Comments on: Funded arrogance http://joannenova.com.au/2009/06/funded-arrogance/ Sword of logic -- fighting stone-age brains. Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:45:06 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: BLouis79 http://joannenova.com.au/2009/06/funded-arrogance/comment-page-7/#comment-22274 BLouis79 Tue, 29 Dec 2009 09:24:32 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=2437#comment-22274 BTW, the whole anti-carbon thing appears a convenient lie for an Al Gore double play: 1. making money on carbon trading 2. making money on nuclear power stations as the only "clean" alternative that can reduce carbon emissions to meet large reduction targets Did you know you only have to buy 3/5 people on a committee to get a Nobel Peace Prize! BTW, the whole anti-carbon thing appears a convenient lie for an Al Gore double play:
1. making money on carbon trading
2. making money on nuclear power stations as the only “clean” alternative that can reduce carbon emissions to meet large reduction targets

Did you know you only have to buy 3/5 people on a committee to get a Nobel Peace Prize!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

]]> By: BLouis79 http://joannenova.com.au/2009/06/funded-arrogance/comment-page-7/#comment-22275 BLouis79 Tue, 29 Dec 2009 09:24:32 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=2437#comment-22275 BTW, the whole anti-carbon thing appears a convenient lie for an Al Gore double play: 1. making money on carbon trading 2. making money on nuclear power stations as the only "clean" alternative that can reduce carbon emissions to meet large reduction targets Did you know you only have to buy 3/5 people on a committee to get a Nobel Peace Prize! BTW, the whole anti-carbon thing appears a convenient lie for an Al Gore double play:
1. making money on carbon trading
2. making money on nuclear power stations as the only “clean” alternative that can reduce carbon emissions to meet large reduction targets

Did you know you only have to buy 3/5 people on a committee to get a Nobel Peace Prize!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: BLouis79 http://joannenova.com.au/2009/06/funded-arrogance/comment-page-7/#comment-22273 BLouis79 Tue, 29 Dec 2009 09:18:36 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=2437#comment-22273 Kiehl and Trenberth's global energy budget appears a useful fabrication for IPCC, even the newest version has serious issues: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/10.1175_2008BAMS2634.1.pdf As far as I can tell reading, the global energy budget based on best available measurements of ingoings and outgoings doesn't balance. The total effect of CO2 is within the measurement error of many energy budget line items. Because the budget doesn't balance (out of balance is way larger than total CO2 effect), the computer model is used to make best guesses as to what the "correct" budget items should be. The CO2 forcing appears to be a computer model creation which is consistent with the computer model. One could remove CO2 completely from the energy budget and still make the computer model balance and the warming trend would be the same because the net radiative forcing that is assumed to cause the temperature rise is exactly the same. The harder I look, the worse it gets for climate predictors. Kiehl and Trenberth’s global energy budget appears a useful fabrication for IPCC, even the newest version has serious issues:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/10.1175_2008BAMS2634.1.pdf

As far as I can tell reading, the global energy budget based on best available measurements of ingoings and outgoings doesn’t balance. The total effect of CO2 is within the measurement error of many energy budget line items. Because the budget doesn’t balance (out of balance is way larger than total CO2 effect), the computer model is used to make best guesses as to what the “correct” budget items should be. The CO2 forcing appears to be a computer model creation which is consistent with the computer model. One could remove CO2 completely from the energy budget and still make the computer model balance and the warming trend would be the same because the net radiative forcing that is assumed to cause the temperature rise is exactly the same. The harder I look, the worse it gets for climate predictors.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

]]> By: julie grace http://joannenova.com.au/2009/06/funded-arrogance/comment-page-7/#comment-21225 julie grace Wed, 23 Dec 2009 00:50:02 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=2437#comment-21225 I am a skeptic but not a scientist. I have avidly been reading about this debate for some time and I skip the really scientific bits as I don't understand them. However, the behaviour of warmists (abusive and refusing answers and information) is enough to tell me I can't trust them. I believe we are approaching Peak oil and so I do believe we need to look for alternative fuels within the next few decades. This however has nothing to do with carbon credits and maybe we should start using this climate funding to look at effective alternative fuels. On the other hand I remember being told there would be no oil left in the world by the 90s. My real fear is not earth's natural climate behaviour but the creation of radio active waste. This is a genuine threat to life on earth and yet no one seems very concerned by it and many blithely suggest we should switch to 'clean' nuclear energy; how can a product with the most lethal by products imaginable be regarded as 'clean'? I am a skeptic but not a scientist. I have avidly been reading about this debate for some time and I skip the really scientific bits as I don’t understand them.
However, the behaviour of warmists (abusive and refusing answers and information) is enough to tell me I can’t trust them.
I believe we are approaching Peak oil and so I do believe we need to look for alternative fuels within the next few decades. This however has nothing to do with carbon credits and maybe we should start using this climate funding to look at effective alternative fuels. On the other hand I remember being told there would be no oil left in the world by the 90s.
My real fear is not earth’s natural climate behaviour but the creation of radio active waste. This is a genuine threat to life on earth and yet no one seems very concerned by it and many blithely suggest we should switch to ‘clean’ nuclear energy; how can a product with the most lethal by products imaginable be regarded as ‘clean’?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Geophys55 http://joannenova.com.au/2009/06/funded-arrogance/comment-page-6/#comment-11125 Geophys55 Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:51:22 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=2437#comment-11125 Brian G Valentine said: "So, in answer to your question - yes indeed, if Ed Teller is Hungarian, then I am Hungarian too." Commenting: I am a Geophysicist 30 years experience. I signed that same petition and was quite proud to put my name with Teller's. In that sense, I guess I am Hungarian too. Brian G Valentine said:

“So, in answer to your question – yes indeed, if Ed Teller is Hungarian, then I am Hungarian too.”

