Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 Next
Comments 65001 to 65050:
-
lord_sidcup at 00:19 AM on 2 February 2012Measurements show Earth heating up, think tanks & newspapers disagree
You missed the really fun bit of Rose's article (credit to Carbon Brief). Rose says:According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the 'Dalton minimum' of 1790 to 1830.
The Met Office press release actually says:The most likely scenario is that we'll see an overall reduction of the Sun's activity compared to the 20th Century, such that solar outputs drop to the values of the Dalton Minimum (around 1820). The probability of activity dropping as low as the Maunder Minimum - or indeed returning to the high activity of the 20th Century - is about 8%. The findings rely on the assumption that the Sun's past behaviour is a reasonable guide for future solar activity changes.
Do you see? If there is an 8% chance of a new Maunder Minimum, there must be a 92% chance of a new Dalton Minimum. Prof Lockwood actually puts the chance of minimum similar to the Dalton Minimum at 50%. -
Tealy at 23:41 PM on 1 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
Dudes thermal coal is used in power stations and metallurgical coal is used to make steel. Completely different mines. To stop using coal we need to stop making steel. We need to only use recycled steel. The government needs to invest in steel recycling. Cars use lots of steel but most have too much plastic shit that stops efficient recycling. The most recyleable car is still the trusty Jeep Wrangler with stuff all plastic shit. Put the baby on LPG and you have greenest cradle to grave wheels around. A carbon tax will not be enough we need a steel tax as well. Don't know why the government doesn't get it. -
dorlomin at 23:16 PM on 1 February 2012Measurements show Earth heating up, think tanks & newspapers disagree
@PaulD. They have now ceased trading. However they were still being quoted on the 13th of January this year http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2086258/UK-weather-Britain-awakes-scenes-frost-freezing-fog.html?ito=feeds-newsxml -
Alexandre at 23:05 PM on 1 February 2012Measurements show Earth heating up, think tanks & newspapers disagree
I noticed the last 6 months show a distinct cooling trend on Fig 3 - 0.3ºC in the period!! I predict a full strength Ice Age by 2020. You will not see this in a peer-reviewed journal, which proves their bias. -
Paul D at 22:41 PM on 1 February 2012Measurements show Earth heating up, think tanks & newspapers disagree
I just tried accessing positive weather solutions web site (via a Google search) dorlomin and it says 'server not found'. -
dorlomin at 22:34 PM on 1 February 2012Measurements show Earth heating up, think tanks & newspapers disagree
As the Daily Mail was named in the article it is worth pointing out there is serious doubt that many of the weather forcasters the Mail uses for its stories exist. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2012/jan/26/weather-forecasters-daily-mail?INTCMP=SRCH -
CBDunkerson at 21:26 PM on 1 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
Doc Snow, yes there is definitely a degree of geographical constraint with coal. For example, Hawaii does not have any significant fossil fuel deposits and thus must import their fuel over the ocean. That is cost prohibitive for both coal and natural gas (and too small a market to build a pipeline that far), so they have historically gotten almost all of their electricity from oil. Thankfully they have recently noticed that they have some of the best solar, wind, geothermal, and other renewable (e.g. OTEC) resources in the world and are now working towards 100% renewable electrical generation. Yes, US coal production is now in decline, but China is just starting to ramp up. Indeed, Chinese coal is probably the single largest source of potential CO2 emissions for the next 50 years. -
Paul D at 21:11 PM on 1 February 2012Measurements show Earth heating up, think tanks & newspapers disagree
I like the graphs Mark. A visualisation of cherry picking. Maybe we should do such compilations more often, it probably gets that message over better than trying to write loads of texts to say the same thing. Can we create a cherry picking series to put in the library? -
Tom Curtis at 18:51 PM on 1 February 2012Measurements show Earth heating up, think tanks & newspapers disagree
owl905 @5, I'm sure Judith Curry found the prediction "difficult to understand". Why she would admit to that level of incompetence is beyond me ... -
folke_kelm at 18:44 PM on 1 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
IN my opinion this is a very important post. We often forget the problems of depleting energy resources (ok, only "cheap energy resources)while discussing climate change. Obviously the solution for both problems is exactly the same, moving society away from fossil fuels to renewable. We may be able to use this argument in discussions with "sceptics". Unfortunately the mechanisms of denial are exactly the same in both topics.To show, how serious the problem with depletiong oil really is you should have a look at this site: http://www.theoildrum.com/ It is really worth reading. One figure shows much about the problem. If you are not familiar with ROI, it means Return On Investment. For one barrel oil we invest, we got 100 barrel out in 1930. Today we have passed 20 barrels, moving fast to a ROI of 10 barrels. This is a decline of 80 to 90%! It does not matter how high oil price will climb, if you get out only one barrel oil per used this is utterly meaningless. to give you a picture look at this graph: http://www.theoildrum.com/files/HallandDay.png from this post on the Oildrum: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8625 It really is a scary picture that comes up, but again, the solution is exactly the same for climate as for energy. Only a little bit off topic, i recommend you all to have a look at a very exciting lecture about exponential functions by Albert Bartlett http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY&feature=list_related&playnext=1&list=SP6A1FD147A45EF50D -
