 analysis is a bit of unintended irony as well
It’s not too late to “snip” his comments calling me a misogynist, Judith.
Allow me to be clear. I have no objection to him doing so, and I think it’s funny that anyone would. It’s juvenile blogospheric banter. Not something to be taken seriously.
My point is that you apply a double-standard along in a number of different areas. Willard thinks it’s an “own goal” for me to point that out. But I find it quite interesting that, IMO, you are increasing the disparity in how you apply standards.
Everybody should just stop picking on little joshie. The inattention would drive him crazy.
Don –
Nobody’s picking on me.
People are simply displaying their juvenality. Doc calling me a misogynist has nothing to do with me. Judith failing to “snip” those comments once they are pointed out to her, has nothing to do with me.
I know that nobody’s picking on you, joshie. You are asking for it. Begging for it. A little brat seeking attention. Judith will probably snip this one. She actually protects you more than the she does the average customer. Judith has empathy. Do you know what that is, joshie?
This has nothing to do with Pekka’s comment that I can see.
“The right conceptual understanding of the problem is that we need large-scale low- and non-carbon energy sources that are cheaper than hydrocarbon energy.”
No we don’t. You just bought into the warmie message. If someone comes up with the means to store masses of energy then low/non-carbon will likely be cheaper and more efficient than fossil fuels and nukes. Centuries supply of lovely coal will be left lying in the ground. We’ll likely need solar and wind – but they won’t be the solar and wind we’ve been frittering billions on lately.
The answer is to make what works (that’s coal!) even better so you have lots of yummy money to buy into something better still when it comes along (that’s storage!) White elephants are actually killing alternative technology, including the wind and solar which might actually prove useful when their output can be stored.
Say no to a white elephant today. Modernise your coal power. And do remember about the Middle East and Venezuela etc before making any decisions about energy. We live in a world, not a model.
In suggesting adaptive resiliency, at least Hayward is ahead of several US state houses (e.g., NC, NJ, FL) where any kind of thought about high future sea levels is not allowed to enter into planning as a casualty of their Republican principles. Perhaps Hayward can start by trying to talk to those people about his adaptive resiliency ideas, and see how his brand of conservatism gets treated there.
At 2-3mm / y there’s plenty of time to address the issue. In the meantime there may be more pressing problems.
Any areas that also suffer subsidence, like Bangladesh, may need to look at “future subsidence planning” rather than rising sea levels.
top comment reads: ”, ie., intermarry, with all those non-whites.
They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.
Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.
Diversity is a code word for White Genocide.”
Just the kind of drivel we all expect from lolwot. Your insight is breathtaking. Just like your science.
I don´t keep up with politics in the USA as much as I should, I suppose.
Unfortunately many of you aren´t aware of how you are manipulated and deceived by ALL media and information sources. Yesterday I was watching CNN International as I used my walking machine and I had to stomach their coverage about Iraq, which was quite deceitful. I presume Fox and the others would be just as bad.
This means all the coverage and opinion making I read about just about anything is probably slanted, distorted and aimed at making me behave in a certain way. And the same applies to all of you whether you are aware or not.
The punchline is that I read a lot of garbage about “the Kochs” and so on from the extreme dogmatic school, and similar content from the extreme dissenter school when it comes to anthropogenic global warming and the potential solutions. So, I´m having to spend a lot of time researching the subject so I can try to figure out what´s going on by myself. Lucky for me I got the time.
Fernando,
Read up on what the Koch is doing with respect to the financial instrument of Weather Derivatives.
The law firm of the Powerline Blog, of whom Stephen Hayward is associated, is a legal counsel to Koch’s Weather Derivatives division.
Is this considered “garbage” about the Koch’s?
They may want to spread disinformation about climate to serve their own interests, i.e. making money off of climate change.
Some would call this conspiratorial thinking but they are the ones that are following their predecessor and one-time collaborator Enron.
If you are going to be a johnny one note,better to try to contribute something with your blog.
Note the deep deep psychological projection and Rovian tactics used by TJA.
He attacks his opponents strengths, realizing he has nothing on his end.
Typical winger
Pingback: Climate cultists | And Then There's Physics
Judith, Thanks so much for this – together with you ‘reflections’ this posting truly resonated with me.
Question – are the costs of maintaining this blog so infinitesimal that there is no need to have a ‘tip jar’?
Once I retire from Georgia Tech, I may set up a tip jar or take on advertising – until then I can subsidize this with my own funds. Thanks for asking tho!
A donation button for your favorite cause may be appreciated, Judy.
Junior has Médecins sans frontières, a very good choice.
Eli has Save the Keeling Curve, also a good choice.
Perhaps this one could be to your taste:
I’m sure you could find something about women or women in science.
Best of luck!
Interesting idea. If I was to do something along these lines, it would be related to crowd funding of worthy projects, either simple adaptation projects in developing world or small scientific projects (some help is needed to support some unfunded ‘gentlemen’ or citizen scientists).
I don’t know if these guys take money or if the model is worth its net beans, but here is an open source climate model.
Oops! The last update was 2011, guess it was a fail.
The American Brain Tumor Association is quite wonderful
I just looked up some numbers for 2014.
%Americans dead from Cardiovascular diseases,30%, NIH spending $2,015m
%Americans dead from Cancers, 13%, NIH spending $5,418m
%Americans dead from Stroke, 10%, NIH spending $291m
%Americans dead from HIV/AIDS, 4.5%, NIH spending $2,978m
%Americans dead from Global Warming, 0%, US spending $9,878m
So research on climate change costs the American taxpayer about as much as research into diseases that will kill almost 60% of them.
Very interesting perspective Doc, but don’t you realise that the “carbon pollution” causes cancer, AIDS, heart-disease and strokes, not to mention flatulence?
That kinda undermines your calculations ;)
If we only spent ALL our money on CO2 mitigation we could solve all the worlds problems.
Carbon pollution also causes the dread disease nigglelitus. It’s a mental disorder.
I guess you better ask Joshua to explain
Well, one explanation is that he compares NIH spending to “costs [to] the American taxpayer”
Granted, much spending on cancer research, say, comes from non-governmental NPOs and the private sector, but a quick check seems to show that cancer research extends into the $billions annually.
I suspect that his specific comparison might look a little misleading if he instead of singling out the NIH, compared total “costs [to] the American taxpayer” for all cancer research to “costs [to] the American public” for spending on research related to climate change.
Interesting how selective “conservatives” are about when they argue that private sector spending eventually trickles down to the taxpaying public, isn’t it?
Joshua,
Yes, a casual glance suggests Doc is playing a silly game with numbers, in the service of an ideological position.
Michael –
What’s funniest about Doc is that he’s very prideful about his scientific chops, and it would seem deservedly so, but then throws dreck like that at the wall in hope that it would stick.
Interesting how mosher, who displays similar behaviors, lapped it up.
Oh, and BTW –
One would think that a bit of skepticism w/r/t Doc’s $9.878 billion might be in order. You know, from a “skeptic.” Funny how a scientist like Doc cites such a specific number w/o doing any checking.
Nice – the article makes assumptions that are not born out by the evidence. But keep on touting it. I guess you need the delusion,
Concerning Steven Hayward’s writings: has anyone noticed how he picks and chooses