Jump to content
Well according to the POTUS we have this going for us, which is nice.
“[N]ext week, I will be joining President Hollande and world leaders in Paris for the Global Climate Conference. What a powerful rebuke to the terrorists it will be, when the world stands as one and shows that we will not be deterred from building a better future for our children."
I am sure the Islamic Jihadists are quaking in their boots.
Hey Scott, thanks for the offer but I think I will pass on the idea that you are the final arbiter as to which peer reviewed papers are "better". As I mentioned previously, it appears to me that there is enough good data to suggest that the whole idea of "global warming" is not settled science.
I have no reason to dispute any peer reviewed paper, whether they do or don't support the notion of man caused climate change. I am not an idealogue. I am one who believes there is enough information for and against that the science is not settled. As I have said previously I am keeping an open mind. I hope to be around to experience the Maunder Minimum in 15 years or so.
My apologies. It turns out there are a half dozen or so "luxury" homes out here in Stagecoach.
So you choose to dismiss peer reviewed papers - your standard, not mine - out of hand if they don't support your ideology. Interesting approach.
Scott says s "luxury" home in Stagecoach. Really, that is funny
Scott, so I have an open mind on AGW/global warming/climate change and you don't.
Just providing you peer reviewed papers. As you seem to demand that. Maybe science is not settled. It's ok to keep an open mind. That doesn't seem possible to you regards global warming/climate change. I am willing to look at both sides of the discussion. Are you?
So sayeth Judith Curry.from "Reasoning about climate uncertainty" She has written 130 peer reviewed papers.
"I have argued that the IPCC has oversimplified the issue of dealing with uncertainty in the climate system, which can lead to misleading overconfidence. Consequently, the IPCC has neither thoroughly portrayed the complexities of the problem nor the associated uncertainties in our understanding. Improved understanding and characterization of uncertainty and ignorance would promote a better overall understanding of the science and how to best target resources to improve understanding. A concerted effort by the IPCC is needed to identify better ways of framing the climate change problem, exploring and characterizing uncertainty, reasoning about uncertainty in the context of evidence-based logical hierarchies, and eliminate bias from the consensus building process itself. The IPCC should seek advice from the broader community of scientists, engineers, statisticians, social scientists and philosophers in strategizing about ways to improve its understanding and assessment of uncertainty.
Improved characterization of uncertainty and ignorance and a more realistic portrayal of confidence levels could go a long way towards reducing the “noise” and animosity portrayed in the media that fuels the public distrust of climate science that is clouding the policy process. Once a better characterization of uncertainty is accomplished (including indeterminacy and ignorance), then the challenge of communicating uncertainty is much more tractable and ultimately more convincing.
Improved understanding and characterization of uncertainty is critical information for the development of robust policy options. When working with policy makers and communicators, it is essential not to fall into the trap of acceding to inappropriate demands for certainty; the intrinsic limitations of the knowledge base need to be properly assessed and presented to decision makers. Wynne (1992) makes an erudite statement: “the built-in ignorance of science towards its own limiting commitments and assumptions is a problem only when external commitments are built on it as if such intrinsic limitations did not exist.”"
and regards the "hockey stick" there is this
Yes, let's continue to work on alternative sources of energy that are priced so the middle and less than middle class can afford it but maybe just maybe the worry about CO2 as a pollutant is a bit over done. It IS good to keep an open mind.
Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer, who has authored over 200 peer-reviewed papers, called policies to reduce CO2 “based on nonsense.”
“Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. They are all based on computer models that do not work. We are being led down a false path.
“Our breath is not that different from a power plant,” he continued.
“To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?” he asked.
“Coal, formed from ancient CO2, is a benefit to the world. Coal is CO2 from ancient atmospheres. We are simply returning CO2 to the atmosphere from which it came when you burn coal. And it’s a good thing since it is at very low levels in the atmosphere. We are in a CO2 famine. It is very, very low,” Happer explained.
Happer continued: “CO2 will be beneficial and crop yields will increase.” “More CO2 will be a very significant benefit to agriculture,” he added.
Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/19/scientists-declare-un-climate-summit-goals-irrational-based-on-nonsense-leading-us-down-a-false-path/#ixzz3s32FRYmF
Last login: Monday, November 23, 2015
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.