Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 Next
Comments 43251 to 43300:
-
JasonB at 16:29 PM on 1 August 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #29B
JvD,
Your analogy concerning the Australian iron ore is not helpfull. Iron ore is not a scarce resource, so the market price is very close to the production price.
How do you expect your arguments to be taken seriously when they are full of such obvious errors? (There's a phrase that you like to throw around that I'm more reluctant to use, so I'll stick with "errors".)
From page 51 of Rio Tinto's investor chartbook, their 2012 cash cost of iron ore was US$23.50/tonne. The all-in cost to deliver to China including royalties, shipping, and underlying capital costs was $US47/tonne.
The market price peaked at $US191.90/tonne in 2011.
Mark ups on iron ore for global miners BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto are now at a staggering 160 per cent, with profit margins at 62 per cent, nearly double that of the world's most valuable tech company, Apple Inc., as of June 30, 2013.
[...]
Iron ore rose from less than $US20 a tonne in 2000 to a record in 2011 near $US200, before levelling off.
In comparison, oil, the only traded commodity market larger than iron ore, rose only half as quickly when it hit an all-time high above $US147 a barrel in 2008 from about $30 in 2000. (Source)
If iron ore is not a "scarce" resource, perhaps you can explain why just two countries (China and Australia) account for over 60% of the world's production? (Source) Add in Brazil and you've got 73%; add India and it's 81.5% in just four countries. In comparison, oil is positively ubiquitous, with the top two producers accounting for just 26% of world production and the top four barely cracking 40%. (Source)
So not only was my analogy helpful, it turns out to be even more exaggerated in the characterists that define the oil industry. Yet Australian's don't get to buy iron ore at $23.50/tonne from Rio Tinto, nor do we get to buy it at $47/tonne [*]; we have to pay whatever the going rate is for it on the world market. Any requirement otherwise would amount to price support and a subsidy on the Australian consumption of iron ore.
[*] This gets back to the point I made earlier - just what is the "cost" of Saudi oil that you're referring to? Does it include amortisation of capital expenses, or just the marginal cost of extracting an extra barrel? I'd be surprised if the "true cost" is even publicly known, yet you've been asserting repeatedly that the Saudi's are selling it at that price with no references to support that that I've seen. Not that it actually matters to the argument, because either way it's still below market price, but I'm disinclined to take your word for it given the egregious errors you've made in areas that I am familiar with.
-
Tom Curtis at 16:05 PM on 1 August 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #29B
scaddenp @56, based on the IEA map of the location of energy subsidies, they come predominantly from fossil fuel rich nations, or middle income nations such as China and India:
The same impression is given by the chart of the top15 providers of subsidies, with the only OECD nation among them being Mexico (13th).
I assume, therefore, you are drawing attention to the chart of the benefit recieved from the subsidy by income group,showing that the bottom 20% by income tend to recieve just 5-15% (8.5% mean) of the benefit depending on the fossil fuel subsidized. That does show that the poor are not well targeted by the benefits. Given the nations concerned, far more than just the bottom 20% of income in some of the nations could be considered poor by world standards, and in all those nations by western standards. Consequently a more usefull chart would be one showing the benefit gained by the top 20% by income in each nation. As it is, suggesting that the gains in reduced emissions from eliminating these subsidies would be paid by the (moderately) poor is not unreasonable.
It is likely, however, that the societies in question would benefit from eliminating the subsidies and redirecting the money saved within country. By doing so they would be able to reduce overall taxation, and at the same time better target aid the the poorest in their nations. It is also quite reasonable to claim, however, as does Faith Birol that the elimination of the subsidies would see a large reduction in CO2 emissions.
Returning to JvD's comment @4, "industrialized nations" has frequently been used a name of a group of nations including the OECD plus Warsaw Pact nations. On that basis only six industrialized nations contribute to the subsidy (5 warsaw pact plus Mexico). However, I do not think it reasonable to currently describe South Korea, India, China and Indonesia as not industrialized. So, approximately a third of the nations involved are industrialized, but less than a third of the subsidies are from industrialized nations. Consequently, I agree that the statement by the reporter (and not Dr Romani) that, "Industrialised nations plough $600 billion a year to subside coal, oil and gas activity" has to be considered inaccurate at best.