owl905 at 18:41 PM on 1 February 2012Measurements show Earth heating up, think tanks & newspapers disagree
From the article:- "Meanwhile, one of America’s most eminent climate experts, Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, said she found the Met Office’s confident prediction of a ‘negligible’ impact difficult to understand." That's actually twice as funny as it should be. -
Tom Curtis at 18:41 PM on 1 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
As an addendum to 28, exhausting Oil only will only increase CO2 concentrations by 180 ppmv, for a temperature increase of about 1.5 degrees C from current levels. Gas reserves will scarcely increase that at all. The real kicker is in the coal reserves, which is the logic behind James Hansen's proposed policy that no new coal fired power stations (or mines) be developed from now on, with all current stations being retired when they come to the end of their natural life. Such a policy might keep us below the 2 degree C guard rail with no further action, but is IMO not achievable politically. -
Tom Curtis at 18:34 PM on 1 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
KBow @27, that is a slightly complicated question. First you need to distinguish between reserves which have been fully mapped by geological surveys, and which are commercially recoverable at current price levels and technologies, and reserves which are believed to exist based on geological reasoning, but which have not been fully mapped, or which may not be fully recoverable. Based on which type of estimate you use, and whose estimate (there is some difference in estimates), reasonable projections of fossil fuel use in the coming centuries will lift CO2 levels to somewhere between 980 and 4600 ppmv. The later figure requires exhausting reasonable expectations of coal reserves, and is not possible within a single century (and may take as much as four centuries). In the short term (for a century or so), that increase in CO2 levels will result in an increase in Global Mean Surface Temperature by 5 to 11 degrees C. After a century or so, CO2 levels will decline to about 25% of their peak and then take tens of thousands of years to return to natural levels. That decline will reduce temperatures to between 2 and 6 degrees C above current levels. As 2 degrees C is the limit above which AGW starts going from harmful but manageable to very dangerous, anything like the full exhaustion of gas and oil reserves and 10% of coal reserves (the assumption in calculating the figure) represents a very significant risk for the future. These calculations assume no significant increase of natural GHG emissions as a result of higher temperature, which given developments in Siberia is not a safe assumption. -
Doug Hutcheson at 18:17 PM on 1 February 2012Measurements show Earth heating up, think tanks & newspapers disagree
The GWPF was started by yet another lord (little 'l' deliberate) of the UK peerage, IIRC. What are the upper crust smoking over there? Are they like the Republicans, where you have to be rabidly anti-science in order to attain membership? It is sad that the Fourth Estate has come down to occupying a factless, information-free zone which acts merely as an echo chamber for the Jovian pronouncements of the Masters of the Universe. Thank the Lord (big 'L' deliberate) for SkS and their ilk. -
KBow at 18:07 PM on 1 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
Would it be feasible to project the potential amount of co2 we could produce from the remaining reserves? Also, with a time frame that sufficient levels, for civilian, use may be available. -
Doug Hutcheson at 17:56 PM on 1 February 2012The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction
Tom Dayton @ 35 Wonders will never cease! Fancy that: they publish the rebuttal letter, but not the original submission signed by over 200 scientists. Thanks for the link. Tom Curtis @ 38 Thank you for a much better - polite - response than the one I was thinking of. -
bill at 17:44 PM on 1 February 2012Measurements show Earth heating up, think tanks & newspapers disagree
Any of us who spend any time doing battle online with the various Muppets of Misinformation will recognise Figures 1 and 2, both of which are constantly referenced. But surely to be properly understood - via the Monckton Method, don'tcha know - Figure 3 should be rotated clockwise about 8°? Thanks for the laugh! It helps; sometimes I have to pinch myself and remember 'yes, they really are putting up that risible argument, and, yes, their powerful friends really will ensure it gets all the attention it doesn't deserve'... -
Tom Curtis at 17:38 PM on 1 February 2012The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction
