Subscribe: Comments for RealClimate
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade A rated
Language: English
carbon paris  change  climate change  climate  climates  comment unforced  comment  free market  free  ice  market  paris agreement  trump 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments for RealClimate

Comments for RealClimate

Climate science from climate scientists...

Last Build Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2016 23:09:45 +0000


Comment on Defending Climate Science by Mal Adapted

Sat, 10 Dec 2016 23:09:45 +0000

I've made individual donations to CSLDF, but after reading about the Trumpish Inquisition of Department of Energy employees and contractors who've participated in the Obama Administration's AGW mitigation efforts, I set up a recurring donation of $100 monthly. I urge all RC readers to contribute what you can afford as well.

Comment on The Bore Hole by stefanthedenier

Sat, 10 Dec 2016 22:40:35 +0000

YOU SHOULD BRUSH UP ON WHAT CLIMATE IS: -''there is no such a thing as ‘’earth’s global climate’’ – there are many INDEPENDENT different MICRO CLIMATES 1] Alpine climate 2] Mediterranean climate, 3] sea- level climate 4] high altitude climate 5] temperate climates 6] subtropical climate, 7] tropical climate 8] desert climate 9] rainforest climates 10] wet climate 11] dry climate, as in desert AND THEY KEEP CHANGING; wet climate gets dry occasionally b] even rains in the desert sometimes and improves. In the tropics is wet and dry -/- in subtropics and temperate climates changes four time a year, WITH EVERY season= migratory birds can tell you that; because they know much more about climate than all the Warmist foot-solders and all climate skeptics combined - on the polar caps climates change twice a year. Leading Warmist know that is no ''global warming'' so they encompassed ''climatic changes'' to confuse and con the ignorant - so that when is some extreme weather for few days on some corner of the planet, to use it as proof of their phony global warming and ignore that the weather is good simultaneously on the other 97% of the planet, even though is same amount of co2. In other words, they used the trick as: -''if you want to sell that the sun is orbiting around the earth -> you encompass the moon - present proofs that the moon is orbiting around the earth and occasionally insert that: the sun and moon rise from same place and set to the west, proof that the ''sun is orbiting around the earth'' AND the trick works, because the Flat-Earthers called ''climate skeptics'' are fanatically supporting 90% of the Warmist lies. Bottom line: if somebody doesn’t believe that on the earth climate exist and constantly changes, but is no global warming -> ''climate skeptic'' shouldn’t be allowed on the street, unless accompanied by an adult. b] many micro-climates and they keep changing, but no such a thing as ''global climate''

Comment on Unforced variations: Dec 2016 by nigelj

Sat, 10 Dec 2016 21:13:25 +0000

Zebra @104, thanks and I understand the angle you are coming from. As you say "words matter". I would suggest to most people free market means what it implies, a market where people are free to do almost anything they like with only very minimal government rules. Just listen to people and it should be clear to you they perceive it this way. Free means what it says, free. We have to use words honestly with their most obvious meaning. You cannot regulate a market in the ways you say and claim its a free market. That is an oxymoron or contradiction and wont fool anyone. And a free market will by its nature produce monopolies. And a free market is pretty much "laissez faire capitalism". This is what the average person perceives and it is futile to try to change that perception. I would be the first to say laissez faire capitalism or extreme free market theory (or neoliberalism, the Chicago school) doesn't work or at least has some flaws in it. What we should be promoting both ideologically and in terms of accurate use of words is markets that operate as freely as possible but with sensible regulation and governments that have the courage to break up large monopolies. You appear to be promoting this anyway? So we are in basic agreement. I think a good and honest description would be a "fluid market with sensible regulation". Please do me a favour and read what I said again, so you don't misinterpret it (again)

Comment on Unforced variations: Dec 2016 by Omega Centauri

Sat, 10 Dec 2016 19:34:12 +0000

Charles @111. Its sea ice not an ice shelf. Sea ice fluctuates by several million KMsquared due to seasonal influences. More likely than not it will recover. This doesn't directly affect the glacial ice, although if it contributes to ocean warming, then eventually some of that additional heat may migrate under the ice shelves.

Comment on Unforced variations: Dec 2016 by Charles Hughes

Sat, 10 Dec 2016 19:30:10 +0000

Still wondering about that ice melt the size of India? Was it land based? Anyone know the story on that? Maybe one of the experts here at realclimate can post about it. Or if any of you have links to further information about it I would appreciate it. 109 Thomas says: 8 Dec 2016 at 8:00 PM... How come Thomas never gets to say anything?

Comment on Trump carbon and the Paris agreement by Barton Paul Levenson

Sat, 10 Dec 2016 19:25:15 +0000

T 174: Hooray for Freedom and Democracy – the Human Right to be Manipulated and Lied to. BPL: The implication is that T favors neither freedom, nor democracy.

Comment on Unforced variations: Dec 2016 by Barton Paul Levenson

Sat, 10 Dec 2016 19:22:15 +0000

Thanks, zebra. Thomas has got it absolutely fixed in his head that to acknowledge there is a science of economics, inevitably leads to favoring ineffective laissez-faire economic policies that will crash civilization. Only direct, socialist-style regulation can save the day, in his view. Note that he believes the elasticity of demand for fossil fuel energy is exactly zero--raising the price even an infinite amount will lead to "not one less pound" of carbon being burned. This is an empirically testable proposition, but like a climate denier, he will come up with an infinite number of reasons why any relevant empirical results can be ignored or discounted. To the man with an ideological axe to grind, everything looks like a grindstone.

Comment on Trump carbon and the Paris agreement by prokaryotes

Sat, 10 Dec 2016 12:59:36 +0000

This headline sums it up Donald Trump's Interior Secretary Pick Doesn't Want to Combat Climate Change

Comment on Trump carbon and the Paris agreement by prokaryotes

Sat, 10 Dec 2016 12:48:58 +0000

A dire week for climate change activists closes on a grim note Exxon CEO Tillerson emerges as Trump's secretary of state favorite

Comment on Trump carbon and the Paris agreement by prokaryotes

Sat, 10 Dec 2016 12:36:45 +0000

Trump transition team for Energy Department seeks names of employees involved in climate meetings