tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post8767945700931138703..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Is there any difference between Willis Eschenbach's head and his feet?Souhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-91186049770033221312016-09-10T09:24:53.477+10:002016-09-10T09:24:53.477+10:00It has just occurred to me that between his head a...It has just occurred to me that between his head and his feet is an arse. Sorry for the lack of constructive qualities in this comment.seaice1noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-86410455492155190492016-09-08T02:58:03.413+10:002016-09-08T02:58:03.413+10:00One solution to the tragedy of the commons is to p...One solution to the tragedy of the commons is to privatise the common. The owner then has an interest in not allowing over-use and will limit access, possibly by charging a grazing fee. The parallel here is to privatise the atmosphere. Whilst this is not practical, I am pretty sure than any owner of the atmosphere would be charging people to dump CO2 into it to limit any future actions resulting from warming from said dumping.seaice1noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-57744883203393942582016-09-07T09:49:33.007+10:002016-09-07T09:49:33.007+10:00This is an issue known in economics as the Tragedy...This is an issue known in economics as the Tragedy of the Commons. The damage that any one person does to a resource held in common is almost always less than the benefit that person gains from abusing that resource. In the short term. Therefore, individuals see no benefit in foregoing the damage. Long-term, the combined damage is such that the resource eventually becomes useless. But long term, the abuser dies before the resource is depleted.<br /><br />It's a fallacy rooted in Ayn Randianism and putting individual profit ahead of collective (or even one's own children's) good. <br /><br />It's about an anarchistic and nihilistic selfishness that goes against the very idea of society or civilization or even nation.<br />D.C.Pettersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05078422582348328238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-88712642784695813522016-09-06T20:07:25.800+10:002016-09-06T20:07:25.800+10:00You could be correct, seaice1. I took it the other...You could be correct, seaice1. I took it the other way, but the reference to "Obama's climate plan" could just as easily refer to the difference the US (or any country's) plan makes to global temperature. <br /><br />The difference the combined plans of all countries makes is shown on the <a href="https://www.climateinteractive.org/programs/scoreboard/" rel="nofollow">the CO2 reduction scoreboard</a>. It also shows the result if there are no efforts to reduce CO2 emissions - or "business as usual".<br />Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-42635643041069886882016-09-06T19:31:09.955+10:002016-09-06T19:31:09.955+10:00The article is obvious nonsense, all the arguments...The article is obvious nonsense, all the arguments would have applied equally well to tobacco a few years ago. However, I think you have misrepresented the head to foot temperature difference argument.<br /><br />The head to foot temperature difference I think is the direct effect of USA contributions only. Obviously any single country will have a relatively small contribution to a global problem and any country can use this to claim there is no point in action. It is similar to the argument about whether it is worth voting. The calculation of the temperature difference is probably wrong, but the argument is about individual countries making a contribution that in isolation make no appreciable difference.<br /><br />seaice1noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-12531213657180694302016-09-06T10:40:52.414+10:002016-09-06T10:40:52.414+10:00Because the atmosphere has a heroic commitment to ...Because the atmosphere has a heroic commitment to homeostasis! 'S obvious.<br /><br />There really is something strikingly atavistic about denier 'thinking'. Both their God and/or an anthropomorphized Nature are apparently doing it all just for them!billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-57911313405574577662016-09-06T08:14:15.463+10:002016-09-06T08:14:15.463+10:00Excellent, Bert. Too stupid to know you're stu...Excellent, Bert. Too stupid to know you're stupid. And the confidence level of actual experts is way below 100%.<br /><br />As for Dunning-Kruger, one of my witty colleagues summed it up rather nicely (and almost recursively, I thought) a few seconds after I explained it to him. He said: "Dunning-Kruger effect? I'm almost sure that's supposed to be the Diane Kruger effect." :-)metzomagichttp://metzomagic.