tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post679960346832023389..comments2023-12-17T19:35:07.459-08:00Comments on Bouphonia: Increased RunoffPhilahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15849261651028725772noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post-88647982099236637812010-02-05T10:05:18.527-08:002010-02-05T10:05:18.527-08:00With enough effort our emerging economy neighbors ...<i>With enough effort our emerging economy neighbors will create virtual reservoirs of precious water to be available no matter the season.</i><br /><br />Brilliant! I suggest you write up a grant proposal and send it to the Gates Foundation.Philahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15849261651028725772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post-32589397268269737822010-02-05T09:37:19.095-08:002010-02-05T09:37:19.095-08:00The "runoff" that is speculated to provi...The "runoff" that is speculated to provide a much needed, though unwieldy, source of water to certain parts of the world can easily be contained and reserved in the immeasurably huge quantity of plastic bottles which have heretofore provided little more than clutter to our ever-contracting planet. Many of said vessels are already making their way across the Pacific, eliminating the need for costly shipping. With enough effort our emerging economy neighbors will create virtual reservoirs of precious water to be available no matter the season.Jay Schiavonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04575283403103183391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post-85122870823091880242010-02-03T10:26:49.197-08:002010-02-03T10:26:49.197-08:00I don't think the column was "trashing&qu...<i>I don't think the column was "trashing" anybody or anything, just pointing out that the IPCC had presented a very one-sided, and misleading, picture of research about the impacts of climate change on water shortages.</i><br /><br />The article claims that there's a "bright side" to global warming as regards water stresses. Jolis does not make the case that this is true, not least because the work she cites in favor of that claim doesn't actually support it.<br /><br />Accusing a scientific body of misrepresenting data may not be "trashing" it, by your definition, but it's a very serious charge and Jolis makes it frivolously. As do you.<br /><br /><i>The writer doesn't seem like "complaining" about the uncertainties in Arnell's paper, but pointing out that they exist on both sides.</i><br /><br />Except that the risk of an overall negative outcome outweighs the far more theoretical positives. And that risk increases with warming <i>and</i> as a result of inaction, as Arnell points out.<br /><br /><i>Arnell himself was in the IPCC reviews, so it would be disingenuous to blame everything on the IPCC when it seems he had some control over how his work was used.</i><br /><br />There's no "blame" to apportion, unless you find Jolis' non-expert interpretation of Arnell's work to be more authoritative than that of Arnell and his peers. Which would not be rational, in my view.<br /><br /><i>Also, if you read the WSJ online regularly, you'd know that they pretty much never put in links to stuff they refer to.</i><br /><br />So what? If you're looking for points to challenge, why not focus on something science-based, like my claim that "what matters is where and when droughts and rainfall and snowmelt occur, and the overall effect on ecosystems as well as population and infrastructure"?<br /><br /><i>If that's "credibility by association" for you, go for it...</i><br /><br />It isn't. But apparently, Jolis thinks it should be, which is why I mentioned it.<br /><br /><i>Finally, you say "know nothing," but, um, you clearly needed this article to educate yourself on this matter. Aren't bloggers supposed to be ahead of the news?</i><br /><br />I have no idea what you're talking about here. I was familiar with Arnell's research before reading Jolis' misrepresentation of it. And I've addressed her misrepresentations of climate science <a href="http://bouphonia.blogspot.com/2009/11/rest-of-us.html" rel="nofollow">before</a>, so I'm familiar with her tactics. <br /><br />But if you want to view Jolis and Goklany as more credible than the IPCC, even when their interpretations of a scientist's work are contradicted by the scientist himself...go for it. It's not like anything I'm gonna say will change your mind.Philahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15849261651028725772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post-87491136454905177342010-02-03T09:00:29.000-08:002010-02-03T09:00:29.000-08:00Although Phila, you must really be on their radar ...<i>Although Phila, you must really be on their radar screen to warrant two comments by one anonymoid.