tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post8229973343163378768..comments2023-08-07T16:41:49.660+02:00Comments on Die Klimazwiebel: After Paris: Embedded environmentalism?eduardohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-6780293971134917472016-01-10T19:50:27.820+01:002016-01-10T19:50:27.820+01:00All I really see is that politicians in most count...All I really see is that politicians in most countries (except the USA and even there if you're a Democrat) see no political advantage to opposing mitigation in their public statements. They don't actually need to do anything, and the important ones probably won't. Do you really think that Putin actually cares if Siberia gets a little warmer? But it costs him nothing.<br />So I think Hansen is probably right about this: who cares what non-binding things a bunch of politicians say?MikeRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00127456522803816485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-72597923009516845942016-01-06T12:36:31.240+01:002016-01-06T12:36:31.240+01:00Ralf Ellis,
I have deleted your comment because it...Ralf Ellis,<br />I have deleted your comment because it has nothing to do with this thread. Repeated submission will not help.Please respect our rules. - Hans von StorchHans von Storchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778028673130006646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-58513511040740220802016-01-06T12:34:36.694+01:002016-01-06T12:34:36.694+01:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-2959416597313471942015-12-25T23:49:05.767+01:002015-12-25T23:49:05.767+01:00Ladies & gentlemen
meine Damen und Herren
&q...Ladies & gentlemen<br /><br />meine Damen und Herren<br /><br />"The agreement reached in Paris will only be meaningful if countries make progress in their pledges to reduce greenhouse gas emissions"<br /><br />this and that being meaningful/ meaningless if and only if,.....<br /><br />....is an unqualified way of stating it. N.N. is hardly entitled or qualified to state or instruct or to define what is meaningful / meaningless.<br /><br /> Why can`t he simply state "will not work unless..." or "it is my opinion that the whole will be meaningless if not,.."<br /><br />But the same is not at all my opinion. It has got quite a lot of important meaning allready.<br /><br /><br />Because that Paris treaty has got several horizons and aspects. What I like first of all is that the question or problem as such is stated and defined within the frames of reference of basic and elementary SCIENCE, that is to be respected and not to be fought or disputed as such. This is a very proper meaning that disqualifies and excludes other meanings. <br /><br />That science seems settled and signed to now by 196 nations. <br /><br />And by the way, it is the Paris convention of day before yesterday as I learnt it in public school, signed to at last. That was really not allways the case. <br /><br />By statement and agreement datum is not the alternative dia- lectic materialism anymore. That means, it is not anybodys arbitrary belief or ridiculous religion or hoax og great "scam!" and thus the suggested ruin of reason and proper "science", honesty, seriosity and morals, that we red so many times. <br /><br />CO2-AGW is signed to as reality and premise that is not to be denied or fought or ridiculed. Further, One is hardly to dispute the CO2 climate response either. Allthough that science is not quite settled, that matter is not dia- lectic either anymore. The science of its not being dia- lectic- is settled now by the Paris- school and its convention of 2015. It gives a radical change of frames of reference, a new and better and more meaningful paradigm on the cost of an earlier paradigm rather defined by chicago gangsters.<br /><br /><br />But then comes HUMANIORA: <br /><br />Wer soll das bezahlen<br />Wer hat so viel Geld?<br />Wer hat so viel Pinke Pinke<br />Wer hat das bestellt?<br /><br />= Typical Humaniora. Who is to be blamed? Who is responsible? The etics, the politics, and the economy is typical HUMANIORA, and that science is hardly settled at all. But we see suggested rules of behaviours, don`t we?<br /><br />The Pope himself has entered the one shale of the balance by full weight, and the Koch Brothers are sitting on the other. But EXXON MOBIL seem to have fully deserted from the common barriqades under pressure from the New York State Court.<br /><br /> Thus today, only Donald Trump & the GOP are weighing against together with the Kochs. <br /><br />To my opinion, that is rather what enlighted and dignified Ladies and gentlemen ought to discuss from now on. Namely typical HUMANIORA as told above. <br /><br />It looks as if SCIENCE could be re- settled in Paris simply by excluding some chicago gangsters and inaugurated dia- lectic materialists from the discussion, such as Racketeeers and professional trolls. Gauner & kjeltringer & banditter Schwindler & Ungeheuer. <br /><br />And I repeat, this is rather what enlighted and dignified ladies & gentlemen should discuss from now on. <br /><br />Also because fighting the Bureau of Standards, the naval Observatory the city house or hall of standards, science as such, on the free market when you happen to be out of steps with HUMANIORA, politics, manners, and behaviours,..... is quite ... un-höflich... un-dignified... un-civilized. heidruns hønserihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13121412444459651844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-27528291940603494482015-12-23T16:06:00.550+01:002015-12-23T16:06:00.550+01:00Sceptics can equally well say that 'Alarmism d...Sceptics can equally well say that 'Alarmism draws its oxygen from larger political agendas and Paris won’t put an end to those'. After all, in any other field a hypothesis is at least questioned when the data disagrees with it. Oppenheimer's refusal to admit that sceptics were proven correct to be sceptical all this time is not based on science (with 50+ contradictory reasons why consensus science was wrong en masse) so it must be political. <br /><br />Scepticism also grows with the current dishonest touting of a hot el nino year despite the on-going hiatus and despite satellite measurements showing nothing unusual. Next year it will likely be cooler again thanks to the expected la nina and they will again be shown to be more salesmen than scientists.<br /><br />But it is a fallacy to suggest that scepticism affects the delegates at these freebies since they are all handpicked alarmists. The big problem is the stone-cold fact that fossil fuel use and prosperity are directly linked so the reduction of one causes the reduction of the other. That's what prevents emissions reductions and it will stay that way unless a big breakthrough in energy engineering happens.<br /><br />So it's high time to be honest about the huge climate uncertainties and leave the politics to politicians. That way we might have an emissions policy that does more good than harm.<br />jgdeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00113923164193106018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-56811073143897415952015-12-19T17:04:42.157+01:002015-12-19T17:04:42.157+01:00I take it anybody who disagrees with Oppenheimer i...I take it anybody who disagrees with Oppenheimer is guilty of "denialism"? (Puzzled frown). Fernando Leanmehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16085680730729620836noreply@blogger.com