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-37027209541983535882016-09-06T03:02:55.189+10:002016-09-06T03:02:55.189+10:00you should really laugh but the comment from "...you should really laugh but the comment from "Mick in the Hills" - lol<br /><br />I suppose Mick isn't really worried about sea level rise though<br /><br />so he has put some thought into it Tadaaahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07736188830660481871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-45590856405668638142016-09-06T03:02:10.931+10:002016-09-06T03:02:10.931+10:00This comment has been removed by the author.Tadaaahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07736188830660481871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-50628287096818278072016-09-06T01:41:21.663+10:002016-09-06T01:41:21.663+10:00Conspiracy blogs such as WUWT, Climate Etc, Jo Nov...Conspiracy blogs such as WUWT, Climate Etc, Jo Nova etc are unlikely to post any articles that go against the conspiracy narrative.<br /><br />The reason for the disappearance of Lord Monckton's "no warming since..." posts and others is obvious to most who are not interested in a conspiracy theory narrative.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11552461190113661645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-29339953766638370192016-09-06T01:29:39.908+10:002016-09-06T01:29:39.908+10:00"Willis Eschenbach has written how he's t..."Willis Eschenbach has written how he's throwing in the towel and, instead of talking about science, he's going to ridicule it"<br /><br />I am thinking that has been Dr Curry's tactic for years.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11552461190113661645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-71438871534449184932016-09-05T22:27:18.948+10:002016-09-05T22:27:18.948+10:00In the US, fighting a new mosquito-spread epidemic...In the US, fighting a new mosquito-spread epidemic is so politicized that congress can't handle it.numerobisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-82275670267122068122016-09-05T18:46:55.715+10:002016-09-05T18:46:55.715+10:00"some", indeed..."some", indeed...Marconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-83120076234792665452016-09-05T18:37:48.574+10:002016-09-05T18:37:48.574+10:00That's a great resource Nikolaos. ThanksThat's a great resource Nikolaos. ThanksCeistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-39059387605885422712016-09-05T15:45:27.701+10:002016-09-05T15:45:27.701+10:00I'm totally stealing that graphic, Bert!I'm totally stealing that graphic, Bert!billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-30162452907187202612016-09-05T13:47:25.441+10:002016-09-05T13:47:25.441+10:00Another graph adjusted by scientists!
http://d135...Another graph adjusted by scientists!<br /><br />http://d1355990.i49.quadrahosting.com.au/2016_07/DK.jpg<br /><br />BertBert from Elthamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-21909706613860752352016-09-05T13:15:25.897+10:002016-09-05T13:15:25.897+10:00'[I]t certainly is interesting that political ...'[I]t certainly is interesting that political conservatives feel free to go on about their political convictions, then object when other viewpoints are expressed.'<br /><br />What I've really noticed is that publicly disagreeing with their statements - and, particulary, pointing out that they're un-evidenced - is an outrageous assault on Free Speech™! <br /><br />Because <i>their</i> speech is real and vital, while <i>yours</i> is just an inauthentic, bad-faith nuisance, and any putative equivalence between the two is both unthinkable, and, almost always, unthought. <br /><br />In all honesty I think we're talking brains that haven't developed a fully-formed theory of mind / conception of the other here, which fits with the selfishness/altruism thing, too. The number of these people who stridently proclaim themselves to be Christians, and who are yet incapable of deploying the golden rule - beyond holding that those with it should do it - is a striking feature of the mindset.billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-5975851220955541642016-09-05T08:59:42.863+10:002016-09-05T08:59:42.863+10:00I'm quite familiar with that very fine film, M...I'm quite familiar with that very fine film, Marco. There are some similarities between the two are there not?Raynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-69137550085227136032016-09-05T07:24:44.470+10:002016-09-05T07:24:44.470+10:00Metzo, it certainly is interesting that political ...Metzo, it certainly is interesting that political conservatives feel free to go on about their political convictions, then object when other viewpoints are expressed.<br /><br />I think that's a function of certain personality types. I've interacted with people online (and in person) who execute the most awful insults, then get all victimized if something far less uncomplimentary is said about them.