Adam S posted a comment which has since been deleted, so far as I can tell, not because of any particular word in it, but because it consisted of nothing beyond a political slogan to the effect that the entire debate was about whether AGW would be catastrophic or not. That is a false and obnoxious little meme on two grounds. First, contrary to Adam S's suggestion, there are many so-called skeptics who deny that there has been any warming since the 1940's. Even more deny that there has been any Anthropogenic contribution to the warming that has been experienced since then. These two groups are the "more reasonable" so-called skeptics dirty little secret. Although their existence is often denied, it cannot have escaped the attention of anybody discussing global warming on the internet that they exist. Despite that, there existence is denied when it is desirable to seem reasonable, and encouraged when the spreading of confusion can be maximized. So Adam S's slogan is false in denying the existence of this group, and obnoxious because that denial frees him from the obligation of all reasonable people to defend good science with respect to them. Not for Adam S any need to defend science against absurd attacks the second law of thermodynamics, or the basic physics of the greenhouse effect, or even the incontrovertible fact that humans have increased the atmospheric concentration of CO2. In those arguments he can remain safely above the fray, confident in the knowledge that those arguments will help his political cause. Second, and again contrary to Adam's slogan, there is not a dichotomy of possible effects of AGW, but a gradient. Many defenders of effective action against AGW do not accept CAGW, but DAGW, but a merely dangerous AGW is not reason to do nothing. Some defenders of action against AGW do not even accept DAGW, but only BAUAGWWTSMAGW. But accepting that Business As Usual Anthropogenic Global Warming will be Worse Than Mitigated Anthropogenic Global Warming does not give you reason to do nothing about AGW. Indeed, even the catastrophists among AGW acceptors mostly do not accept CAGW, but SROCAGW, but again, a Significant Risk Of Catastrophe is not reason to do nothing to avert that risk. As it stands, the science very solidly supports the idea that AGW will be dangerous, with a significant risk of catastrophe. But the science is not certain. It can reasonably be argued that catastrophe is inevitable if we continue at BAU; and equally it can be argued that AGW will be very bad, and well worth mitigating, but will not be dangerous globally (if still dangerous for some unfortunate people). Richard Alley takes that position. What is not reasonable is the position that we will experience HHAGW! Adam's belief in Ho Hum AGW does not come from following the evidence (unless of course he inhabits a different universe, with different evidence to that available to me). Therefore he promotes the false dichotomy. By insisting all his opponents occupy the most extreme opinion of CAGW, he attempts to render his position more reasonable. Rightly the moderators will have nothing to do with slogans like that on SkS, where even comments are expected to be evidence based. Adam may object to my characterizing as intentional certain strategies implicit in his slogan. Well, granted, he may be a babe in the AGW debate woods, so that he does not know what is implied by his sloganeering. After all, everybody makes mistakes. But honest men man up after the mistake, admit it and correct it. We will see how honest Adam intends to be by his admittance that his framing of the debate was a false dichotomy, and by his arguing against that false dichotomy against his fellow "skeptics" in future. But if he won't man up, then he is guilty as charged. -
Bern at 17:23 PM on 1 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
Doc Snow: sadly, coal production doesn't appear to have peaked here in Australia yet. There are serious efforts afoot to open up an entire new coal basin here in Queensland, with proposals for mines extracting a total of some 40-50 million tons per year or more (does anyone have those numbers handy?). :-( -
Tom Curtis at 17:00 PM on 1 February 2012The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction
I notice that The Australian, never slow to distort climate science, has now printed the letter in its opinion pages. IMO The Australian has devolved under the leadership of Chris Mitchell from the premier newspaper in Australia to little more than a regurgitater and source of propaganda. -
Tom Dayton at 16:12 PM on 1 February 2012The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction
Amazingly, the WSJ has published a rebuttal from real scientists! -
Fran Barlow2 at 15:49 PM on 1 February 2012Public talk: Global Warming - The Full Picture
When the
No, it doesn't. The permits are auctioned under the cap. There is revenue in that.tax{fixed price phase} stops, the revenue to pay compensation stops. -
Alex C at 15:48 PM on 1 February 2012Measurements show Earth heating up, think tanks & newspapers disagree
You forgot to scribble out the trend line in the satellite data graphic. Whadya trying to pull? -
calyptorhynchus at 15:40 PM on 1 February 2012Measurements show Earth heating up, think tanks & newspapers disagree
Yep the Australian denialist commentators have been reproducing this Daily Mail story too. -
Adam S at 14:48 PM on 1 February 2012The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction
@Albatross It will be very hard to convince a mostly scientifically-challenged public, who have become accustomed to an energy rich lifestyle, to give it up. Attempt to take it away and they will rebel (politically). In addition, as the Yale study concluded, the more educated one is, the more skeptical he/she is ofCAGW. This combination of the selfish undereducated and skeptical educated should repel any attempt at CO2 mitigation legislation. Thank goodness!Moderator Response: [muoncounter] There is no C in front of 'AGW.' -
Stevo at 13:50 PM on 1 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