-
scaddenp at 14:34 PM on 1 August 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #29B
And before claiming that "the poor" would be financing the Green fund, have a look at the graph of who is getting the subsidy (bottom 20% compared to top 80%) from IEA data shown here.
-
chriskoz at 13:56 PM on 1 August 2013The Albedo Effect and Global Warming
francis@4,
Can you tell us why such distinction (planetary vs surface A) is important? My uneducated guess is that surface A may have large impact on arctic amplification (positive feedback in mid-to-high N lattitudes), while planetary A feedback may be confined to lower lattitudes only. But that's just may guess and I'd like to know your expert opinion.
-
scaddenp at 09:17 AM on 1 August 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #29B
JvD - it is hard to have an argument with someone who believes they are free to define words as they like. You might like to look at how this price support is actually defined by say WTO as well how defined in the primary sources.
Critical to the concept of subsidy is action or policy that results in the price below market value. The price of water isnt cheaper in Netherlands due to government policy (as far as I know) but because it makes no economic sense to export water to dry countries. There is no option to get more money by selling overseas rather than local consumers. My country (NZ) is big milk producer. You would be sadly disappointed if you expected milk to be cheap because local market has to compete with international demand. Likewise in Saudi Arabia and other oil producers - the state oil company could earn considerably more money if it instead exported for market rate what it sells at cost to locals. Governments have many ways to aid their citizens but consumption subsidies should not be one of them.
I note that you have failed to provide any evidence to support your earlier assertions in which case perhaps you should apologize for the smear. I also note that you continue to duck the question of whether making oil producer citizens pay market price will reduce consumption and thus emissions.
-
william5331 at 06:43 AM on 1 August 2013The Albedo Effect and Global Warming
There seems to be one little localized negative feed back occuring this year. Due to a persistant low pressure area over the Arctic Ocean, it is cloudier than it has been and this is reflecting heat back into space. The ice extent graph hasn't reached last year's values. The low pressure area may be due to the earlier cracking of the ice north of Alaska, releasing heat and water vapour to the atmosphere or thinner ice doing likewise. Gaia is trying to fight back.
-
rockytom at 06:42 AM on 1 August 2013East Antarctica Ice-Sheet more vulnerable to melting than we thought: new research
John, thanks for another excellent post. The USGS, in one estimate, has stated that a total collapse of both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets could potentially raise eustatic sea-level 260 feet. Of course this will not happen over night, but there is mounting evidence that the process(es) have started in both the Northern (Greenland) and Southern (Antarctica) Hemispheres . And of course, the vast majority of mountain (valley, piedmont, alpine) glaciers are also retreating rapidly. The situation needs to be brought to the public and politicians and through posts such as yours and others at SkS (and RealClimate.org, Tamino, and others) are helping. Tom
-
DSL at 04:34 AM on 1 August 2013Sea level rise is exaggerated
Gads - Joe D'Aleo is on a The Weather Channel comment stream trying to convince people that Morner is a "the top world expert" in sea level. I quote:
"Also see http://www.jcronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1 where after studying tide gauges (instead of relying on failing models) they conclude: Our analyses do not indicate acceleration in sea level in U.S. tide gauge records during the 20th century. Instead, for each time period we consider, the records show small decelerations that are consistent with a number of earlier studies of worldwide-gauge records. The decelerations that we obtain are opposite in sign and one to two orders of magnitude less than the+0.07 to+0.28 mm/y2 accelerations that are required toreach sea levels predicted for 2100 by Vermeer and Rahmsdorf (2009), Jevrejeva, Moore, and Grinsted (2010), and Grinsted, Moore, and Jevrejeva (2010)."
