Comments wacki has made

Re: John Bailo

Consensus?  On what?

Try reading the link.

 First of all, your logical is circular.  If there were consensus there would be no debate.

Try picking up a history book and reading about Big Tobacco vs. well.. just about everyone.On Yes posted 2 years, 4 months ago 7 Responses

What do you mean?

After that it drifted into the usual grab bag of ethanol (which you'll recall he used to oppose), nuclear, and cap-and-trade.

You can't fault him for ethanol.  He was honest in the last election and we ended up with bush as prez.    Not sure what you mean by the grab bag of nuclear though.  Whether you like it or not nuclear is going to play a very important role in our future.On A mixed bag posted 2 years, 7 months ago 8 Responses

:-p

I can't even tell what it is. Is that a smoke stack?  That is a interesting digital effect.On A bit of environmental art to soften the day posted 2 years, 10 months ago 2 Responses

kyotto schmotto

In all honesty Kyotto is an extremely bad idea.  It's very complex, and so it is easily abused.  You are giving money to other countries, so it's extremely tough to sell.  It's just a horrible plan IMO.  Watch this video:

http://logicalscience.blogspot.com/2006/12/google-talks-s...

Then watch watch smalley's vid.  In all honesty I think the way the ivory tower is currently approaching this problem is absolutely horrible.  On China and India have joined Kyoto, they just have different obligations, as is morally appropriate posted 2 years, 10 months ago 3 Responses

you forgot one other factor..........

Coby,

You should add to your list "is the park sinking?"

Yellowstone park has shifted tremendous amounts in a very short time.  All of this is due to the rather scary caldera or "super-volcano".  There could be some geological mechanism playing a hidden roll under your park.

Good to see your blog exploding with comments, you deserve the attention!On Vancouver's submerged seawall posted 2 years, 10 months ago 31 Responses

Excellent post coby

Coby, this is an excellent post.On 'Climate models are unproven'--Actually, GCM's have many confirmed successes under their belts posted 2 years, 11 months ago 13 Responses

A long list of quotes:

Not to steal any of the limelight from Coby but I spent a lot of time gathering up all these quotes.

This is a massive list:
The Consensus on Climate Change: From Science to Industry

And the somewhat related:

Quotes from Energy Experts - Energy Research, Peak Oil, Terrorism and moreOn 'There is no consensus'--If this is not consensus, what would consensus look like? posted 3 years ago 109 Responses

Re: at least they try

yes, well, the gulf between scientists and the rest of us is hard for them to see!

Heh, I am a scientist!  I'm just in bio-tech and not climatology.  But yes, I know what you mean.  Heck I've given presentations that have gone over other peoples heads before.  So I guess I'm a sinner too.  :p

But kudos go to them for the fine effort RC makes, as I know you would agree.

Yes, I would agree.  I did not mean to insult them.  The guys at RC are world class researchers and even heroes IMO.  I'm just glad there are people like you.  Although I very rarely learn anything scientific from your blog posts I frequently learn a new way of communicating and bringing clarity to a concept.  And that is just as valuable!  So for that I consider you a world class communicator.

Keep up the great work.On 'Antarctic sea ice is increasing'--Yes, but ... posted 3 years ago 14 Responses

found it......

The presence of a deep and circulating ocean component is key because ocean heat uptake increases most in the Southern Ocean as the climate warms (see Gregory 2000).

polar  amplification

Heh, your way of explaining it is 1,000x better.  As for the circumpolar currents, this image might come in handy:

Image linkOn 'Antarctic sea ice is increasing'--Yes, but ... posted 3 years ago 14 Responses

heh.......

I was confronted by a bight orange subscription firewall.

You aren't kidding:
http://m.2mdn.net/viewad/1021002/NA_barrier_REV_1.gif

That thing is annoying.On It's not driven by demand posted 3 years ago 39 Responses

Kunich's website

If CO2 and energy are your main concerns, then no doubt you supported Dennis Kucinich, yes?

I've not supporting anyone yet.  I believe the CO2 crisis is a no brainer.  Although it's not entirely certain it's an emergency there are an incredible amount of fingers pointed in that direction.  From the enviro/hippie standpoint the CO2 crisis is going to cause mass extinction on both land and sea.  Ocean acidification alone could wipe out all of the oceans coral by 2060.  It's likely impact to the human race will also be severe.

There there are the boys at the oildrum, army corps of engineers, chevron, etc that have made a so far an unchallenged case supporting peak oil.  If that happens I have great fears for the environment and humanity.  I certainly would not want to live in Israel.