</i><br /><br />Nah. I get the occasional outburst, but it seems to be pretty random. I don't think there are enough readers/commenters here to make it worth their while. (Small is beautiful!)Philahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15849261651028725772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post-83923040065811375092010-02-03T08:47:44.710-08:002010-02-03T08:47:44.710-08:00Better denialists, please. Although Phila, you mu...Better denialists, please. Although Phila, you must really be on their radar screen to warrant two comments by one anonymoid. Congratulations, I guess.Rich Puchalskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13565210317964576866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post-45625640207507840302010-02-03T03:26:09.494-08:002010-02-03T03:26:09.494-08:00Um... I don't know that you understood the art...Um... I don't know that you understood the article very well. <br /><br />I don't think the column was "trashing" anybody or anything, just pointing out that the IPCC had presented a very one-sided, and misleading, picture of research about the impacts of climate change on water shortages. The writer doesn't seem like "complaining" about the uncertainties in Arnell's paper, but pointing out that they exist on both sides. Arnell himself was in the IPCC reviews, so it would be disingenuous to blame everything on the IPCC when it seems he had some control over how his work was used. I don't see how this misrepresents anything by pointing out the other side to Arnell's research that was left out of the IPCC docs. What's wrong with that?<br /><br />Also, if you read the WSJ online regularly, you'd know that they pretty much never put in links to stuff they refer to. Only Tarant's "Best of the Web" does that, and even then, only sometimes. <br /><br />Indur Goklany has written for Cato and Heartland - other than that, he doesn't seem to have any lasting affiliation either of them. I think it was most relavant to point out what position he held when he made those comments - with the Bush DoI. Heh. If that's "credibility by association" for you, go for it...<br /><br />Finally, you say "know nothing," but, um, you clearly needed this article to educate yourself on this matter. Aren't bloggers supposed to be ahead of the news?Kiranoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post-55601344545761294152010-02-02T18:50:56.413-08:002010-02-02T18:50:56.413-08:00And incidentally, it's not a matter of establi...And incidentally, it's not a matter of establishing guilt by association so much as calling attention to Jolis' attempt at <i>credibility</i> by association.<br /><br />When I said that her readers would probably be a lot more impressed by his links with Cato etc., I wasn't being entirely facetious.Philahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15849261651028725772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post-69417367169270502972010-02-02T18:36:10.476-08:002010-02-02T18:36:10.476-08:00Does the strength of your argument really depend o...<i>Does the strength of your argument really depend on such "guilt by association" nonsense?</i><br /><br />No, the strength of my argument depends on his clear misrepresentation of Arnell's research, which I went to some trouble to explain, and to underscore with quotes from Arnell himself.<br /><br />His association with industry-funded denialist thinktanks is just the icing on the cake.Philahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15849261651028725772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post-29753537196010144252010-02-02T17:44:15.384-08:002010-02-02T17:44:15.384-08:00Curious: Just exactly what sort of "career&qu...Curious: Just exactly what sort of "career" did Indur Goklany have with The <a href="http://www.heartland.org" rel="nofollow">Heartland Institute</a>? Does the strength of your argument really depend on such "guilt by association" nonsense?PolicyWatchdognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post-14483512844185596202010-02-02T16:33:35.461-08:002010-02-02T16:33:35.461-08:00Ah yes, "warmer is better." I remember ...Ah yes, "warmer is better." I remember that one from one of the earliest glibertarian pieces I encountered, a paper by Thomas Gale Moore from back in 1995. I've archived some material about it for posterity here:<br /><br />http://rpuchalsky.home.att.net/sci_env/moore/moore_warming.html<br /><br />People should remember what kind of horrible pseudoscience dominated U.S. politics around the late 20th century and early 21st. Although, more pessimistically, this will probably never go away -- 50 years from now the denialists will be saying the same things.Rich Puchalskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13565210317964576866noreply@blogger.com