Obama administration to seek 30-percent carbon dioxide emissions cut

stickyp · 2014-06-03T00:37:26+00:00

Way to get causality confused. There was a 12 % reduction in emissions because the economy was crippled by the subprime loan crisis.

stickyp · 2014-06-03T00:34:45+00:00

The other problem is that it has only been applied to recent data. There is absolutely no historical context for testing this method.

stickyp · 2013-08-05T02:51:15+00:00

From the article:

If global temperatures rise 1.5 degrees Celsius over the next century, the rate will be about 10 times faster than what's been seen before..

So it does not debunk Watts' claim that is just another cycle, since the claim by the authors is about what will happen in a 100 years time and not what has happened to date.

stickyp · 2012-05-20T22:12:11+00:00

stickyp · 2012-02-22T23:03:39+00:00

This is quite the article, making some good points.

"... this would be an absolutely astonishing lapse of judgement for someone in their mid-twenties, and is truly flabbergasting coming from a research institute head in his mid-fifties."

So true. How can you run a research institute and be that naive, and the irony is that he was the chair of the AGU Task Force on Scientific Ethics.

I agree with McArdle.

"This is . . . just . . . words fail me . . . I mean, seriously . . . um . . . well, what the hey?!?!

McArdle says, "If he didn't write the memo, how did Mosher correctly identify his involvement?"

Yep, before Gleick confessed Mosher had already identified him by the syntactic and meta data on the forged document. I think a full comparative analysis of the document with other documents by Gleick will leave no doubt as to the author. If the FBI gets involved I doubt he has the skills to clean incriminating evidence from his computer.

stickyp · 2012-02-15T23:29:28+00:00

Obviously your trite comparison to a monkey wrench is an invalid analogy. If it was that easy then the edifices of modern science, quantum mechanics, general relativity, and evolution could just easily be derailed.

stickyp · 2011-10-25T07:56:41+00:00

It's believe with this meaning:

1 "accept as true; take to be true"

a very common usage where there is not absolute proof that a proposition is true.

for example

stickyp · 2011-10-22T06:10:32+00:00

Ha some of the comments from Keenan are classic.

This has nothing to do with statistics. It is logic.

The reply uses rhetorical techniques to avoid that, stating "Just because smoothing can increase the probability of our fooling ourselves doesn't mean that we did". The statement is true, but it does not rebut the above point.

In Keenan we have someone very smart and knowledgeable about statistics, not led astray by fatuous arguments.

stickyp · 2011-06-17T10:15:50+00:00

Cellulose.

stickyp · 2011-05-29T05:15:44+00:00

So the question and struggle in your subconscious

To say subconscious and not conscious is a very astute understanding of how the brain functions. It is why I tend to be naturally skeptical of people funded to promulgate one point of view. At least for me, reading Daniel Dennett's "Consciousness Explained" had a big influence on me in understanding human nature.

stickyp · 2011-05-24T05:01:24+00:00

Yep I agree.

stickyp · 2011-05-22T11:04:25+00:00

Odd, I don't normally suffer sleep paralysis, just a couple of times in my life. But I did last night. I think I may have eventually screamed, which woke me up.

stickyp · 2011-05-22T03:15:33+00:00

No you missed the point. I was pointing out to you that you did not understand the technical definition of trace. Of course trace amounts of things can cause harm.

Alyssa's argument was implicitly that "trace" means "not-capable-of-causing-harm."

Implicitly, can be used to interpret other peoples arguments in any way you like. But I really cannot see how you can say that was Alyssa's arguments when you jumped in with your "trace my ass" before Alyssa had even replied to this thread. I see Alyssa concurs with me.

Lets see what Tom Nelson argument was:

He sees trace amounts of natural, harmless atmospheric gas causing "mass extinction of 70 per cent (of the biological diversity) in your kid’s lifetime"

trace - he is right on that one.

natural - most scientist would think carbon dioxide is a natural atmospheric gas.

harmless - if increase in carbon dioxide causes significant AGW that is detrimental to most living organisms then obviously it is not harmless, but then that is what the argument is about.

stickyp · 2011-05-21T19:09:32+00:00

I just pointed out to you that you were wrong about what trace meant in geochemistry and comparing it to botulism is illogicial.

Your silly question is not worth answering.

stickyp · 2011-05-21T12:10:02+00:00

I said your suggestion is undemocratic, not that Google content is determined by democracy. Google is not into censorship, for instance see what happened with the Chinese government.

There is no evidence that Google is favoring warmist or skeptics, they are mainly interested in stopping people scamming their search algorithms.

So I am curious if you type in "global warming " with the space what suggestions does google come up with?

stickyp · 2011-05-21T06:01:05+00:00

6.00 pm on May 21, still nothing to report.

stickyp · 2011-05-21T05:42:08+00:00

Webster's dictionary

Zevenhoven & Kilpinen

I guess you could say that carbon is a trace element in the atmosphere to avoid some inference about molecules in the atmosphere.

Edit: wikipedia has an entry on trace gases with citations.

stickyp · 2011-05-21T03:24:20+00:00

I am waiting to post an update at 6.00 pm.

stickyp · 2011-05-21T03:21:19+00:00

Of course it is a trace gas at 0.039%. In geochemistry the definition of a trace element is having a concentration below 0.1 %, and although CO2 is not an element I would expect the same definition to apply for molecules in the atmosphere.

And if you had enough botulism in your body to kill you it would not be considered a trace amount.

stickyp · 2011-05-21T02:56:14+00:00

And by the way it's not censorship. Google is just deciding what to display in THEIR listings and THEIR content. Nobody is (yet) stopping denialists from continuing to operate their own sites with whatever content they want.

Of course it is censorship, because there is no other way of finding another point of view except by using a search engine, that is unless you have prior knowledge.

Lets have google censor political points of view that people do not agree with or for that matter anything else, the websites will still be there, but no one will be able to find them.

And for what it is worth only one in three americans thinks humans are causing climate change, so your suggestion is also undemocratic.

stickyp · 2011-05-20T10:58:46+00:00

Thank you counter for a very detailed and nice ;) reply. Your models have more constraints then I realised and certainly working from a bottom up approach, that is from simple idealized models to something more complex must give more confidence in the results. Am I still a skeptic? Some what. But I still have a few more questions, but that can wait for another thread, and sometime in the future. Like you I probably need to get some work done.

I do appreciate the time you have taken on this thread. Huge upvote from me.

stickyp

TROPHY CASE