<br /><br />There have been many studies looking into how personality affects political orientation. Trying to summarize in as neutral terms as I can, people who are most oriented to their own needs tend to be drawn to political philosophies that emphasize a focus on the individual (low taxes, no social programs, etc.), while people with more altruistic or empathic personalities are more group-oriented, and subscribe to politics that acknowledge the rights and needs of others. (Seems obvious, doesn't it?) That's an oversimplification, but you get the point.D.C.Pettersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05078422582348328238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-46184413885070390292016-09-05T07:22:47.615+10:002016-09-05T07:22:47.615+10:00This comment has been removed by the author.D.C.Pettersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05078422582348328238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-37718114785871437692016-09-05T07:12:02.880+10:002016-09-05T07:12:02.880+10:00That's pretty much the way I feel, DC. And as ...That's pretty much the way I feel, DC. And as you say above, the right wing authoritarian types want to break the system intentionally, because they think they know how to 'fix' it. But their kind of fix is the last thing we need :-/<br /><br />In fact, their supposed fix would probably be the last thing we'd ever do as a species; as recorded in a cohesive history of our species, anyway.<br /><br />For years people have been telling me on various fora that I'm too 'political' or... whatever. That I should just 'stick to the facts'. But if the rational people in this dialogue aren't allowed to be political, then who the heck is ever going to get us out of this hellish corner we have collectively painted ourselves into?metzomagichttp://metzomagic.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-71092778701723286042016-09-05T05:41:29.831+10:002016-09-05T05:41:29.831+10:00Dave, I think you're right. The denial of clim...Dave, I think you're right. The denial of climate change is politically motivated to begin with. In typical self-unaware fashion, many in the denioverse will decry how science has become so "political", as if they're unaware they're the ones who politicized it. <br /><br />We have that problem on a larger scale here in America. It's not only science which has become politicized. Even attempts to repair crumbling infrastructure, things that used to be accepted as necessary across the political spectrum, are now merely partisan arguments. <br /><br />We've seen the rise of a political party dedicated to breaking government, and thereby breaking society. When they hold positions of power, they make sure nothing works, and then use that as proof that the system is broken, and as justification for dismantling it further. <br /><br />This simply can't go on indefinitely. Either society will collapse, or people will begin to realize we used to be able to fix things, and start doing it again. I'm not predicting which will happen.<br />D.C.Pettersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05078422582348328238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-89770881670431200292016-09-05T05:33:13.553+10:002016-09-05T05:33:13.553+10:00I don't usually like comments such as the one ...I don't usually like comments such as the one I'm about to make. But damn, we should be aware of what's happening. The articles at WUWT are so bad they're not even wrong. <br /><br />I think it's interesting from a sociological perspective to note how the internet has allowed massive numbers of Dunning-Kruger sufferers to gain a following of people eager to be misled. WUWT and the entire deniosphere are certainly case studies.<br /><br />I just watched the movie <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/" rel="nofollow">Idiocracy</a> this weekend. It feels like a new genre we can call "predictive documentary." The rise of reason-denying stupidity is as dangerous for humanity's future as is climate change.<br />D.C.Pettersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05078422582348328238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-66784378029632406212016-09-05T04:49:43.892+10:002016-09-05T04:49:43.892+10:00I've not been following this forum (and WUWT) ...I've not been following this forum (and WUWT) for more than a few months. But am I alone in noticing that whenever the actual data rolling in (e.g. arctic sea ice now 2nd lowest on record, denier-hoped-for massive La Nina to return us to a frozen wasteland no longer even vaguely likely, & even the satellite data not really supporting a return to a pause anytime soon etc.), WUWT just simply stops posting anything like semi-informative articles with updates on the actual data? C'mon Bob Tisdale, let's hear your 'regular' update on El Nino? Instead it spawns this sequence of politically motivated articles on anything other than the actual weather (let alone the climate).... Davenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-80527236408734845942016-09-04T16:06:05.261+10:002016-09-04T16:06:05.261+10:00See the black knight in Monthy Python and the Holy...See the black knight in Monthy Python and the Holy Grail (you can search that) to get an idea of what to expect.Marconoreply@blogger.com