell the idea is probably to give at least some back to the public. The public may also be amenable to a dedictated fund for soil sinks and renewable energy.

       Either way all this keeps it out of the black hole of general government spending, and stops it trickling into stealth bombers, or politicians pay rises or whatever it is you dont like. 

17148. RedBaron at 10:51 AM on 25 October 2017
       Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
       

       I have to disagree with you Bjchip. The "do stuff with" a carbon tax needs to include reducing emissions where verifialble, and increasing sinks where verifiable. All other uses should be invalid, including a rebate to the general public. Otherwise forget it. No tax.

       The last thing we need is another entitlement. I agree there. But I have no problems at all using a tax and spend if indeed the "spend" is spent on actual verifiable carbon in a long term sink. (maybe even 10% used for research and development and/or start up business loans for renewable energy projects and/or sequestration projects)

       That certainly could include a farmers field if he can verify it using a standardized verification protocol.

       There should be no problem paying for a public service. We do that already. It causes zip zero nada economic disruption at all. We can even do it without adding a tax just by redirecting current subsidies identified as belonging to outdated systems contributing to AGW. In that case it is a Win/Win

17149. bjchip at 09:27 AM on 25 October 2017
       Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
       

       Actually I would reckon that the most important reason to make a carbon tax revenue neutral would be to ensure that the revenue does not become something the government or the society depends on to do stuff.    Want better schools then set the income tax rates accordingly and pay for schools.   Want better mass transit?  The same.  Don't use the CO2 tax to do anything but discourage the emissions of CO2 because if government gets dependent on it there is created a perverse incentive for some parts of government to maintain the emissions to keep the income flow.  

       Just saying.  :-) 

       Also : 

       " "governments can reduce pollution that causes xxxx....""  apparently contains the assumption that governments can reduce pollution.  This is only regarded as an assumption by a certain class of extremist who is ignorant of the experiences in Sweden and Canada and France where government action did unquestioningly reduce pollution, though the French result is clearly secondary.  

       Similarly 

       ""congress may consider at tax on ...xxxx... to 'help"...""  appears to offend the same nerve endings that are so ultra-sensitized to the use of government to do the things that the people separately cannot accomplish.  Which is a description of the purpose of government generally.   

       Reading the above, it is fairly clear that the offending passages aren't offensive, and the perception that they are is a matter of someone trying to re-frame the debate and shift the overton window even further to the right of our home than it is, and it is already in the vacant lot next door.  

       In a few years it won't matter.  I expect the financial crash of 2018 to put paid to the neoliberals. 

17150. nigelj at 07:07 AM on 25 October 2017
       Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
       

       macquigg @16, my thoughts exactly. Somehow in the past people on right and left had more of a consensus on environmental issues, as you say. in fact the big silent majority constantly show they are generally moderate in beliefs, and what we might be seeing right now is a very noisy partisan minority of activists on the right becoming ever more prominent and influential and noisy (and possibly on the harder left as well at times in their particular way).

       I think its driven by conservatives mainly with a fear that social values are liberalising generally and economics is moving slowly from being belief orientated, to more evidence based. I suggest those more strongly and partisan inclined towards the Republicans are seeing their very belief orientated way of thinking, and socially conservative values becoming ever more challenged by a more science based approach and are becoming defensive and very loud and opposed to some of the key science theories. This spills over now into environmental issues. They compromised in the past but are now becming nervous. I have a more liberal outlook, but even I get nervous at the pace of change sometimes.

       I dont know what the answer is but it must include emphasis at all times on the value of science, evidence and logic and try to constrain beliefs and values to simple defensibe things most people would accept, and there are plenty of those. I hasten to add those that lean very liberal sometimes have their own echo chamber problems, and dogma its not all one sided.

       I do agree partisan politics appears to be a big factor in denialism. But we shouldnt over simplify too much, and I think several things contribute, including basic understanding of science way of thinking, vested interests, jobs, politics and world view. Most writers I have come across think the same, and it reflects my own experience talking to people.

       I can also at least  imagine that anyone whos job is immediately threatend by policy would understandably be nervous, and perhaps fight back against the science, regardless of their political leanings. Of course some poeople are more accepting and sanguine and just move on to new horizons. But some democrats are also climate sceptics, its not a republicans, for example so this shows ideology is unlikely to be the only factor.

       Having said this , its remarkable just how many of the loud, persistent, noisy climate sceptics turn out to be driven by conservative / right leaning / libertarian ideology. I find this in my personal experience, and this is also backed up by some evidence as this website has shown polls where conservatives do feature more in climate scepticism. I think its a gut visceral dislike of government rules and restrictions over business, so quite deep seated in character and beliefs. Of course their point of view sometimes has merit, but it seems to have become extraodinarily irrational and dogmatic these days, possibly for the reasons I explained above. You only have to read their discourse in the media.

Prev  335  336  337  338  339  340  341  342  343  344  345  346  347  348  349  350  Next