-
francis at 01:02 AM on 1 August 2013The Albedo Effect and Global Warming
I think this excellent post might be just a bit clearer if the discussion made a concrete distinction between the global or planetary albedo (which lumps together all the effects of clouds, aerosols, and surface changes and which may be increasing slightly) and the surface albedo (which does NOT include atmospheric effects for the most part). The surface albedo clearly is decreasing owing to the loss of snow and ice, and this allows more of the sun's energy to be absorbed by the system, even though there may be less of it entering the top of the atmosphere.
Moderator Response:[DB] Thank you, Dr. Francis. Your insights are always valued and welcome.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 00:49 AM on 1 August 2013Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
OneHappy... I think you're totally right. It makes me wonder if people like Spencer and Watts have actually read the paper. They're using one broad definition from one place in the paper and ignoring the nuanced definitions that are clearly stated in the paper.
There is no possible way that any of these guys who claim to believe CO2 causes "some" warming are part of the 97% as defined by the paper.
-
John Hartz at 00:47 AM on 1 August 2013Update on BC’s Effective and Popular Carbon Tax
Another article about the new study cited in the OP :
'Sky didn't fall' after British Columbia lowered income tax, dropped fuel use with carbon tax by Coleen Jose, ClimateWire, E&E Publishing, July 30, 2013
-
DSL at 23:35 PM on 31 July 2013An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
And it's a simple representation of what's going on. No interpretation necessary. Like MBH98 and Marcott et al. 2013, it's a single figure that is not easily re-contextualized. When Watts et al. try to spin it, they end up creating the kind of confusion that scientists typically create when they try to communicate the details to the public. In other words, there's no countermove. They've actually started to pull the Mann Maneuver on Cook: cast doubt on the source if you can't attack the work (funny how no one goes after the "et al."). Now that the Levitus 0-2000m OHC plot is getting some length to it, it's beginning to come under attack for the same reason (less so, though, because the professional spinners know that OHC vs. temp can be confusing to the general public). Watts has already tried to stir confusion re Levitus with his goofy attempt to diminish the level of energy going into the oceans.
Nothing at all to do with scientific progress. Everything to do with the power of the piece in the game of shaping public opinion, a game that is difficult for scientists and their communicators to play. The professional spinners are allowed to play by one set of rules (every trick in the book), and if science communication comes anywhere near any move that even causes a single hair on Ethical Cat's back to tremble, the spinners launch a full "exposure" of it. It must be quite intoxicating (in a Mad Dog 20/20 sort of way) to have no accountability re science and to have an audience that simply laps it up without question, cheering wildly at the ongoing argument for their own willful ignorance. The postmodern condition is alive and well.
-
JvD at 21:25 PM on 31 July 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #29B
[moderation complaint snipped]
JasonB writes:
Supplying their populations with energy at the cost of production instead of market prices is "price support".
No, it isn't. "price support" entails supplying energy below the cost of production, which is what Feed-in tariffs do for example.
Keeping this distinction is very important, because otherwise we will not understand the real comparative cost of renewables versus fossil fuels, which means we will develop inappropriate expectations about their real global competitiveness, which poses a grave risk to our ability to make effective energy policy.
Your analogy concerning the Australian iron ore is not helpfull. Iron ore is not a scarce resource, so the market price is very close to the production price. A better analogy - IMHO - can be construed using water, as a hypothetical international commodity. For example:
In my country (the Netherlands), potable water is cheap, because of the geology we have. Now lets imagine that - perhaps due to increasing water supply stress due to climate change around the world - water becomes an internationally traded commodity and its international market price settles at 700% of the cost of potable water production in my country. Now someone like Dr. Romani gets up in front of the United Nations and claims the following:
"The Dutch and other water-rich countries pay far less for their water than than the international market price! This is a subsidy! We could use that subsidy to pay for water desalinisation plants, aquaducts and water-efficiency technology! Therefore, the subsidy ploughed into potable water in those countries should be transferred to the UN Green Water Growth fund!"
Do you now see how sick and misguided such a proposal would be? Let other countries pay for their water technologies with their own money! Let them not bother the Dutch, who have their own problems! The Dutch cannot pay to solve the world's water problems, just like the people in oil producing countries cannot pay to solve the worlds oil problems!
