Subscribe: Comments for RealClimate
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/global-warming-debate/feed/
Preview: Comments for RealClimate

Comments for RealClimate



Climate science from climate scientists...



Last Build Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2016 05:43:27 +0000

 



Comment on Unforced variations: Dec 2016 by patrick

Mon, 05 Dec 2016 05:43:27 +0000

"Tech designer schools Facebook, creates fake news detector in an hour." http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-friday-edition-1.3878672/tech-designer-schools-facebook-creates-fake-news-detector-in-an-hour-1.3878682 Domain classifications include: Fake News: Sources that fabricate stories out of whole cloth with the intent of pranking the public. Satire: Sources that provide humorous commentary on current events in the form of fake news. Extreme Bias: Sources that traffic in political propaganda and gross distortions of fact. Conspiracy Theory: Sources that are well-known promoters of kooky conspiracy theories. Rumor Mill: Sources that traffic in rumors, innuendo, and unverified claims. State News: Sources in repressive states operating under government sanction. Junk Science: Sources that promote pseudoscience, metaphysics, naturalistic fallacies, and other scientifically dubious claims. Hate Group: Sources that actively promote racism, misogyny, homophobia, and other forms of discrimination. Clickbait: Sources that are aimed at generating online advertising revenue and rely on sensationalist headlines or eye-catching pictures. Proceed With Caution: Sources that may be reliable but whose contents require further verification. If there are any sites you recommend adding or removing...[see:] http://bsdetector.tech/ BS Detector: I think this is important, starting with the response to Facebook by the self-agency of Self Agency. Daniel Sieradski has real credibility on the thing at hand (namely, sorting out disinformation) and I think climate science keepers should begin now to integrate their common intelligence with Self Agency by installing and using BS Detector--and provide feedback as needed to Self Agency. Sieradski states the size of the project (at time of interview) in the interview. climatefeedback.org is very important and doing most exemplary work, but BS Detector is needed too. It's a fast-action disinformation alert. There's disinformation and there's disinfo-con: namely, the idea that you can't tell the difference. Daniel Sieradski says the opposite. He stands up against the con in disinfo-con. He's had a lot of practice, esp with conspiracy theories. He keeps learning, and he's the right person at the right time.



Comment on Unforced variations: Dec 2016 by Charles Hughes

Mon, 05 Dec 2016 05:09:54 +0000

Chrstopher says: 2 Dec 2016 at 9:39 PM "PaulS, your data is all under water. SLR for past 200 years has measured at 18cm/century pre AGW. I look at Portland Maine, but suite yourself and look at the record for the entire east coast. 1-2-3mm/year is typical except south louisiana where subsidence exceeds SLR." I'm no expert but I would say, 'The past is not prologue'. Nothing we've experienced in the past can possibly prepare us for what's coming. If you're looking at recent history (200 years) to support the idea that SLR can't happen rather quickly, wait till a few major glaciers shake loose from Antarctica and Greenland.



Comment on Unforced variations: Dec 2016 by Mike Roberts

Mon, 05 Dec 2016 04:23:54 +0000

Mike, yes, Tamino posted on the topic of CO2 atmospheric growth but wrote, "There’s still the possibility of faster rise since about 2010, but I don’t have a lot of confidence in that conclusion." I take this to mean that there still isn't enough data to be able to say with confidence that CO2 growth has accelerated. It wouldn't surprise me but I think all we can do is speculate on that. However, that soil respiration paper deserves a read.



Comment on Trump carbon and the Paris agreement by Steve Fish

Mon, 05 Dec 2016 03:26:14 +0000

Re: Thomas, 2 Dec 2016 at 11:48 PM, ~#150 Thomas, you responded to Kevin’s statement (#128) regarding, “correcting distortions in the system that result in hidden subsidies to fossil fuels.” You said that they are not hidden and “plain as day and very well known,” and you therefor think that there are no distortions in the system. If you think that consumers take into account all the “plain as day” subsidies, you should be able to type out a simple list off the top of your head. I don’t think that consumers have any idea of all of the subsidies that hide the real costs of fossil fuels that they purchase and am very curious what you think is obvious. Your answering a question with a question and your flippant “hidden subsidies” comments are juvenile dodging. Why? On the other hand, I am very encouraged by your statement: “I’d hate to write too much and no one read it.” I will make this even easier for you. Just list the direct and indirect subsidies to fossil fuels that affect US citizens so I can see what you think is well known and obvious. You don’t even have to give amounts. I just know that you can do this without irrelevant verbiage if you would just give it a try! Steve



Comment on Unforced variations: Dec 2016 by Thomas

Mon, 05 Dec 2016 01:14:52 +0000

There is a theory that intelligent people are supposed to be able to handle complex issues. I:m not sure how true that is. Some Final Thoughts to be ignored and twisted out of all semblance to what they actually are. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/11/trump-carbon-and-the-paris-agreement/comment-page-4/#comment-664077