Interestingly, there was a news article on the ABC News website this week (Australian ABC, I don't follow the American ABC) reporting that the United States Navy is looking to shifting their reliance from fossil fuels to biofuels. Amongst cited reasons were the increasingly unreliable supply of fossil fuel and that biofuels could be sourced from reliable, allied sources. I find the USN to be an interesting example of an organisation driven by pragmatic rather than ideological reasoning. They also are looking at future redeploying of assets to deal commercial sealane protection with the projected projected increase of cargo shipping through the now navigable route across the arctic. Governments may be in denial but some organisations, such as the USN, appear to realise that they must follow current developments and function in the real world. -
Riduna at 13:34 PM on 1 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
“If oil production can’t grow, the implication is that the economy can’t grow either.” That claim is nonsense. The economy can and will grow if energy provided by oil can be replaced by energy produced from an alternative source at a competitive price. Energy produced by oil is primarily used for transport and heating. Both can be (and are) provided from alternative sources such as gas and electricity. While the largest source of electricity in most countries is burning fossil fuels, as the price of those fuels increases, so wind, geothermal and solar alternatives become relatively cheaper and, ultimately, cheaper than fossil fuels. Consumers, whether industrial or household do not care where their energy needs come from provided they are the cheapest available. Clean energy sources are becoming cheaper as technological advances are made in their production, storage and distribution. Advances are being made in the efficiency with which energy is generated: solar base load electricity generation (through heat storage) is now possible, geothermal energy is being more widely used (through improved heat mining) and electricity can be stored and transported (through improving battery technology). Dangerously polluting fossil fuels will continue to be used but there are alternatives to them. The need to use those alternatives are becoming increasingly attractive as the world grows warmer, extreme climate events increase and finite oil and gas deposits deplete with increasing rapidity. These aspects will relegate use of oil and gas to more profitable use in the petro-chemical industry, rather than inefficient transport and wasteful heating. -
Trent1492 at 13:09 PM on 1 February 2012CO2 limits will make little difference
Came to this page via the Christy Crocks page. When I click on any link in the Climate Myths column for April 1,2011 I receive the following error message:Media Player You are not authorized to view this resource.
I have received the exact same message in regards source links in the Lindzen Illusions. I am using Windows 7 with Firefox as a browser. -
Bert from Eltham at 12:48 PM on 1 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
I find it rather curious that the same people that do not like centralist control i.e. big government hate the thought of decentralised control of energy production. When communities can generate their own energy requirements locally with renewable sustainable energy, they no longer need the corporations/monopolies. What is next? We ignore the junk they sell to fulfil our lives with ever endless things? Where would it end!? Bert -
Bern at 12:05 PM on 1 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
Sphaerica @ 18: Well, with the oil running out, you might say that the "unnecessary and painful economic upheaval" is going to happen anyway. Re-gearing modern economies to run on something other than oil is going to be a very, very big job. I know certain lobbies are heavily pushing a mass conversion to gas, but even the optimists only think that'll last for 20 years before the conversion has to be done all over again. The positive side is that this may just provide enough of a wake-up call to allow serious developments of non-fossil alternatives. Unless the fossil lobby buy enough politicians so that we're forced to stick with coal, that is. -
Stevo at 11:31 AM on 1 February 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #4
How long? About two years. Where found? An article on ABC Drum site. How often? A few visits every working day, and try to read all article and follow links to sources for topics of particular interest. What issues? Keep up the good work, although I'd like to echo Doug's suggestion of connecting with local AGW genuine skeptics in some kind of network. -
Doug Hutcheson at 11:16 AM on 1 February 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #4
How long have you been a reader of SkS? Around the time you won the Euraka Award. How did you become aware of its existence? From a link on another site, I think. How many times a week do you visit the site? Several times a day, to keep up with comment threads. What issues would you like to discuss in future editions of the Weekly Digest? How to connect with like-minded true AGW skeptics/truth seekers in my local area, which has a right-wing regional paper and is dominated by right-wing pollies who expressly reject AGW evidence. -
Jeffrey Davis at 10:02 AM on 1 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
The reason it takes longer to determine a trend in climate is that there are different time frames for climate forcings. The forcings aren't all annual. Pumping oil out of the ground is a function of supply and demand. The world wasn't in recession in 2005 when pumping peaked, so that was a good benchmark for our capacity. When volume declined and rocketing prices didn't cause more to be pumped, it's a good bet that they're pumping as much as they can. -