Moderator Response:[JH] You are skating on the thin ice of sloganeering and excessive repetition, both of which are banned by this site's comment policy. Please cease and desist, or face the consequences.
[Dikran Marsupial] Also comments about moderation are off-topic. I have snipped this time, next time I will delete.
-
JasonB at 20:29 PM on 31 July 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #29B
JvD,
There is no 'price support' in Saudi Arabia, or other oil producting countries. Since the oil age began, they have been supplying their populations with energy at the cost of production. Should they now choose to add 600% domestic taxes to that energy, - in order to equal the international market price of energy - this will reduce co2 emissions only to the degree that their citizens become unable to obtain energy.
Supplying their populations with energy at the cost of production instead of market prices is "price support".
They don't need to add "600% domestic taxes", they just need to let the oil companies sell the oil at the going market rate. Saudi citizens could then buy the oil they want on that same market.
Do BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto have to sell the iron ore they mine to Australian citizens at below market rates? No. Do Australian steel mills have to compete with Chinese steel mills for access to the iron ore mined in Australia? Yes. Australian citizens get what they are "owed" as original owners of the resource thanks to royalties that are levied on resources extracted from Australia, not preferential access to the result. Those royalties go into general revenue, reducing the amount of tax we would otherwise have to pay.
As I understand it, the Saudi oil companies are state-owned, so all of the extra profit derived from selling all of the oil at market rates will flow into the state's coffers, rather than some going into shareholder's pockets.
The benefit of doing so is that the extra money raised can then be targetted where it is needed the most. It could go into tax breaks, it could go into welfare programs, it could go into health and education, whatever; the point is that at the moment that same money is going into the pockets of those who can afford to buy oil and its derivatives, and the more they buy, the greater the percentage of that money they get! In other words, not only is it forcing market-priced renewable technology to compete with non-market-priced oil, but it's creating a perverse incentive whereby the more wasteful an individual or organisation is, the greater the benefit they derive — the larger their share of the pie — from the reduction in price of the oil compared to the going market rate.
If you don't want to call that "price support", then all you're really doing is redefining terms to mean something other than what everyone else means by those terms, and then calling those people "deliberate liars" for using those terms in conflict with your personal definitions. If people already understand what "price support" means in the Saudi context — i.e. selling oil domestically at below-market rates — then framing your argument as one about terminology rather than the practice itself isn't going to convince anyone. Your argument ought to be why it's better for Saudi's to sell oil domestically at below market rates thereby foregoing the revenue that would otherwise accrue if that's what you believe rather than call people liars because they describe that as an oil subsidy.
-
Brian Purdue at 19:52 PM on 31 July 2013An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
“I still do not understand why the John Cook paper has had such a "scalded cat" effect on the fake-sceptics”.
That’s easy answered.
This peer-reviewed paper has taken away deniers' no consensus “Holy Grail” - and they want it back.
-
JvD at 18:33 PM on 31 July 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #29B
Just to underline the obvious, Dr. Romani is really saying that countries like Saudi Arabia and other (poor) oil producing countries should raise 600% taxes on domestic oil, and then send that money into the UN's Green Climate Fund!?
So the poor are going to be financing the UN's Green Climate Fund?!?!
(- snip -). It simply makes the chance of avoiding the worst effects of climate change even lower than it already is. Very depressing.
Moderator Response:[DB] sloganeering and inflammatory snipped.
-
OneHappy at 18:32 PM on 31 July 2013Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Thanks Rob, I did search quite hard for this but small points of detail are often hard to find. I note that deniers have picked up on papers referring to "some" and used it to sow confusion.
-
shoyemore at 17:34 PM on 31 July 2013An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
NewYorkJ,
I think Bart Verheggen nailed Pearce's article pretty accurately. It is clear that Pearce has learned all he knows about climate science from reading fake-skeptic blogposts.
