Some of these methane emissions come from cow flatulence, exhaling and belching — other livestock animals release methane as well. Cows and other animals produce methane through digestion, which ferments the food of animals. The White House is looking to regulate methane emissions across the economy from agriculture to oil and gas operations — all this despite methane emissions falling 11 percent since Methane emissions have largely been reduced because of the incentive for companies to capture it and sell it for monetary gain. Oil and gas companies, for example, have been looking for ways to increasingly capture methane leaked from drilling operations which they can then sell.
Activists have argued that the methane leakage rate from natural gas operations is 50 percent higher than the EPA estimates. David Vitter. Patrick Moore states his credentials That one of the founders of Greenpeace now disses global warming disturbs people who rely on authority for their opinions. So Moore is regularly misrepresented by Warmists. He makes a number of false statements, including to question my credibility as a scientist. For his information I hold an Honours B.
In I founded the British Columbia Carbon Project and ever since have remained abreast of the climate change discussion on a daily basis. This is a judgement opinion , not a proof. If there was an actual scientific proof they would write it down on a piece of paper and show it to us. Scholl also claims that I am not a co-founder of Greenpeace.
Texas Oil and Gas Producers
I was in the leadership of Greenpeace for 15 years, from the first campaign against US H-Bomb testing in until when I left due to disagreements on points of science and policy. Today Greenpeace campaigns are mainly based on sensation, misinformation, and fear. I prefer to base my environmental policies on science and logic. Email me John Ray here. But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases. After that they no longer come up. From January on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.
This is supposed to be a science process?
- 9694 ceasdass.changeip.com 30 The Schreber Case by Sigmund Freud;
- Uploaded by!
- Related titles?
- Beyond the Rain;
The IPCC clearly does politics, not science Government officials and scientists are gathered in Yokohama this week to wrangle over every line of a summary of the report before the final wording is released on Monday — the first update in seven years. Nearly people must sign off on the exact wording of the summary, including the 66 expert authors, officials from countries, and 57 observers. But governments have already signed off on the critical finding that climate change is already having an effect, and that even a small amount of warming in the future could lead to "abrupt and irreversible changes" SOURCE Did Nate Silver take down the Roger Pielke article in response to a campaign by a tiny minority of malcontents?
Lubos Motl Nate Silver is a statistician who has analyzed baseball and elections. I don't know him but it seems that some other people do. At any rate, he started a new expensive online news server FiveThirtyEight. Some mostly left-wing pundits have criticized the new server and made its childhood a rocky experience.
The Reported Death of Peak Oil Has Been Greatly Exaggerated
The first study he happened to publish on that server was one by Dr Roger Pielke Jr, a "climate lukewarmer" [in the middle between skeptics and alarmists] who does research into damages caused by meteorological phenomena: Disasters Cost More Than Ever — But Not Because of Climate Change by Pielke His main point is simple: the absolute amount of money destroyed by natural disasters is increasing but so is the total GDP. The ratio stays pretty much constant — as he demonstrates by some graph from the Munich Re reinsurance company — and it should.
Well, there is even some decrease that seems statistically insignificant; if it ever became significant, it would probably be due to people's increasing ability to protect their assets. There exists no scientific or otherwise rational reason to think that the "losses to GDP" ratio should be significantly changing with time.
Texas Oil and Gas Producers
As people are getting wealthier, they have more assets that may be destroyed by unpleasant weather and so on. Needless to say, a "lukewarmer" like Pielke Jr is a sufficient heretic for the climate activists to go ballistic; his claims — self-evidently correct claims — were a blasphemy. COM, a rant at Salon.
- Giftguide July by The Intermedia Group - Issuu.
- People Leadership Growth (Business Leadership Book 2);
- Download Limit Exceeded.
- Aïe Aïe Aïe !!
- A quiet word with your horse: Learning by reward - the key to motivation and trust (Horses)?
- ikicuhuhys.tk Ebooks and Manuals?
- Analyzing the Social Web?
- Mantra Yoga and the Primal Sound.
- Indisch kochen!
- The Real Deal April 2016.
- Cari Blog Ini.
COM mentioning the grilling of Silver by Jon Stewart, a diatribe at HuffPo, and dozens of other anti-Pielke replies on assorted far left-wing servers and blogs. This is actually the mean value of my estimate. Such a claim may sound remarkable but people who don't have access to any data about the visitors and commenters on a website generally underestimate how intensely amplified the visibility of certain views becomes due to the relentless work of a very small number of obsessed trolls and spammers.
I am fortunately not getting too many truly obnoxious comments these days. But during the last 3 months, I got about 5 comments from different posters praising guest posts on The Reference Frame, with the implicit suggestion that I should stop writing my own essays.
OK individual opinions, I thought for a while. After all, I try to pick high-quality guest bloggers and yes, I prefer native speakers, something I am not so if the comparison ends up in this way, it shouldn't shock me. However, when I saw the fifth comment of this sort, I finally checked the IP addresses. Needless to say, every single comment from this set was posted by the very same user in Halifax, Canada.
Without this check I am not doing them often, but sometimes I am , I could easily believe that there were 5 people holding this opinion; in reality, there was just 1 troll. This is just one recent anecdote but over the years, I have accumulated many stories of this kind. The general conclusion seems clear to me: on the Internet, a huge fraction of the "violent opposition" to some opinions is created by a tiny group of people. The critics that were mentioned as contributors to Silver's apology by the media belonged to this list: Michael Mann Kevin Trenberth Rob Honeycutt Dana Have I seen the names before?
All of them belong to the aforementioned "list of 25 top climate alarmist trolls". They keep on trolling, trolling, trolling. They are spamming, spamming, spamming. They are attacking, attacking, attacking climate skeptics. They are whining, whining, whining that they were unfairly attacked even though they haven't. They are lying 24 hours a day. Michael Mann is threatening others with lawsuits all the time and sometimes even sues, being supported by some really immoral wealthy individuals , yet he has the breathtaking arrogance to claim that it's others who are threatening him.
Fiction & Literature Books Page: 48 Sorted by Price Descending
They are doing these things all the time, seven days a week, 52 or 53 weeks a year, and a large percentage of the "climatic portion of the blogosphere" is created by this small group of people. If you removed these trolls from the surface of the globe, climate alarmism would pretty much cease to exist on the Internet. Incidentally, yes, this is my recipe how to solve the climate problem. I find it sort of shocking that people like Nate Silver who should already know something about the "behavioral science about the Internet commenters" and about the sociology of the climate debate — election-related statistics are not too far from this discipline — still fail to understand these points.
I find it shocking that they still get manipulated by these aggressive yet intrinsically inconsequential scumbags and crackpots. Let me just mention one graph — the only "apparently non-trivial" argument against Pielke's assertions that I have seen anywhere in the hurricane of vitriol directed against his self-evident assertions.
You see that the "number of natural catastrophes" has more than doubled over the last 30 years. But one must be careful about the definition of a "natural catastrophe".
Note that in , the world population was less than 4. Moreover, the people are much wealthier and they have many more things that may be damaged or insured and damages of these things count as "natural catastrophes". My point is that the quantity "number of natural catastrophes" doesn't really have a robust, time-independent definition here. If you actually look at the overall money which have a much more robust definition, as Pielke did, you will see that the claims or losses were increasing proportionally to the total GDP.
There's one more observation that is being mentioned by Pielke's critics: the number of "geophysical events" like earthquakes, tsunami, and volcanic eruption wasn't substantially increasing — only "the weather got worse".