t (knowing that a nuclear power plant does not have a big red control lever to lower electricity generation at night).
Not quite true - France runs some nukes in load following mode. It's less efficient, but when you have 80% of your electricity from nukes who gives a fuck?
I mean, by most counts, the currently estimated world supply of untapped crude oil will be depleted in roughly 40 more years, if current rates of usage are sustained (and more quickly than that if they increase). If we stop burning oil (because it gets too scarce and its price gets prohibitive), some of the most likely alternatives seem to involve much "cleaner" forms of energy
First, that essay in Science was the seminal article that got the whole "consensus" ball rolling in the first place. Since the day that article appeared, no amount of contrary information ever again convinced many people that there wasn't in fact a solid, incontrovertible consensus on the subject. When in fact there was not.
Unsupported assertion.
Had she used more realistic (i.e., representative) search terms, she would have been examining well over 10 times as many papers. I daresay a whole order of magnitude is important. And those papers would have been much less likely to support any "consensus" on climate change.
Unsupported assertion
That one little difference in the criteria (including "global" in the search terms) very definitely made a huge difference in the results,
Unsupported assertion
And, apparently, it really has to be said yet again: consensus -- even where it really exists -- is not science.
Heartland Institute like many of these corporate sponsored non-profits are PR front groups. In Heartlands case they are a front group for Koch Industries, so that they can get a tax deduction for donations for funding their own PR. Its as simple as that.
Factualty incorrect.
They are a front for the "Anonymous Donor" and we don't know who he is.
We can start with tax breaks for clean energy research, mini-hydro, solar and the like (not the ridiculous subsidy schemes we have now, which are great creators of bureacracy and merely shift the cost to consumers).
Research? Do you really mean research? Or do you mean installation?
Where I live there are both tax breaks for installation and subsidies for production. There doesn't seem to be much bureacracy.
As for "subsidies shift the costs to consumers" who the hell do you think pays for tax breaks.
We can make it clear that *if* sea levels are rising and flood plains are likely to be less safe places to live, no subsidies for building on low lying land prone to flooding can be expected,
Where are there subsidies for building on low lying land?
Here you can't get a building permit for building in an area that is recognised as being prone to flooding, and if you have a house in such a zone you can't get insurance.
We can offer incentives for people to study science and engineering rather than the liberal arts or other non-productive subjects at university, so that we have more trained minds ready to build the solutions that we would need. It's pointless spending money educating PPE graduates and lawyers (let alone English / History / Media Studies) when what is needed is a technical and not a legislative solution.
Why bother studying science when a bunch if political hacks will try to ruin your life if you discover something they don't like?
It's not that far away from the current approach - it's just based on incentive rather than taxation, on building solutions rather than imposing preconceived (and ill conceived) dogma which serves only to strengthen bureaucracy at the expense of freedom.
Where do you see any evidence that the Heartland Institute are trying to defend science.
Seriously? You don't see the defense of skepticism regarding the "settled science" of catastrophic (or heck, even slightly uncomfortable) anthropogenic global warming as a defense of science?
No, I don't see heartland doing that. (I gave you an out, you didn't take it - the closest those clowns ever go to science was inviting Scott Denning to the "Restoring the Scientific Method" laugh in. Watch it. Learn.).
There's a reason why the skeptics are winning this argument, [...]
Ha! Those things have been in the news here and there for the past few years! You'd have to be a turtle not to have heard of those incidents! Video my ass.
"When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging" -- Rogers, Will
Yes, there have been so many cases you can't even cite one.
I wonder if the Hearland is going to revise it's positionon the release of the so called "Climategate" emails.
"The release of these documents creates an opportunity for reporters, academics, politicians, and others who relied on the IPCC to form their opinions about global warming to stop and reconsider their position. The experts they trusted and quoted in the past have been caught red-handed plotting to conceal data, hide temperature trends that contradict their predictions, and keep critics from appearing in peer-reviewed journals. This is new and real evidence that they should examine and then comment on publicly.".
Apparently it's different when it happens to them:
We believe their actions constitute civil and possibly criminal offenses for which we plan to pursue charges and collect payment for damages, including damages to our reputation.
As a Libertarian, I find it difficult to believe that any Libertarians would find that proposal acceptable. This system looks like one that would require an enormous amount of government regulation and tons more government workings to run day to day operations. In fact, this solution kind of sounds like Hell for Libertarians.
What libertarianism WOULD do is allow for the accumulation of enough capital that the problem can be fixed if or when it materializes, whether that is by geoengineering, abandoning the planet, or some other solution.
I make no apologies for my position, and wish only that the hyperbole from both sides would die down so that a proper assessment and a general agreement on sensible measures could be made.
Plugging in my car to charge vs. pumping gas isn't really a huge change to my lifestyle.
