dtrom4’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Hmm. That might give us a good predictive model - look at what most pundits are saying, and then do something else. Can you fix the link to that study? It looks very interesting.On Reflecting on the lameness of my profession posted 4 days, 6 hours ago 10 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Huh? We have two choices, and we're doomed because one doesn't work? I'm pretty sure in this case the answer is a) conservation. Energy effiiency is cheaper, faster, and cleaner than "clean coal" or any other supply option, and can alleviate a lot of the burden in the next 30 years before any of the various supply options catch up.On Is "we're going to burn the coal anyway" an argument for carbon sequestration? posted 1 week, 3 days ago 40 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  That's not true. The statisticians were looking at the whole data set to draw conclusions. The comment was merely that cherry-picking the data by only looking at a 10 year trend starting at 1998 gave a different outcome than starting at 1997 or 1999. Which is why normal statisticians don't do that. They look at multi-year averages to smooth out year-by-year variation. There's a difference between comparing 10 year averages and only looking at a 10 year window to draw a conclusion. I understand you want an unbiased look at the data (unfortunately, I don't have the data either, but I'm sure Google can help), but you realize that this is what the story is about, right? They gave the raw data to professionals who didn't know what the data was for, so they would give truly unbiased analysis of the data.On "Global cooling" scam debunked yet again posted 3 weeks, 6 days ago 17 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Well, if you go to the link you can see a graph of some of the data, as well as this line: "Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880." Also: "Statisticians say that in sizing up climate change, it's important to look at moving averages of about 10 years. They compare the average of 1999-2008 to the average of 2000-2009. In all data sets, 10-year moving averages have been higher in the last five years than in any previous years."On "Global cooling" scam debunked yet again posted 3 weeks, 6 days ago 17 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  "you can’t be serious about climate change solutions if you exclude nuclear power." Nukes are certainly one way to wean us off climate-dirty coal (and if climate change is the main concern, it's not a bad one), but Sen. Alexander is mistaken. The truth is that you can’t be serious about climate change solutions if you exclude robust energy efficiency goals/assistance. Energy efficiency reduces the need for any type of power. It's cheaper than cheap, dirty coal; cleaner than clean wind and solar; and far cheaper and far cleaner than nuclear. If Republicans (or Democrats for that matter) were serious about keeping costs down, they'd be investing in energy efficiency. A 4% or 5% carve-out for EE in an RES? Give me a break.On Are there GOP senators who will back the climate bill? posted 1 month, 2 weeks ago 4 Responses