I still do not understand why the John Cook paper has had such a "scalded cat" effect on the fake-sceptics. The President of the United States invited 31 million people to read a Reuters report, adding his own gloss. Perhaps that is what has caused their obvious discomfort.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 13:41 PM on 31 July 2013Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
OneHappy... In the paper it clearly states that implicit rejection: "Implies humans have had a minimal impact on global warming without saying so explicitly E.g., proposing a natural mechanism is the main cause of global warming" (My emphasis)
Some warming would be a rejection paper, and the level at which the statements are made would determine if it was implicit or explicit.
-
OneHappy at 13:39 PM on 31 July 2013Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
I assume by the way that according to the conservative approach taken "some" would be understood as the language of minimisation, which would put that abstract into the explicit rejection without quantification category.
-
OneHappy at 13:15 PM on 31 July 2013Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
If an abstract said only that human emissions caused "some" warming, how was this classified? Is it: 'Implicit Endorsement of AGW', 'Neutral', or 'Explicit Rejection of AGW without quantification'?
-
NewYorkJ at 12:14 PM on 31 July 2013An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
Hulme's comments aren't all that surprising. He's viewing the consensus study from the narrow lens of the particular narrative he discusses in the article below. See the paragraph beginning "Second, there has been a re-framing of climate change."
www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/nov/15/year-climate-science-was-redefined
-
Tom Curtis at 11:19 AM on 31 July 2013An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
Michael @42, Hulme did post those comments (confirmed by email).
-
Michael Whittemore at 10:17 AM on 31 July 2013An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
So still no confirmation that Professor Hulme actually did post the comments?? Because it seems a little too easy to impersonate someone on the internet and for everyone to assume it is them.
-
NewYorkJ at 07:59 AM on 31 July 2013An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
Is Warren related to Fred?
www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/the-guardian-disappoints/
shoyemore, I think a clue to how Warren's arguments are formed is in his research profile:
"Warren Pearce is a Research Fellow on the Making Science Public Programme, focusing on the relationship between scepticism and science, with a particular focus on the online debates around climate change."
If you skip an education in the hard sciences, the various science conferences involving climate science, published studies, and synthesis reports, and your primary view of climate science is from an examination of the blogosphere, it's easy to understand where Warren's arguments are coming from. He views bloggers as the most credible "scientists".
Such a background doesn't really excuse logical fallacies. Impressed by many of the comments so far. An example...
bverheggen:
Warren Pearce seems to argue that the existence of even more extreme voices makes Anthony Watts suddenly a "mainstream" sceptic who is thereby freed of the predicate pseudoscience. That is not a logical argument to make.
Regardless of what one may think of Watts, contrasting an extremist with someone who is even more extreme doesnt make him mainstream. Regardless of what one thinks of Watts, contrasting someone who frequently flirts with pseudoscience with an all out pseudo-science lover doesn't free the former from any link with pseudo-science.
That is what I would call the fallacy of the middle ground. -
Barry Woods at 07:24 AM on 31 July 2013An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
Richard Betts's, a scientist was a strong opinion about this paper, he expressed it to Obama, and I stil haven't heard of the authors response?
But I think this will get lost now. I hope people are nice to Warren, despite this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/30/im-gobsmacked/
Moderator Response:[JH] You are skating on the thin ice of sloganeering and excessive repetition, both of which are banned by this site's comment policy. Please cease and desist, or face the consequences.
-
Chris G at 07:22 AM on 31 July 2013An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
Barry's comments border on the TLDR, but it appears to me that Dana and Hulme, et al, are having a discussion about the contents of the paper, and Barry is having a discussion about how media play was handled after the paper was published. I can't make out in Barry's pages what specific problem(s) he has with the paper itself.
-
gws at 07:09 AM on 31 July 2013An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
Barry, I think in most people's view your question has been adequately addressed by the responses since your first comment. Your comparison to Gavin is misleading as Gavin was addressing a strong opinion about scientific evidence by other scientists.
I think you would have a good point if the president were a scientist or a journalist tweeting this. Alas, he is a politician making a political statement. Anyone of different opinion about interpreting the science like he did is welcome to tweet back. If all scientists tweeted back to politicians making false scientific statements we would not have time to do much else ...