I strongly believe there is no way we can we can avoid the CO2 crisis without some sort of Apollo energy program.  As of right now the only way to mitigate peak oil is to either chop down the rainforest to grow sugar cane or to heavily invest in battery technology.

Looking at Kucinich's website the only thing I see him promoting is mustard seed oil.  A quote from his website:

Congressman Kucinich believes farmers are the key to eliminating our dependency on foreign oil.

Anyone with an inkling of a clue knows that simply isn't going to happen.  Not without severe ramifications against the rainforest anyway.  Maybe he's just talking like post-flip flop McCain is but I haven't seen him supporting anything I believe is of primary importance.  Well, not on his website anyway.  Almost all of the stuff on his website is about increasing smoke stack, mercury, and other standards.  That sounds nice but it isn't going to mean jack when our economy is forced to switch over to coal.  A switch which is already under way.On Flip flops on ethanol posted 3 years ago 12 Responses

hrm........

JS

wants to outlaw reproductive freedom
....and on the environment can be counted to bow down to special interests all the way

More info?

David Roberts,

Politics sucks.  And as long as he doesn't plan on relying on ethanol to cure our climate problem I can let the ethanol thing slide.  The real issue for me is what does he plan to do.  I give every politician a free pass on some pork.  It's required to survive.  And given his history on ethanol, what it cost him in 1999, and his argument w/ VADM Lautenbacher I can't hold this kind of pork against him.On Flip flops on ethanol posted 3 years ago 12 Responses

"accidently"

I don't see this as "accidentally" telling the truth.  He went in for one group of reasons and has now found himself in a much bigger mess.  

Kerry used to be a very strong proponent for the invasion of Iraq before politics got in the way.  None of his main reasons were oil either.On About oil and foreign policy posted 3 years ago 2 Responses

Quesion........

Do you think that Holocene graph actually educates the layman?  I find it just confuses people.  I always get comments like "but the blue line says it was warmer 8K years ago!".  Or I will get a "but the data is all over the place so how do we know anything is accurate?".

Heck I don't even like using the multi line hockey stick.On 'One hundred years is not enough'--Yes it is posted 3 years, 1 month ago 18 Responses

eh.....

by "graph" I mean "image".  Gotta love posting in 10 seconds or less!On 'Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect' -- No, it isn't posted 3 years, 1 month ago 25 Responses

I strongly disagree

Heh I'm on the complete opposite spectrum as you are.  As soon as the "electron economy" becomes viable then the US will be in fact be energy independent.  

The goal isn't to be 100% independent.  Trading will and should always happen.  The goal is to get the heavyweight oil out of the diplomacy chair so we can actually influence iran et. al.

Nobody hit the U.S. over the head and forced it to buy petroleum.

ok, so what else do you suggest I run my car with?  I'm really scratching my head on this one.

But it is a loser in the long run. "Energy independence" reinforces a frame that works against renewables.

What?

The connotation: "it is all the fault of those outsiders, those others who addicted us to their seductive foreign oil."

Ok, I'm sure we are going to argue semantics but as I said earlier trading will always and should always happen.  So I consider this a strawman.  The goal is to get the us 'independent' enough so we can actually put sanctions on countries like Iran when they build nukes.  As of right now our hands are tied.  Countries like Iran know this and use this to their every advantage.  If that's not addiction then I don't know what is.  Sure it may not be "their" fault we are addicted but they are certainly exploiting it.  Ok you may not like that word 'independence' but unless you can come up with a more accurate 2 word buzz phrase it's going to have to do.

Yes you should highlight the lies spread by Exxon but so even imply energy 'independence' is impossible is wrong IMO.  It is not only wrong, but it is entirely -EV in the battle against global warming.On It's a bad frame in the long term posted 3 years, 1 month ago 9 Responses

toooo silly

They complained that the arguments I was debunking were often shallow or silly -- that they were red herrings. I would like to state clearly for the record: there is not a single argument I addressed that I have not seen being made repeatedly on blogs, usenet, or less scientifically literate venues like the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal.

I can defend Coby on this.  I've actually been cataloging who said what.  The dumbest argument I've ever seen is that climate scientists and the greens just want to make everyone "poor peasants".  They want to deny people food and clean water.  I don't think it gets any dumber than that.  Yet this argument has been made on the Senate Floor, by a Readers Digest staff writer, and there has even been a documentary about this single argument.

Logical Science- "The climate scientists want to make us poor peasants."

I really don't think it gets any worse or more desperate than that.  Keep up the great work Coby, it's comforting to know that your readership has just greatly expanded.On A brief post-preamble posted 3 years, 1 month ago 8 Responses