General Discussion

Nederland

(9,979 posts)

92. Wrong

Fri May 31, 2013, 08:56 AM

May 2013

Allen's central point is that he published a paper that suggests the transient climate Response may be marginally lower than the consensus and now he thinks he's and expert in economics, technology, and policy.

Wrong. Allen's central point is the consensus on what the transient climate response is has changed. His paper is not the only one saying that transient climate response is lower than originally thought, it is merely one of many. Given this fact, it should be obvious that we need to rethink our approach.

Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

97 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

This message was self-deleted by its author [View all] Nederland May 2013 OP

Let us see your data please. That's the question I would ask this scientist because most say byeya May 2013 #1

Exactly byeya fasttense May 2013 #2

Yes. It's my understanding that the sequestered C02 and methane is being loosed into the atmosphere byeya May 2013 #6

That is true Nederland May 2013 #11

People should see the other OP you wrote: "It's not as bad as we thought" CreekDog May 2013 #85

His research is not about how fast climate is changing now caraher May 2013 #4

Actually, that's not what most climate scientists are saying Yo_Mama May 2013 #5

Here you go Nederland May 2013 #8

here's some data Edim May 2013 #13

what most say is irrelevant in science Edim May 2013 #18

Bool-sheet! Dash87 May 2013 #3

I can't take a claim of "we must bury most of the CO2 we produce from burning carbon" seriously muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #7

I would agree Nederland May 2013 #9

Last year, one of the "I'm an engineer and you're not" (tm) types actually said.... Junkdrawer May 2013 #45

This message brought to you by the Oil Industry who no longer denies AGW... Junkdrawer May 2013 #10

Put simply, the cancer is metastasizing, but we're taking stronger pain meds... Junkdrawer May 2013 #12

Hansen is an outlier Nederland May 2013 #16

Myles Allen or James Hansen? Whom to believe???? Junkdrawer May 2013 #20

Not a tough call at all Nederland May 2013 #29

Hansen has been warning us that The Faustian Bargain sits out there since at least 2009.... Junkdrawer May 2013 #34

Irrelevant Nederland May 2013 #67

This is most interesting information you are posting and I thank you for doing so. byeya May 2013 #25

Yes, that is one theory Nederland May 2013 #30

you're saying not to do anything until we can verify exactly what will happen CreekDog May 2013 #50

Yes, let's just wait and see. That's the ticket. GliderGuider May 2013 #63

For a friend.... Junkdrawer May 2013 #64

Thanks! I'm re-posting this previous reply to that article, because it deserves to be said again GliderGuider May 2013 #65

I share the fears...I see the wisdom.... Junkdrawer May 2013 #68

My assumption is that I'm always going to be wrong on something. GliderGuider May 2013 #77

At this point, inventing our way into a full continuation of our current lifestyle.... Junkdrawer May 2013 #78

No I am not Nederland May 2013 #74

Believe it or not Edim May 2013 #14

What non existent problem are you referring to? MattBaggins May 2013 #19

AGW. nt Edim May 2013 #22

Enjoy your time at DU MattBaggins May 2013 #24

why do you say that? Edim May 2013 #26

so you echo and support the OP yet you don't reply to him once CreekDog May 2013 #59

I don't find it odd. Edim May 2013 #62

Unless we start acknowledging reality... Nederland May 2013 #36

Nature will win the argument. Edim May 2013 #73

finally replied to the OP after all this time, you took my advice! CreekDog May 2013 #83

already blocked from the Environment and Energy group for climate denial nonsense CreekDog May 2013 #48

it only shows Edim May 2013 #55

scientific consensus isn't a "bandwagon" CreekDog May 2013 #57

There's no hysteria about plate tectonics Edim May 2013 #60

True Nederland May 2013 #76

Surely you're not a troll out to disrupt this website. Apophis May 2013 #95

perfectly timed to echo the OP's message almost word for word CreekDog May 2013 #49

Oh, and in case anyone says this is a convenient NEW theory: Junkdrawer May 2013 #17

better safe than sorry........ let's reduce them as much as we THINK we might need -nt- Takket May 2013 #15

no one is reducing anything Edim May 2013 #21

pffft yeah i kind of forgot that point... Takket May 2013 #23

it's not meaningless Edim May 2013 #27

This is from the Daily Mail ananda May 2013 #28

Yes, consider the source Nederland May 2013 #31

What data? Viking12 May 2013 #41

The data in post #8 Nederland May 2013 #43

LOL. Nice dodge. Viking12 May 2013 #44

I think you are confused... Nederland May 2013 #71

Nope. Viking12 May 2013 #79

Wrong Nederland May 2013 #92

tell me about this magical sequestration machine Allen proposes Viking12 May 2013 #93

Sourcewatch says Daily Mail "publishes articles promoting a climate change skeptic view" Factfriendly McFact May 2013 #32

Ad hominem fallacy Nederland May 2013 #40

Credibility of the source (or lack thereof) is relevant, which is why you refer to us as "deniers" CreekDog May 2013 #86

Can I ask you something? blogslut May 2013 #33

If they really cost less... Nederland May 2013 #35

Why do governments subsidize the oil companies? nt joeybee12 May 2013 #38

Politics Nederland May 2013 #42

because non renewables aren't as cheap as their pricetag CreekDog May 2013 #47

True Nederland May 2013 #75

because the damage burning non renewables is not factored into the cost of them CreekDog May 2013 #84

Thanks for the post from one of Murdoch's rags...those always have joeybee12 May 2013 #37

Scientists do science, not economics Viking12 May 2013 #39

more denial? CreekDog May 2013 #46

Extraordinarily interesting..... Junkdrawer May 2013 #52

thank you CreekDog May 2013 #61

This one has been making "contributions" here for a very long time. Egalitarian Thug May 2013 #56

and he seems to have a new friend here to echo all his skepticism of climate change CreekDog May 2013 #58

I tried to get the folks in EE out of their denial Nederland May 2013 #69

The Arctic is projected to be ice-free in 10 years NickB79 May 2013 #51

That's a really optimistic projection XemaSab May 2013 #53

Do you really expect us to believe you meant these words sincerely? CreekDog May 2013 #54

I've never been a denier Nederland May 2013 #72

Sure you have been a denier and here you are trying to mislead by calling believers deniers CreekDog May 2013 #81

Are you saying I have a sock puppet? Nederland May 2013 #90

what an odd response CreekDog May 2013 #91

I'm sure people with socks know how to escape techological detection, but what they can't do... CreekDog May 2013 #96

When you can't serve up the denial BS in E&E....... marmar May 2013 #66

Classic example of what is wrong with EE Nederland May 2013 #70

Funny, I don't see "BILLIONS" being spent.. SomethingFishy May 2013 #80

yes. If anything we are wasting billions by ignoring it and KurtNYC May 2013 #82

Areas that are being reclaimed by the sea? Nederland May 2013 #88

A couple KurtNYC May 2013 #94

Three Points Nederland Jun 2013 #97

You must not be paying attention Nederland May 2013 #89

The phrases "banality of evil" and "willing executioners" come to mind. Iterate May 2013 #87