I'd just need a big change in my income to be able to afford an electric car.
Exactly. You'll have to change your lifestyle.
I don't think we have the resources to deal with a situation where 7 billion people need cars, electric or not. Most of us will have to live in cites and use trains and buses. (Or just walk for most things).
Ah, but if you follow along with the AGW crowd and implement all the regulations and laws they require to "solve" global warming (which incidentally are exactly what one side of the political spectrum wants, but are anathema to the other side) then you must be a patriot right?
Crap.
Cap and Trade was invented by the Republicans. Most lefties want Carbon taxes.
If there was an example you could give of conservative or oil companies giving money for genuine scientific research, then provided it checks out as what you describe it as, there would be nothing wrong with it.
Slashdot Mirror
t (knowing that a nuclear power plant does not have a big red control lever to lower electricity generation at night).
Not quite true - France runs some nukes in load following mode. It's less efficient, but when you have 80% of your electricity from nukes who gives a fuck?
The UK doesn't do international, you should know that.
Politicians. They're the same world over.
As much as I object to Tories I felt the need to FTFY.
My gran used to say "Son, the problem with politics in this country is that only politicians get into it."
Sorry, you're wrong.
That's what they want you to think.
Your Gran was part of the conspiracy.
I mean, by most counts, the currently estimated world supply of untapped crude oil will be depleted in roughly 40 more years, if current rates of usage are sustained (and more quickly than that if they increase). If we stop burning oil (because it gets too scarce and its price gets prohibitive), some of the most likely alternatives seem to involve much "cleaner" forms of energy
Wrong.
Coal.
Tar shale.
Natural gas.
You say that as if there is no leftwing equivalent ...
Name them.
It is important for 2 reasons.
First, that essay in Science was the seminal article that got the whole "consensus" ball rolling in the first place. Since the day that article appeared, no amount of contrary information ever again convinced many people that there wasn't in fact a solid, incontrovertible consensus on the subject. When in fact there was not.
Unsupported assertion.
Had she used more realistic (i.e., representative) search terms, she would have been examining well over 10 times as many papers. I daresay a whole order of magnitude is important. And those papers would have been much less likely to support any "consensus" on climate change.
Unsupported assertion
That one little difference in the criteria (including "global" in the search terms) very definitely made a huge difference in the results,
Unsupported assertion
And, apparently, it really has to be said yet again: consensus -- even where it really exists -- is not science.
Moving the goalposts
The joke is...
You are actualy right for some of these.
Yes, GM donated to Heartland - who then whine about "Government Motors".
Heartland Institute like many of these corporate sponsored non-profits are PR front groups. In Heartlands case they are a front group for Koch Industries, so that they can get a tax deduction for donations for funding their own PR. Its as simple as that.
Factualty incorrect.
They are a front for the "Anonymous Donor" and we don't know who he is.
Idiot.
Science is not won with "argument" or "debate". There are no "sides". It is not "won" or "lost".
No, sorry. You are not (only) an idiot. You are a troll.
Get back under your bridge.
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/01/12/22506/
A Bush apointee fired by Al Gore from the Office of Energy research. Quelle Horreur! He kept his job in "academe".
"Happer is chair of the board of directors at the George C. Marshall Institute." so he didn't have any trouble finding a new job either.
http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/nov_2000/christ_gnostic.htm
Who was drummed out of what?
http://www.jewlicious.com/2010/10/fired-for-questioning-evolution-and-human-caused-global-warming-gavriel-avital/
This guy is an evolution denier. He lost his job as "chief scientist of the Israeli education ministry". I can't imagine how he got it.
But no mention of him being drummed out of "the academy".
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=5ef55aa3-802a-23ad-4ce4-89c4f49995d2
Hey, it's Happer again. Padding your references?
http://www.solopassion.com/node/2291
I'll have to ask Eve Kay about this. Who was drummed out of what?
Took me two seconds to find these
Really? You didn't have them bookmarked?
Seems you have indeed been living under a rock. I am not finding videos for you. I have enough to do right now.
I don't know who's under a rock, but you seem to have found a couple of slimy things that should stay there. Happer, Avital. Ugh.
Nobody being drummed out of academe though.
We can start with tax breaks for clean energy research, mini-hydro, solar and the like (not the ridiculous subsidy schemes we have now, which are great creators of bureacracy and merely shift the cost to consumers).
Research? Do you really mean research? Or do you mean installation?
Where I live there are both tax breaks for installation and subsidies for production. There doesn't seem to be much bureacracy.
As for "subsidies shift the costs to consumers" who the hell do you think pays for tax breaks.
We can make it clear that *if* sea levels are rising and flood plains are likely to be less safe places to live, no subsidies for building on low lying land prone to flooding can be expected,
Where are there subsidies for building on low lying land?
