Jump to content
So you are accusing Media Matters of fabricating the email from Patrick T Brown?
Okay, so I went to the source material.
Here is the press release.
“Based on our analysis, a middle-of-the-road warming scenario is more likely, at least for now,” said Patrick T. Brown
And yes, he did say the IPCC most severe projections were unlikely, but he was also saying the middle of the road scenarios are more likely. That is not denying climate change. In fact, he also has a personal website listing papers on climate change.
I also found the article itself.
It uses powerful statistical methods to calculate how much temps change just by natural variability. It demolishes the idea that there isn't global warming caused by human activity. But that isn't news to anyone with a decent scientific background. What was news is that the IPCC's most severe projections are unlikely.
Sure, science is not "settled". Physics and astronomy are not even currently sure if the Gravitational Constant is a constant or has changed over time. But they aren't willing to say gravity doesn't exist. Likewise, the exact future of climate and exactly how much it is being affected by human activity is not currently know, but certain underlying facts are well established. Such climate is warming due to human activity. Your hero Patrick T Brown just showed that fact yet again.
How about you tell me what method you use to show a "multi-decade plateau in global temperatures"?
Because I truly do not find any attempt anywhere to make that claim backed up by any sort of numerical analysis.
So you keep proving my point on what happens when people have bad science education. Patrick T Brown and other study authors say their study is being misrepresented.
From the article quoting what he writes in an email:
The idea that there 'isn't any warming' is ridiculous. Over the past century
there are countless datasets indicating warming (weather stations, sea
level, ice mass, ocean temperatures, etc.).
Our study shows that we are probably not on the worst-case IPCC
scenario but that we may be on an IPCC middle-of-the road scenario.
The IPCC does not make predictions they make hypothetical projections.
So this result does not contradict the IPCC conclusions at all.
Who is the IDIOT that put this question in the paper?
The question is a LIE. The purpose of the $705,000 is to straighten and widen the road. That is to be achieved by taking fill dirt from the top and using it for fill to straighten and widen the road. The trimming the top of cty rd 14 at Yellowjacket Pass is not the objective, it is the cheapest way to achieve the objective of a wider straighter road with better shoulders.
If you want to profess ignorance of the Scientific Method then it would appear you are making my point about having a poor science education.
If you believe that the above article by Robert Tracinski follows the Scientific Method then you are making my point about having a poor science education. That article has no data. It's big point seems to be that all the models are wrong which only proves that current models aren't perfect. Which raises the question "So if tomorrow a new model better matches the observed data then the author would accept Global Warming as true?".
And "after a multi-decade plateau in global temperatures" is simply a false statement. 1998 was a high temp spike, but the 5 year moving average, a statistically valid way of tracking global temps, is still increasing. So the data simply does not support the claim of a "multi-decade plateau".
The same sort of "they don't know everything so therefore it is all false" argument is used by Creationists to claim Evolution is invalid. You could use the same lack of understanding of Dark Matter/Energy to claim that astronomy or even physics is all false. It is a way of using people's lack of understanding of science to say that all of a scientific field is a hoax.
Look at hwy 40 over Rabbit Ears Pass. You can see where the original road was to the left or right of the current path. That they cut through ridges and filled in to make a much straighter road.
Straightening a road is how a road is improved. Thus Routt County is doing the right thing by spending the extra money to cut and fill to improve the road's path. That makes more sense than repaving the road on its current poor path.
And what is so wrong about the cones on hwy 9? They don't cost that much and they can be reused. They have added fill to the shoulders which isn't well compacted. So it isn't safe to pull onto the dirt shoulders and they've put up cones. It is actually doing something right.
And there is a poor education in science and the resulting lack of understanding of the Scientific Method laid out in all of its glory.
I think 2.6% is a projected local population growth. So that is being assumed as a minimum growth in demand for local flights. From a statistical basis, I'd argue that any predictions of future passengers at YVRA is highly speculative. Such predictions are dependent upon too many factors and particularly the airline subsidy program has resulted in far fewer seats than projected just a few years ago.
BTW, next time I fly solo then I will probably fly out of Eagle, not DIA. The distance to DIA is worthwhile for the combined savings of several tickets. Eagle has enough flights that you can get out and back close enough to when you want and it is cheaper than Hayden. I think Eagle is a far bigger threat to Hayden than generally acknowledged. A local property management company could start offering packages flying and and out of Eagle and run one of their shuttle vans down there. Would make it easier for customers to get in and out on a direct flight.
Well, we don't need to save the planet. It will survive whatever we do climate.
It will cost us trillions of dollars to deal with climate change. We built cities and infrastructure based upon the historical climate. Rising sea levels threaten coastal cities. Do we abandon New Orleans, Miami and other low lying cities? Or build massive seawalls, pumping facilities and so on?
Pronouncements by individual scientists does not prove anything. What was their data? What were their models upon which they made calculations and then predictions? Any predictions from the 70s lacked the data knowing whether earth was gaining or losing heat (gain from sun and lose to IR radiating into space).
It is almost funny that one of the predictions was haze from air pollution prior to the Clean Air Act was so wrong because now LA with far more population has clearer air than the early 70s. Obviously, that scientist drew a straight line projection without considering whether that was an accurate prediction.
Short answer is if we did nothing then sky would eventually fall. But we are doing stuff and we probably will be seriously reducing CO2 levels just as climate issues become more serious. I wouldn't buy beach front property in Bali for your kids/grandkids, but civilization won't collapse.
Key is that solar PV price per watt is still declining (Swanson's Rule observes that prices decline 20% for every doubling of capacity for PV) and 2018 is projected to be when rooftop solar is cheaper than utility electricity. That would be a so called tipping point at which point demand explodes. Economists have used Hawaii as a model since their electricity costs so much that they've already passed that tipping point.
Sounds like it was a parked car. So they'll look at surveillance cameras to see when it was driven there or if guy was drunk and staggered into his car.
Last login: Monday, April 13, 2015
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.