Yet you want Science to actually become politics. But perhaps this magic science has not yet, but politicans keep trying to rope this magic science in as were it on their side. Science has no politics when I studied a lot of Science. Today the facts are different. All you get to say bad about Lindzen is he is a true scientist who taught this to students who was so admired by IPCC he was on their first panel. His problem was with the politicians. He nor I deny climate change. We will say over and over it is normal. It has never remained static. We see far too much evidence of climate change. I enjoy pointing to the fact the north pole was once tropical. I enjoy pointing to the climate change creating the Great Lakes. I simply am able to divorce myself from the politicians who blame man for climate change. It has a preponderance of the science saying it has always changed. I see no end to climate change.
Curry notes that Iraq's major river originates in a different country, and that the river is becoming significantly polluted from activity in that other country thus impacting food production. Without international law, what should Iraq's recourse be? Bangladesh depends on a major river coming from China, and China has diverted water on their side of the border. At present, that activity isn't seriously impacting Bangladesh, but there is major opportunity for China to do that if they see their water needs become more significant. Without international law, what should Bangladesh's recourse be? The same is going on in South America and in other places. BTW, this came from Curry, who believes you are wrong. WTF was THAT? [/QUOTE] You're last sentence is just plain bat **** crazy. Other deniers certainly do NOT use logic that nonsensical.
False. You're totally mixed up here. NO climatologist suggests climate has been static. The vast majority of climatologists point out that man's activity has been the major factor in current warming.
This is not a bragging thread nor a taunting thread nor a way to insult posters thread. I dismiss the entire post above for those reasons.
It would have been nice had your post been on my points. I for example did not allege climatologists say climate has been static. i said a changing climate is ordinary.
While our planetary climate does indeed vary and change over time, the recent input to the system of greenhouse chemicals and gasses as well as the timing and speed of this particular event is the actual issue. The correlation is no longer disputable even if YOU do so anyway and is unimportant (futile) anyway as it seems we cannot and will not be able to stop it.
I created this topic to stick to science. I find the alarmists created diversions. So in the spirit of science, back to Curry we go. tps://judithcurry.com/2019/04/04/2019-enso-forecast/#more-24851 To kick it off, start here and proceed to the link above. Introduction
What's your point about the Central Equatorial Pacific? And, it tends to be you who creates diversions, claiming alarmism, mixing costs of solutions, etc.
That ENSO stuff was just a rehash of everyone's else reports. Like everything from Curry, it contained nothing original. Was that your point, that Curry is a parrot, which is why you see her as a kindred soul?
As opposed to what you do? Typically in your comments is loaded with snark, invectives, etc. What is original in your reports? What makes you an expert? But you are in charge of climate. Hop to it pal and fix the problem.
What is my point? Her point is what you mean. She is trying to inform the public. Why must you snark me all the time? Do you want to be in charge of climate? I do not want to be in charge of it. Why would you want to be put in charge?
It's hard to respond to that post, as besides being one individual's view, it concerns a limited region. I just thought you might be making a point or you might have something more.
I bring again to the forum the science. I do not come forth to speak of politics. Politics to me stands for poly = many and tics = blood sucking insects. Stick to science please. To tell me to effect climate is politics. Now more from Dr. Curry https://judithcurry.com/2019/04/20/energy-security-and-grid-resilience/#more-24866 ← Week in review – science edition Energy Security and Grid Resilience Posted on April 20, 2019 by curryja | 11 Comments by Judith Curry Diversifying and securing energy supplies nationally and locally. Since we’ve moved to Nevada and have been integrating into the local community, the most interesting thing we’ve come across is the National Security Forum of Northern Nevada (NSF). It turns out that a large number of people from the CIA, NSA, DOD, military etc. come to the Reno-Tahoe area to retire. The NSF was started by Ty Cobb, who was a Special Assistant to President Reagan. Once or twice a month, the NSF has a meeting (at one of the local casino hotels!) with an invited speaker – often from our local community but also frequently from the broader national and international communities. Of particular relevance to the climate/energy debate is this presentation by Vice Admiral Lee Gunn, retired from the US Navy. Excerpts from the post meeting write up are provided below: begin quote: “There are serious opportunities for those who lead and missed opportunities for those who do not lead the transition to advanced energy sources and grid diversification.” The CNA Military Advisory Board (MAB) has been a leading voice on national security issues since 2007, producing seminal reports climate and energy security. Two of these explore U.S. military needs for advanced, transportable, safer, and secure sources of energy and electricity transmission systems for mission critical operations. Vice Adm Lee Gunn serves as Vice Chair for CNA-MAB and has been instrumental in leading the CNA MAB reports on advanced energy and electric grid modernization. In his NSF presentation, he highlighted many key findings from the CAN-MAB studies and challenged us a Nevadans to lead the way in transitioning to a more energy secure future.
Amen. The state of our electrical grid is not good from several different angles. And, we're depending more and more on that grid as we move toward clean energy.
America has long had a lot of clean energy. We have to try hard to find a cleaner producer of energy than our water. Billions of dollars have been added to the economy by using clean water from dams. But wait. We also worked hard to use nuclear for peace. We learned how to use nuclear to boil water and produce steam. The great thing about nuclear is the power plants do not depend on a lake or a dam. They only need good water. Who tried to kill nuclear? Democrats worked hard to kill nuclear. Did they kill it for our ships? No but ships are at sea. But still but for Democrats this nation would have a well produced network of compact sites producing power. Compare any nuclear site to a windmill site for instance? And unlike solar, nuclear works 24/7 for all year long.
I keep trying to discuss Curry, and you keep replying with evasions and insults. It's as if you use this thread purely as an excuse to attack people. Whatever. I'm still going to try to discuss Curry, no matter how much that bothers you. What did you think was newsworthy about Curry's ENSO report? I was pointing out that earlier ENSO reports from BoM and NOAA say the same thing, so Curry doesn't add anything original. Why did you think Curry's repeat of others' work was so newsworthy that you needed to share it here? I don't see you copying the daily weather report here to "inform the public". Why is your need to "inform the public" with unoriginal information curiously restricted to Curry's work?
Holy moley, Claims attacking me personally. My relevance to cloud cover is that Earth has vast cloud cover. Clouds are the single most important issue about climate. Models of climate are never presented, are they? If you believe there is a global model, let's take a good look at it.
So you want to have me fight over Curry? Or you want to fight me about her? I believe in reading the forum rules, you should attack her and not me. I last read what she said ... what was it, a few weeks back? I set this thread up to present all news on climate. She comes up with some good stuff. And not merely about ENSO.
i may just take that as an extreme compliment to me. Why? Because you prefer my commentary over the scientists I show up to show to all of the forum.
You tend to mix your partisan political stance with cherry picked data and suggest that refutes something. I think you have to do better than that.