Bob Lacatena at 09:01 AM on 1 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
17, rlasker3, The statement you quoted does not say we will reach 450 by 2017, only that we will be unable to avoid reaching it by that point. That is, putting on the brakes to slow emissions (if we don't start doing so until 2017) will be virtually impossible without unnecessary and painful economic upheaval. At the current rate of emissions (assuming no slow down or acceleration) we will reach 450 by about 2042. -
rlasker3 at 08:56 AM on 1 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
"Given our fossil-fuel dependent economies, this is more urgent and has a shorter time frame than global climate change," Uhm ... didn't the IEA say that we are on pace to surpass the level of CO2 in the atmosphere that is considered safe by scientists by 2017? Is the argument that oil demand will become economically critical before that point? http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1112 "The headline conclusion of the WEO11 report is that, while the 450 target is still achievable, our chances of success are decreasing with every year of delay, and that, by 2017, the target could be out of reach." -
Sapient Fridge at 08:38 AM on 1 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
A very good book on the topic of peak oil is "Beyond Oil - The view from Hubbert's peak" written by Kenneth S. Deffeyes who is both a geologist and second generation oilman. The book is written in 2004 and predicts that peak oil would be in 2005, based on Hubbert's peak theory. It has a serious topic, but manages to be an entertaining read at the same time. My favourite quote is the one about the efficiency of modern drilling sites: "The crew on site will consist of a driller and a dog. The driller is there to feed the dog. The dog is there to bite the driller if he touches anything." -
michael sweet at 08:28 AM on 1 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
Doc, There are also many issues with government and industry estimates of coal reserves. Much data is secret. They mine the best deposits first so only third and fourth rate deposits are left. It is difficult for a non-expert to sift through the conflicting claims to determine how much coal can really be extracted economically. When you look at the obviously fudged claims about oil (see link above), it makes you wonder how much coal there really is to be extracted. For example they measure coal in extracted tons of coal, but new coal mines have lower quality coal which has a lower heat content per ton. Because they need more coal they do more environmental damage extracting it. Eventually even West Virginia may say enough. -
CBDunkerson at 08:26 AM on 1 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
Doc Snow, one of the primary components of the price of coil is actually the price of gasoline... because you need to move the coal. Oil and gas can be sent through pipes, but coal has to be loaded into trucks and hauled around. As the price of gasoline goes up so does the cost of transporting coal from extraction sites to power plants, and thus the overall price of coal. This can be seen in that spike in coal prices you mentioned... which exactly corresponds with the spike in gasoline prices. So yes, there is still plenty of coal around, but the cost of coal power is going to continue going up so long as it requires gasoline to transport it. -
michael sweet at 08:17 AM on 1 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
Daneel, You need to consider that it has been forecast for decades that oil would run out in the early years of the 21st century. So the question is: when we see oil running out as expected is it really running out? Compared to Climate Change where we expect the climate to keep getting warmer and we see data that says it is still getting warmer in spite of claims to the contrary. Canada oil sands are not economic at less than about $100 per barrell. The people who want to build the pipeline obviously think oil will only go up in price. -
norenstein at 07:52 AM on 1 February 2012Just Science app shows climate change is happening in pictures anyone can understand
@Hank -- Not just the video speed, but also the back/forward increments. So, for example, if you're curious what every August looks like, you can change the increment to yearly and get a sense of your local summers -
Kevin C at 07:41 AM on 1 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
I think the second plot addresses Daneel's (in my view interesting) question: it provides an additional source of evidence for the apparent production cap in the first plot. The sharp change in gradient and the distinct clustering of the data points provides independent evidence of a change in the elasticity of supply or demand (just as for example satellite energy balance readings provide an independent test of whether the earth is still warming). Of course that doesn't preclude the possibility that production can be introduced at the $100+ price point but with a lag longer than 7 years. -
keithpickering at 06:57 AM on 1 February 2012New research from last week 4/2012
Hmmm. "We additionally find the presence of a 28-month period of oscillation in the Δ14C record at La Jolla." The QBO also has a 28-month periodicity. Coincidence? -
Albatross at 06:54 AM on 1 February 2012The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction
