Time for a new open thread
It would still make the demand more elastic, Bernard.
Here’s something I noted on Wottsupwiththat but I thought I’d share it here too. It’s essentially an admission from WUWT that blog science isn’t real science. We all knew this but it’s refreshing to hear it from the horse’s mouth.
It’s regarding Don Easterbrook’s errors in his recent guest post. Commenter BillD notes:
>Where is peer review when you need it? This post conflates the global climate record with regional records for the US and Greenland. Then it fails to point out that “present” only goes up to 1905.”
Etc etc etc. He notes a few more errors after this too.
Response from a mod:
>“This is a BLOG rather than a science journal. Though some entries may contain errors at least here they are not hidden. … bl57~mod”
Just read that again. This was voted best science blog 2008? They have a right to make errors so long as they’re bloody obvious? Fantastic.
I wonder if GO has [moved to the AGW camp now](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1865511).
I’ve missed several of Peter Sinclair’s videos, so I had quite some fun watching a few this evening. One that I particularly enjoyed was from the [confrontation between Ben Santer and Pat Michaels](http://climatecrocks.com/2010/12/12/ben-santers-beatdown-of-michaels-reposted/)… watch Michaels start to wither at 9:40, and watch Santer’s passion begin to rise at around 11:00.
It’s great, and I only wish that Santer had the opportunity to really, properly, point out Michael’s dodginess with numbers.
I wish too that we in Australia could have more easily watched the original transissions. I would certainly have had the popcorn in front of me!
Wow, I’m not quite sure what your point is.
I was simply using a few terms to try to identify an eponym. Have I missed something in the background?
Jo Nova’s blog is slightly more amusing than usual, with the absence of the self-appointed Reichssicherheitshauptamt and her Sicherheitspolizei.
> Wow, I’m not quite sure what your point is.
The point is that if you are using more of a resource because it’s more efficiently used, then the demand is elastic.
It’s easier to give up a holiday than give up driving to work.
Therefore Jevon’s Paradox doesn’t make an argument to refuse efficiency gains. In the case of fossil fuels, it may merely make it a delayed reduction in use, therefore, if anything, necessary earlier than you would otherwise expect.
Over in a guardian comment thread, there are a LOT of commenters protesting the complaints of Sarah Palin using “Blood Libel” (because it is used to demonise Jews who “killed Jesus”) like this:
> But this article is political correctness taken to a ludicrous degree: the idea that the use of the phrase ‘blood libel’ should be restricted to those talking about matters that Mr Beaumont regards as appropriate is foolish.
Funny how NOT ONE OF THEM has complained about the denialist eternal whinge about being called Nazi Holocaust Deniers.
Nor any posters who complain about denial MUST mean “Holocaust denial” telling these people like the one quoted above that, yes, it MUST be used only in connection to the Holocaust.
Joannenova has a set of so-called “warmest year antidotes”. More like infections than antidotes but anyway, this is what people fall for:
Sure, and the world has been warming for 300 years, long before the industrial revolution.
Strawman. The world warmed by maybe 0.2K from 300 years ago to 100 years ago, then by 0.8K in the last 100 years.
The trend hasn’t changed as our emissions rose.
Straight-out lie as the figures I mention above indicate.
It was warmer 1000 years ago,
Straight-out lie. She could at least have tried saying it might have been warmer 1000 years ago.
2000 years ago,
Same lie as for 1000 years ago.
5000 years ago
Some chance of being true but still a lie to say it WAS warmer.
and 130,000 years ago.
Strawman. The oceans were also around 7 metres higher 130,000 years ago. Also, it took 5,000 years for the approximately 6 degrees of global warming before that peak. Funny how she forgets to mention that.
In fact its been warmer for most of the last 10,000 years than it is today,
and it’s been warmer for most of the last 500 million years.
Strawman. The oceans have also been quite a few metres higher for most of the last 500 million years, not to mention other effects of having a warmer planet.
Only people who think CO2 matters keep repeating that it’s warmed from 1850 to now without pointing out the bigger perspective.
By “bigger perspective”, Joannenova apparently means accepting lies and strawmen and ignoring things she prefers not to mention.
and the records have been set with thermometers like this one (next to concrete and exhaust vents
Intellectually dishonest. This is an urban thermometer so makes no contribution to the calculation of long-term global warming.
that mystery about how 75% of thermometers are ignored
Intellectually dishonest. Like a lot of other variables, a statistical sample can be used to estimate global average temperature anomaly.
most of the original raw data records are missing aren’t they?
Straight-out lie. The original raw data records are held by the owners of that data.
This is just a cycling warming on a long term trend that started before CO2 became an issue
And according to joannenova’s graph, the trend started more than 200 years ago. No proxy record that I know of shows this trend going back this long.
The trend hasn’t changed
Not true. joannenova fails to mention that these cherry-picked short-term warming trends are getting longer and longer, first 20 years, then 30 years and now 37 years from 1974 and counting. She also fails to mention that the present warming trend (her choice cherry-picks out the Arctic) is now faster than the previous ones.
Straight-out lies, strawmen, cherry-picks, intellectual dishonesty, omissions of influential facts. Sounds like joannenova has the perfect set of infections to spread the disease of science denialism.
Current ye@r *
Leave this field empty
Notify me of followup comments via E-Mail.