Commenting:
I am a Geophysicist 30 years experience. I signed that same petition and was quite proud to put my name with Teller’s. In that sense, I guess I am Hungarian too.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Bob Webster http://joannenova.com.au/2009/06/funded-arrogance/comment-page-6/#comment-10217 Bob Webster Wed, 12 Aug 2009 19:54:23 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=2437#comment-10217 The excellent piece by Willie Soon and David R. Legates, <i>Answering Three Simple Questions</i>, describes the non-response to Sen. Steve Fielding's questions from Penny Sackett (Chief Scientist of Australia) and Professor Will Steffen (ANU Climate Research Centre): <blockquote>The “answers” often evaded the issues raised by Senator Fielding, and mostly discussed peripheral, if related, issues. The answers also shifted the usual goalposts, arguing, for example, that global average atmospheric temperature was not a desirable measure of global warming – despite its consistent use by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for more than 15 years.</blockquote> It would appear Sackett and Steffen practice a variant of the "Gavin Dodge". Reminds me of non-responses of other practitioners of the "Gavin Dodge". Geez, forgot to change the avatar! The excellent piece by Willie Soon and David R. Legates, Answering Three Simple Questions, describes the non-response to Sen. Steve Fielding’s questions from Penny Sackett (Chief Scientist of Australia) and Professor Will Steffen (ANU Climate Research Centre):

The “answers” often evaded the issues raised by Senator Fielding, and mostly discussed peripheral, if related, issues. The answers also shifted the usual goalposts, arguing, for example, that global average atmospheric temperature was not a desirable measure of global warming – despite its consistent use by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for more than 15 years.

It would appear Sackett and Steffen practice a variant of the “Gavin Dodge”.

Reminds me of non-responses of other practitioners of the “Gavin Dodge”.

Geez, forgot to change the avatar!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Bob Webster http://joannenova.com.au/2009/06/funded-arrogance/comment-page-6/#comment-10013 Bob Webster Sat, 08 Aug 2009 10:26:44 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=2437#comment-10013 Mike: Thanks for the tip! Mike: Thanks for the tip!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Brendan H http://joannenova.com.au/2009/06/funded-arrogance/comment-page-6/#comment-9977 Brendan H Fri, 07 Aug 2009 21:47:55 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=2437#comment-9977 Bob: “Brendan H has nicely consolidated the record of my frustration…” Bob, you are not unique in experiencing frustration during these types of debates. The way to rise above frustration is to concentrate on the issue rather than the opponent, and to strive to present information as accurately and completely as one is able. In addition, I think it helps to have confidence that, for all its faults, the science is progressing towards improving its explanation for the world’s climate, within the limitations of human understanding. Bob: “Brendan H has nicely consolidated the record of my frustration…”

Bob, you are not unique in experiencing frustration during these types of debates. The way to rise above frustration is to concentrate on the issue rather than the opponent, and to strive to present information as accurately and completely as one is able.

In addition, I think it helps to have confidence that, for all its faults, the science is progressing towards improving its explanation for the world’s climate, within the limitations of human understanding.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Brendan H http://joannenova.com.au/2009/06/funded-arrogance/comment-page-6/#comment-9976 Brendan H Fri, 07 Aug 2009 21:46:58 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=2437#comment-9976 Derek: “Talking of behaviour Brendan H, in Post 291 who are you quoting. ? Please do not invent quotes for me. You still have not apologised for the language you replied to me with near the start of this thread that was so rude, abusive, and plain dumb, it HAD to be snipped by Jo herself.” Fair enough. I apologise for confusing you with George, and I also apologise for calling you an arsehole. It was an overreaction and a gratuitous slip that was far below my usual standard of discourse. Derek: “Talking of behaviour Brendan H, in Post 291 who are you quoting. ? Please do not invent quotes for me.
You still have not apologised for the language you replied to me with near the start of this thread that was so rude, abusive, and plain dumb, it HAD to be snipped by Jo herself.”

Fair enough. I apologise for confusing you with George, and I also apologise for calling you an arsehole. It was an overreaction and a gratuitous slip that was far below my usual standard of discourse.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Mike Goad http://joannenova.com.au/2009/06/funded-arrogance/comment-page-6/#comment-9975 Mike Goad Fri, 07 Aug 2009 20:36:45 +0000 http://joannenova.com.au/?p=2437#comment-9975 Go to http://en.gravatar.com/ and you can provide your own image. Many blogs are set up for automatic substitutes if there is no gravatar registered for your email address. Go to http://en.gravatar.com/ and you can provide your own image. Many blogs are set up for automatic substitutes if there is no gravatar registered for your email address.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]>