-
Barry Woods at 06:55 AM on 31 July 2013An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
no - I just thought it was interesting, Warren posting that article in the Guardain, just after Ben Piles and Dana' Nucitelis' articles at his Making Science Public project..
I would hope that John or Dana respond to my comment (no 1) as they were authors, I would like to here their view, rather than comments from regulars, after all the article is entitled:
An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
I think this would inlcude the president misunderstanding John Cook et al's 97% paper and misinforming the public. A climate scientist took the effort to correct, better that the authors did the same, or are seen to try?. Ie Gavin Schmidt went out of his way this week to criticise the artice methane meltdown story doing the rounds in the media and had a long twitter discussion with the author Chris Hope about it. Making corectoin builds credibility amongst the public and my respect for Gavin went up because he did this.
-
gws at 06:45 AM on 31 July 2013An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
Baryy, instead of answering the many (or just a few of the) questions you got here explaining your rant @15, you instead moved the goal post to something else. Is that article reflecting your opinion?
Assuming Warren is a serious researcher, he did well in placing a question mark at that headline. The fact it appeared in the "political science" section says the rest. The article provides no evidence that self-ascribed "skeptics" have actually done significant science or contributed to the science in meaningful ways other than having their claims debunked. The climate science published by "credible" scientists such as Lindzen and others has been either demonstrably false, or simply had such little merrit that it was not pursued any further after showing that. It is thus a mystery to me what Warren Pearce is talking about, other than an endorsement of the doubt-strategy by inviting his readers to endorse including self-ascribed "skeptics" into the political discussion. After all that is where they are at home, preventing meaningful action by ascerting "uncertainty" and the need for "real science". Sorry, sounds like typical false balance to me. Not worth wasting more time on.
-
shoyemore at 05:56 AM on 31 July 2013An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
Warren Pearce's contribution is embarrassing and cringeworthy. He sets a standard composed of Karl Popper, Andrew Montfort and Anthony Watts. No scientist, let alone climate scientist, gets a mention.
Leaving aside Popper (whose philosophy of science is contested), apparently scientists who have spent years observing, writing, publishing and honing their skills may yet aspire to the excellence of our two stalwarts.
No reference or link is provided (for example, to this site) where the reader may go to gain a balanced overview of climate science. The "technical" references are to the Economist article on climate sensitivity of a few months back, the Bishop Hill blog, Wikipedia, and a blog called "Climate Resistance".
Beisdes looking good on his CV in an application to become a Fox News talking head, Pearce's farrago only serves as a minor irritant.
-
Barry Woods at 05:29 AM on 31 July 2013An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
Warren Pearce (of Making Science Public, Nottingham) who hosted Dana's article, is being brave with a headine like this at he Guardian?
Guardian: Are climate sceptics the real champions of the scientific method?
http://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/jul/30/climate-sceptics-scientific-method
-
MA Rodger at 04:31 AM on 31 July 2013The Albedo Effect and Global Warming
There is a Loeb et al 2011 presentation here which has on its last frame a graph of the CERES & MODIS data spanning March 2000 to Feb 2010 but for 30N to 30S. (Note the top graph fig 4a is hidden - well it is in the form I see it on line - it reappears if you download-cut-paste).
-
silence at 04:03 AM on 31 July 2013The Albedo Effect and Global Warming
It would be really nice to update the graphs to include more recent data.
Moderator Response:[GPW] - Silence (and MA Rodger). Thanks for the comment. Sorry about the old graph, now updated to Loeb et.al. 2012 (same graph as MA Roger linked to, but without the bit cut off).
-
rockytom at 04:00 AM on 31 July 2013An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
Re: Pile's quote above, “Dana Nuccitelli (who is not a climate scientist) ...” begs the question of "What makes a climate scientist?" Is it academic training in climate science? Scientific peer-reviewed papers in climate science journals? Publication of web posts in climate science? When I was a college undergraduate choosing a major at one of the better-known US universities, there was no climate science offered and that was the case at nrarly all US colleges and universities. No one has ever paid me to do climate science.