Phila @29, "I do have a grudging admiration for its grasp of human psychology." That is my understanding-- they learned a great deal about how to fool people and play psychological games in the tobacco and creationism wars. They have well over 50 years of experience at it. So I fear what you say is true. The big question is what do about it and how do we effectively convince the public that about the reality and urgency of the situation? -
Composer99 at 06:51 AM on 1 February 2012The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction
In case anyone is getting upset at Skeptical Science's supposed lack of neutrality or balance, I should like to emphasize two things: Denialism in Action Denialism is a bit ill-defined as it is a fairly recent concept (despite longstanding examples such as tobacco industry re: smoking, asbestos health effects, HIV/AIDS denial, anti-vaccine crankery, and others), however most people who review it professionally (psychologists & sociologists) or as a hobby (such as ScienceBlogs' denialism blog) would include some or all of the following behaviours: 1- Cherry-picking evidence 2- Fake experts 3- Misrepresentation of opposing positions, arguments & evidence 4- Unsupported allegations of conspiracy on the part of those who hold opposing positions 5- Logical fallacies 6- Goalpost shifting The OP clearly documents the use of elements 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Possibly element #6 is in there, too. So the Wall Street Journal letter is a textbook case of climate science denialism, allowing all & sundry to refer to the signatories (and the publishers) as denialists. Crime & Comments There are, to be sure, a few comments on this thread suggesting criminal sanction may be called for or is otherwise appropriate for a number of climate science denialists. In case you, dear reader, think this is unfair, consider Daniel Lewis' statement upthread that much of the behaviour undertaken by climate science denialists was shown by Oreskes, in Merchants of Doubt, to be indistinguishable from demonstrably criminal behaviour (in the sense that it led to indictment & conviction on criminal charges) undertaken by tobacco companies. -
John Hartz at 06:46 AM on 1 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
I have alerted Professor Murray about this post and have invited him to participate in this discussion thread. -
funglestrumpet at 06:40 AM on 1 February 2012The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction
Further to David Lewis @ 19 Thanks in large part to their own actions, climate change is probably going to take a long time to reach a point in public opinion where these 16 'experts' and their comrades in arms can be brought to book. In the meantime there is the danger that vital evidence will be lost if bank details are automatically destroyed when some statutory time period elapses before that moment. With that in mind, are there any mechanisms in the various home countries involved that will ensure that any payments received by the denialati from the fossil fuel industry are not lost before they can be presented in evidence? Perhaps it is something the IPCC could consider exploring via the U.N. thus possibly making it apply globally. I suspect that a good few of the denialati treat climate change as just another politcal game and are not mature enough to realise the potentially serious consequences of their actions, not only to the world's population, but to their own personal freedom. I am sure that SKS computer material is well backed-up. I sure hope so, because it will be an excellent source of evidence should criminal proceedings result at some future date and I am sure it will be in the cross-hairs of denialati hackers. -
CBDunkerson at 06:18 AM on 1 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
Daneel, your question is flawed in construction in that it suggests it would be accurate to say 'global warming has stopped' but for the timeframe chosen. That is not the case. It is invalid to say 'global warming has stopped' because it hasn't. If you take a trend or moving average of global temperature anomalies over the past 15 years it shows warming. If you take a trend or moving average of oil production over the past 5 years it is essentially flat. In short, they are described differently because they show different results. -
scaddenp at 06:15 AM on 1 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
Daneel - you can also do accounting. Tally up production heading for retirement and tally new scheduled production to get an indicator of how much production you will have in the future. IEA does that - and they are sounding warnings. Actual oil production depends on political factors as well but it cant exceed the total productive capacity. Unfortunately it is hard to actually estimate this when SA wont lets its reserves be audited. -
Martin Lack at 06:14 AM on 1 February 2012The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction
Many thanks for this excellent summary. I am particularly interested to learn that William Nordhaus has seen the light; and that he denounces this latest attempt to dismiss climate change as environmental alarmism (I have clearly been out-of-date in criticising his denunciation of the Stern Review). -
Tor B at 05:53 AM on 1 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
Further to Stephen Baines In addition, Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) - see Dec 20 2011 report is SkS - showed that by adjusting the global temperature anomaly for ENSO, volcanoes and solar cycle effects, the resultant composite global temperature upward trend appears to have statistical significance over a time span much shorter than 30 years (only 11 years).
Prev 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 Next