Comment on Trump carbon and the Paris agreement by Thomas

Mon, 05 Dec 2016 01:11:39 +0000

PS Kevin .... this is THE key error that not only you are making: "These posts respond to my contention that people buy on price as a significant factor" This is a classic Strawman Argument, because not once have I ever denied that "price as a significant factor" in everyday purchase choices, including their energy use. That has NEVER been my argument, and does not relate to anything I have said or referenced or suggested - MY POINT is that a Price on Carbon, in particular a Govt imposed Carbon Tax or even a F&D system WILL NOT AND CANNOT SOLVE THE SYSTEMIC PROBLEM OF CARBON EMISSIONS CAUSING GLOBAL DEGRADATION OVER TIME. iow using a carbon price while believing the Market will drive SIGNIFICANT (and rapid enough) CHANGE in the ECONOMIC SYSTEM OF ENERGY USE GLOBALLY is a MYTH - IT IS a FALSE FRAMING of what the real causes of the problem are - it is a DISTRACTION away from the simple solution of dealing logically and rationally with the REAL CAUSE of the problem - scientifically and technically and historically. You are essentially changing the TOPIC under discussion here, and the many times I have put my KEY point. What you and many others have here is a FALSE Equivalency. It's a matter of Logic combined Context. There is also an argument to be had about the specific facts of what defines significant in the TOPIC under discussion. To be "significant" a carbon price would need to address the true extent of the COST of Fossil Fuel Use - including the environment, global warming, economic distortions, market manipulations, tax avoidance strategies, and the impact +/- upon Government Revenues on behalf of The People. This is your (and others) basic error: Priory: "price as a significant factor" Theory A = A price on carbon, aka a Carbon Tax or F&D, would therefore a "a significant factor" in choices decisions made about Energy Use and energy using Purchases. This follows on to: Theory B = Because it is assumed a price/tax on carbon is SIGNIFICANT, therefore it will have an SIGNIFICANT IMPACT in driving down Fossil Fuel use and therefore save the planet from AGW/CC. As others have noted there is this thing called 'externalities' or externalizations, often known as Socializing the true Costs of Business, Mining, and Fossil Fuel Consumption onto the general Public, the Taxpayer, and the Environment. We are in fact talking about 200+ years of externalizations being Socialized Costs Globally now - and not merely today's or next year's Use of Fossil Fuels. I put it to you and everyone else that you have indeed drunk the Koolaid and bought a Lemon in pseudo-economics, an ETS, a Carbon Tax and F&D theories. Unfortunately many of you are far more interested in defending your own implanted BELIEFS put there by others/society/media than you are in Logic and Rationality OR TRUTH. And this is why you can't help yourselves from Arguing - not with me per se (a weak cop out imho) but arguing against historical truths and with simple Logic and the facts. Philosophy, Logic and Psychology are best informed by a true accurate fore-knowledge of History, before drawing conclusions about FALSE ECONOMIC THEORY being promulgated in the Media and the social consciousness. In the early 19th Century the US Govt imposed a Slave Tax for the importation of new slaves into the USA. That Slave Tax did not reduce slavery, did not end it, and did not impact on the "cost of production" of Cotton to a SIGNIFICANT degree to drive CHANGE in the behavior of Cotton Farmers nor the buyers of Cotton internationally. What stopped Slavery was Government LAW (Regulation - drive by the People/ Voter Demands) that Banned the practice outright and immediately. In the 1970s after Nader[...]



Comment on Unforced variations: Dec 2016 by mike

Mon, 05 Dec 2016 00:52:22 +0000

Noisy number, but still: Daily CO2 December 3, 2016: 404.42 ppm December 3, 2015: 400.38 ppm 4.04 ppm waiting on Nov monthly average. Nobody should be frightened by these numbers. Just data to review. Cheers Mike



Comment on Trump carbon and the Paris agreement by Thomas

Sun, 04 Dec 2016 22:34:36 +0000

153 Kevin McKinney "Thanks for conceding my point, Thomas." Sorry, you're dreaming. 155 Greg Simpson, if you say so, feel free. I know what I said and I know what the topic/discussion was about. Merry Xmas to both of you. And good luck in 2017 getting the public to agree with you.



Comment on Trump carbon and the Paris agreement by Thomas

Sun, 04 Dec 2016 22:28:54 +0000

154 Hank, just quickly, necessary additions incl such matters as: Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=US+military+cia+crude+oil&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp= Crude Strategy: Rethinking the US Military Commitment to Defend Persian Gulf Oil edited by Charles L. Glaser, Rosemary A. Kelanic https://goo.gl/PSI7pl http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2012/12/03/what-happens-when-america-no-longer-needs-middle-east-oil/#64def0ed64fa http://www.ogj.com/articles/print/volume-103/issue-17/general-interest/the-oil-weapon-past-present-and-future.html Have a merry xmas Hank. Keep up the good educational work about "the facts" you do here and elsewhere.



Comment on Unforced variations: Dec 2016 by Russell Seitz

Sun, 04 Dec 2016 20:44:41 +0000

'Tis the season for a reality check , on the intercomparison of econometric & climate models of the prices of vital commodities, like Partridges and Pear Trees.