I would be interested in such a discussion, perhaps in another thread.
-
skymccain at 03:05 AM on 31 July 2013Debunking New Myths about the 97% Expert Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming
“For example, on Sunday July 14th, 2013, Andrew Neil hosted UK Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Davey on the BBC show Sunday Politics”.
This interview was disgusting. Andrew Neil refused to “discuss” the issues. He simply pushed his opinions. He reminded me of the saying “America right or wrong.” This was simply propaganda blindly forced and ignorantly proposed: journalism at its worst.
-
Michael Whittemore at 02:41 AM on 31 July 2013An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
I just wanted to ask if Mike Hulme has acknowledge he did post the comments regarding Cooks paper?
-
Composer99 at 00:19 AM on 31 July 2013An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
With reference to the discussion about rhetorical bludgeons and polarizing discourse as touched on by Dikran in his response to Barry, as one of the regular lay readers of this site (and the parent of a near 2-year old boy) I should like to pipe in to note that, frankly, if self-styled skeptics would like to avoid being beat rhetorically about the head, then they could simply stop advocating policy action - or should I say inaction - which imperil the fortunes of today's global poor and of future generations (*), on the basis of flimsy misrepresentations or misinterpretations of the evidence.
(*) For some inscrutable reason I get upset when others' behaviour threatens my son's future. I certainly can't imagine why that would be.
-
shoyemore at 00:09 AM on 31 July 2013An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
Barry Woods,
Given Myles Allen's agreement with "7 out of 10" points with Professor LIndzen, Bishop Hill et al, here is an article by Professor Allen in which he indeed says that the "climate of climate change" has changed.
However, Allen takes the science for granted, and wants the discussion to push on the penalizing fossil fuel companies for polluting the atmosphere. That is the change he sees, but I do not think that is the one noted by Mike Hulme.
The only institution in the world that could deal with the cost of climate change without missing a beat is the fossil fuel industry: BP took a $30bn charge for Deepwater Horizon, very possibly more than the total cost of climate change damages last year, and was back in profit within months. Of the $5 trillion per year we currently spend on fossil energy, a small fraction would take care of all the loss and damage attributable to climate change for the foreseeable future several times over.
The fact is that you may well be right about 70%, even 90%, of the science is agreed, leaving out the Killing the Sky Dragon crowd. Unfortunately, you will find that the likes of Roy Spencer and Anthony Watts will only agree sufficient of the science that justifies their preferred policy, which is to do nothing.
www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jul/11/climate-change-debate-weather
-
MangoChutney at 21:26 PM on 30 July 2013Global warming games - playing the man not the ball
[moderation complaint snipped]
Moderator Response:[Dikran Marsupial] Discussion of moderation is off-topic. Discussion of moderation on other blogs is doubly off-topic. Please, no more discussion of this here.
-
TonyW at 21:01 PM on 30 July 2013CO2 is plant food
The first link in point 3 of the basic explanation is bad. -
michael sweet at 20:18 PM on 30 July 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #29B
JvD,
Here we agree: you should give up and go somewhere else. You have completely copmpromised your position here by making false statements (like the one above where you claim supporters of renewable energy do not discuss grid upgrades) and refusing to provide data to support your wild claims. You insist that your unsupported opinion is more accurate than others supported opinions. Good luck finding people who agree with you.
-
scaddenp at 18:34 PM on 30 July 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #29B
JvD - okay, I dont think what I wrote is in conflict at all. Diverting those subsidies could indeed be used for those purposes though I would expect instead that consumption would drop - an even more effective way of helping of dealing with climate change,
I am asking you to justify this assertion: (ie provide evidence for its truth)
"The purpose of this deliberate lie is to mislead people into thinking that intermittent renewables would be more competitive in industrialised countries if only these pesky subsidies for fossil fuels would be removed".
You have also repeatedly refused the answer whether you think removal of price support (eg paying the market rate) will reduce CO2 emissions. Why is that?
Do you also accept that there is a $630B gap between what some people pay for FF and the market rate or is that also a lie?
