Latest / page 5

InsideClimateNews (who I’ve been unimpressed with before) via Brian at Eli’s tell us that Exxon may claim to favour a carbon tax, but aren’t exactly enthusiastic about it. Because someone else was saying it, my natural initial reaction was to disagree; but having poked their sources a bit, it looks fairly solid. But not particularly…

Tim Ball has a quasi-incoherent piece over at WUWT (I know, I know, but it was a grey Sunday afternoon) explaining why the nutters lost the dogma hearing. I’m a bit surprised that he’s prepared to admit they lost, but I was more amused by his excuses; and perhaps the piece is more an excuse…

User:William M. Connolley/The science is settled is a copy that I made of a wiki article that got deleted. I think I’d stick now largely with what I said then, 8th February 2007: Keep: its not the worlds greatest page, but its useful. Lee Vonces vote is a good example of the reason for keeping…

A scientific critique of the two-degree climate change target (Reto Knutti, Joeri Rogelj, Jan Sedláček & Erich M. Fischer; Nature Geoscience (2015) doi:10.1038/ngeo2595): sounds like a good idea, and vair topical. Since its short, I’ll nick the abstract in full: The world’s governments agreed to limit global mean temperature change to below 2 °C compared…

The Graun said In the aftermath of the Paris agreement, shares in coal firms plunged rapidly. Peabody, the world’s largest coal firm, saw stock values drop 12.6%, while Consol Energy holdings was down by 3.3%. That’s interesting; one of the things I wondered about the Paris pow-wow was how the markets might take it. But…

An update to the exciting Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 October 6. In which I noted a pile of folk such as Nir Shaviv‎ moving from category “Climate change skeptics (scientists)” to “Climate change deniers (scientists)”. After that happened, some people pointed out that wasn’t quite right; and it was debated, and the result was to “delete”…

Methane cracking in molten tin

Via the Economist (probably paywalled; Karlsruhe Institute of Technology PR will do as well): the idea is that instead of steam methane forming to produce hydrogen and CO2, you crack methane directly to hydrogen and carbon. The advantage is no CO2 to dispose of; instead you have carbon, which presumably has uses. From their PR:…

Paris Pow Wow Heap Good

Dr Roy tells it like it is3. Or perhaps you prefer James Hansen1, 6 as reported by JA? “It’s a fraud really, a fake,” he says, rubbing his head. “It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just…

Expert Consensus on the Economics of Climate Change is a report from the Institute for Policy Integrity1, and comes to me via Slate via Twitter. I read the paper and failed to find the obvious flaws, so over to you. They ran a 15-question online survey… We invited the 1,103 experts who met our selection…

Data or Dogma?

Data or Dogma? (full title “Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate over the Magnitude of Human Impact on Earth’s Climate”) is the hearings promoted by U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), chairman of the Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness. Happily, this is one of those questions we can answer easily: when you’ve…