Here you can't get a building permit for building in an area that is recognised as being prone to flooding, and if you have a house in such a zone you can't get insurance.
We can offer incentives for people to study science and engineering rather than the liberal arts or other non-productive subjects at university, so that we have more trained minds ready to build the solutions that we would need. It's pointless spending money educating PPE graduates and lawyers (let alone English / History / Media Studies) when what is needed is a technical and not a legislative solution.
Why bother studying science when a bunch if political hacks will try to ruin your life if you discover something they don't like?
It's not that far away from the current approach - it's just based on incentive rather than taxation, on building solutions rather than imposing preconceived (and ill conceived) dogma which serves only to strengthen bureaucracy at the expense of freedom.
I can only see one dogma here.
Oh, and sack the IPCC, especially Chaudri.
Why?
Seriously? You don't see the defense of skepticism regarding the "settled science" of catastrophic (or heck, even slightly uncomfortable) anthropogenic global warming as a defense of science?
No, I don't see heartland doing that. (I gave you an out, you didn't take it - the closest those clowns ever go to science was inviting Scott Denning to the "Restoring the Scientific Method" laugh in. Watch it. Learn.).
There's a reason why the skeptics are winning this argument, [...]
Ding! Game over. There is no "argument" to "win".
See ya.
Ha! Those things have been in the news here and there for the past few years! You'd have to be a turtle not to have heard of those incidents! Video my ass.
"When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging" -- Rogers, Will
Yes, there have been so many cases you can't even cite one.
What? You eat coal?
Where does the carbon in the CO2 you breathe out come from?
Oh, yeah from plants.
And where does that come from?
Oh yeah, from the atmosphere.
I wonder if the Hearland is going to revise it's positionon the release of the so called "Climategate" emails.
"The release of these documents creates an opportunity for reporters, academics, politicians, and others who relied on the IPCC to form their opinions about global warming to stop and reconsider their position. The experts they trusted and quoted in the past have been caught red-handed plotting to conceal data, hide temperature trends that contradict their predictions, and keep critics from appearing in peer-reviewed journals. This is new and real evidence that they should examine and then comment on publicly." .
Apparently it's different when it happens to them:
We believe their actions constitute civil and possibly criminal offenses for which we plan to pursue charges and collect payment for damages, including damages to our reputation.
http://heartland.org/press-releases/2012/02/15/heartland-institute-responds-stolen-and-fake-documents
As a Libertarian, I find it difficult to believe that any Libertarians would find that proposal acceptable. This system looks like one that would require an enormous amount of government regulation and tons more government workings to run day to day operations. In fact, this solution kind of sounds like Hell for Libertarians.
Ok, so what's heaven?
What libertarianism WOULD do is allow for the accumulation of enough capital that the problem can be fixed if or when it materializes, whether that is by geoengineering, abandoning the planet, or some other solution.
You know, it's clear the tmosley is a troll.
But this little gem shows that he is insane too.
I make no apologies for my position, and wish only that the hyperbole from both sides would die down so that a proper assessment and a general agreement on sensible measures could be made.
Ok, imagine that AGW was real.
What would be the libertarian solution?
Looking back just shy of 2,000 years to when the Romans grew grapes in Yorkshire.
You do know that grapes are grown in Yorkshire today?
Plugging in my car to charge vs. pumping gas isn't really a huge change to my lifestyle.
I'd just need a big change in my income to be able to afford an electric car.
Exactly. You'll have to change your lifestyle.
I don't think we have the resources to deal with a situation where 7 billion people need cars, electric or not. Most of us will have to live in cites and use trains and buses. (Or just walk for most things).
Where does your liberty to put CO2 into my atmosphere come from?
From my right to live, and breath, and exhale, fucktard.
None of those put (extra) CO2 in the atmosphere.
Where does your right to increase atmospheric CO2 concentration come from?
Ah, but if you follow along with the AGW crowd and implement all the regulations and laws they require to "solve" global warming (which incidentally are exactly what one side of the political spectrum wants, but are anathema to the other side) then you must be a patriot right?
Crap.
Cap and Trade was invented by the Republicans. Most lefties want Carbon taxes.
If there was an example you could give of conservative or oil companies giving money for genuine scientific research, then provided it checks out as what you describe it as, there would be nothing wrong with it.
Well, there is one example of this.
BEST.
Interesting how the research turned out. :-)
Don't bother talking to tmosley, he's a troll.
See my sig (if the link still works).
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/8608-
What's the relevance? Svensmark wasn't "drummed out of the academy".
Maybe you have the wrong link?
As for getting paid, wasn't all that long ago that a respected researcher could get drummed out of the academy for denying agw,
Yet another lie.
Video or it didn't happen.