-
shoyemore at 18:18 PM on 30 July 2013An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
richard betts, #16,
I took the trouble to re-read much of what Hulme wrote in 2009-2010 that lost him my respect. Admittedly, I may have been hard on him and his comments seem to be more cogent after 3 or 4 years.
However, I did note at the time, and still do, that in pieces like his Wall Street Journal op-ed, at no point did he remind his readers that the "Climategate" charges against his colleagues were baseless, and exaggerated in the media. I think that would have been a useful point to make to make to WSJ readers. Instead, he seemed focussed on his own philosophical and ideological agenda regarding science and the IPCC.
I am glad he wrote a good book, and some day I may even read it.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 18:09 PM on 30 July 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #29B
JvD wrote "I am passionate about promoting science" - this doesn't come across very well when you refuse to provide justification for your statements. If you think that the discussion of the economics here is flawed, then you really do need to be willing explain your point of view in as much detail as it takes to answer peoples concerns.
-
Willem at 18:07 PM on 30 July 2013The Albedo Effect and Global Warming
Hi. Great explanation, as usual here on SKS. But I must say that the first line, "The long term trend from albedo is of cooling." is somewhat confusing. It could be read as though we're experiencing a cooling effect.
I'd suggest changing it to "A higher albedo has a cooling effect on the earth."
-
JvD at 17:59 PM on 30 July 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #29B
Michael Sweet wrote:
The purpose of SkS is to provide support of climate science. While occasional articles about solutions are published, that is a side issue. No attempt is made to be comprehensive in the coverage of solutions. Your insistance that your beliefs about solutions must be promoted at SkS derails the primary purpose here. Why don't you take your arguments to a more appropriate forum?
We are not even talking about solutions, yet. I am merely taking issue with the fact that SkS is persisting in publishing fundamentally flawed articles about the economics of renewables and subsidies. I want to know why. It saddens me. I am passionate about promoting science and preventing global warming, environmental degradation and poverty. SkS is a wonderful resource that is (still) being fatally undermined by lending itself to the propagation of complete nonsense about energy and economics, which is the very reason we have a problem with the climate in the first place! Why does SkS lower itself to this level?
But you have a point. Why should I even care about this? Why should anyone, right? I can't answer that question. It is for each person to do that for him/herself. Perhaps I should just give up. I should have given up long ago.
-
JvD at 17:45 PM on 30 July 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #29B
Tom Curtis wrote:
If you want to actually argue the case, however, start by explaining why we should accept the assumption of EnergyNautics that demand shifting is limited to 10% of power.
This is not a controversial assumption so you need to provide evidence that it is wrong, I think.
-
JvD at 17:37 PM on 30 July 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #29B
scaddenp wrote:
What I believe the actual assertion is:
1/ price support (by any means including opportunity cost) is artifically lowering prices to consumer and thus encouraging more consumption (and emissions) than would otherwise happen.
2/ price support artifically increases price gap between non-carbon energy sources (eg nuclear and renewables) and FF. In SOME cases, removal of those subsidies would make other forms of energy generation cheaper to consumers than FF.
What are you talking about? The assertions at issue can simply be read from the article in the headline. Please stick to the topic.
Diverting cash used to subsidise fossil fuel production and consumption could raise up to $600 billion a year to fund cuts in greenhouse gas emissions and help poor countries adapt to the effect of a warmer planet, delegates at U.N. talks were told in the Philippines this week.
Industrialised nations plough $600 billion a year to subside coal, oil and gas activity.
If there is something unclear about what assertions we are talking about, please refer to the above text for reference (or the article behind the ling), otherwise we are going to keep running in circles.
-
mikeh1 at 17:17 PM on 30 July 2013An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
@25.
Rob - you are spot on. The climate science deniers and their close cousins, the "lukewarmers" are not going to be convinced by the consensus paper. There could be palm trees growing in Antarctica and they would still be claiming that the science is not "settled". Who gives a hoot for the faux outrage. Best focus on the general public - particularly the young who have to live with the consequences of AGW.
Prev 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 Next
