By: andrew adams
Tom, The problem I have with this You may think I’m exaggerating, but in a year that could be defined by Gleick, Gergis and Lewandowski following a year that could have been defined by Mashey and...
View ArticleBy: Tom Fuller
Hi Andrew, I actually disagree with most of what you write–usually I agree with a large portion and pick nits. This time the difference is real. Sadly I must leave you in suspense for a bit as work...
View ArticleBy: harrywr2
#20 Marlowe, even if the pendulum swings back to taking climate change seriously, fossil interests will have partially achieved their objective; delay the implementation of policies that devalue their...
View ArticleBy: BBD
harrywr2 I often find myself having to remind you that the US is not the world. In the world, coal consumption is at *record levels*. And the Keeling curve shows no sign of flattening.
View ArticleBy: BBD
We’ve had the World Coal Association figures. Now let’s hear it for the IER: Coal consumption in the United States is contracting rapidly while in the global economy, it is growing as a fuel of choice....
View ArticleBy: Tom Scharf
I think things are working out just fine for Gore: Al Gore has thrived as green-tech investor...
View ArticleBy: Nullius in Verba
#41, “You’re comparing the huge sums politicians receive from special interests to advertising?” Which money are we talking about here? There are two elements to this I know of: the money spent on...
View ArticleBy: Kuze
@45.”I often find myself having to remind you that the US is not the world.”I would like to apply this logic to you and all the others that think the “tea party” is what stands in the way of...
View ArticleBy: Tom Fuller
Hi Andrew,First, let’s clear up a misunderstanding–I said the year could have been defined by those scientific fiascos, not that that was the only or most appropriate definition. Second, I actually...
View ArticleBy: Week in review 10/13/12 | Climate Etc.
[...] the decline of the saliency of the climate issue. Keith Kloor has an interesting article entitled The Greenhouse that takes a look backwards at statements made by previous presidential/vice...
View ArticleBy: Greg Schiller
To rewind back to 2008, we will have to scroll past 2009. How exactly does one undo ClimateGate?
View ArticleBy: Michael Tobis
#23 it’s already warm enough to melt 2-3 km of ice. The open question is how long it will take. Since atmospheric fossil carbon is approximately cumulative even on that time scale, this means we not...
View ArticleBy: Ed Forbes
mt “Roughly speaking, melting Greenland happens at about 350 ppmv. ..”And this statement is based on models with unproven, even disproved for some, climate sensitivity.If one were to use a climate...
View ArticleBy: Tom Fuller
Greenland will lose ice. However, Greenland ice loss will become signficant only if global warming continues monotonically for 3,000 years. To suggest otherwise is to make a conscious contribution to...
View ArticleBy: andrew adams
Hi Tom, I agree with a lot of what you say in principle, although I know we will disagree on specific cases. I certainly agree that scientists have a certain responsibility to uphold the standing of...
View ArticleBy: Eli Rabett
Defining global warming as a situation where CO2 is above 350 ppm means, yes, Greenland is toast.
View ArticleBy: Ed Forbes
LoL….. even the MET now agrees that there has been NO warming the last 16...
View ArticleBy: Ed Forbes
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html
View Article
