<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Is Texas Governor Perry Off Climate Base? (Groupthink vs. Science Revisited)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.masterresource.org/2009/10/is-texas-governor-perry-off-climate-base-groupthink-vs-science-revisited/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.masterresource.org/2009/10/is-texas-governor-perry-off-climate-base-groupthink-vs-science-revisited/</link>
	<description>A free-market energy blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 20:41:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: cknappenberger</title>
		<link>http://www.masterresource.org/2009/10/is-texas-governor-perry-off-climate-base-groupthink-vs-science-revisited/comment-page-1/#comment-3100</link>
		<dc:creator>cknappenberger</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:55:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.masterresource.org/?p=5425#comment-3100</guid>
		<description>Adam,

&quot;Making it rain” is just a euphemism for a water delivery system—in other words, through human ingenuity, irrigation is providing water at a time and location when/where Mother Nature has not. Thus we have altered, the microclimate, at least, of the field of crops.

Additionally, I am not suggesting that campfires altered the global climate, just that we humans have been altering the climate at different spatial scales, for a long time…basically since we have been humans.  So a human alteration of the climate shouldn’t be, by default, considered a bad thing—which, I think, is the view that some people are taking on the of global climate change—If humans are responsible, it must be bad and we must stop.

-Chip</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Adam,</p>
<p>&#8220;Making it rain” is just a euphemism for a water delivery system—in other words, through human ingenuity, irrigation is providing water at a time and location when/where Mother Nature has not. Thus we have altered, the microclimate, at least, of the field of crops.</p>
<p>Additionally, I am not suggesting that campfires altered the global climate, just that we humans have been altering the climate at different spatial scales, for a long time…basically since we have been humans.  So a human alteration of the climate shouldn’t be, by default, considered a bad thing—which, I think, is the view that some people are taking on the of global climate change—If humans are responsible, it must be bad and we must stop.</p>
<p>-Chip</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adam</title>
		<link>http://www.masterresource.org/2009/10/is-texas-governor-perry-off-climate-base-groupthink-vs-science-revisited/comment-page-1/#comment-3096</link>
		<dc:creator>Adam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2009 04:51:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.masterresource.org/?p=5425#comment-3096</guid>
		<description>&quot;About half of all U.S. agriculture comes from the 16% of harvested cropland that is irrigated. In China, over 40% of cropland is irrigated, in India, about one-quarter. In Egypt, virtually all cropland is irrigated. In other words, we have made it rain when, and where, it doesn’t rain enough to grow highly productive crops.  The vast majority of us have human climate modification to thank for the food on our table.&quot;
Irrigation is not the process of making it rain, has nothing at all to do with climate. It is, simply, diverting water from one place (a river, lake, aquifer) to another (a field of corn); setting up a sprinkler on a lawn is irration.

&quot;Consider that humans have been altering our climate ever since we first moved into a cave and started a fire to warm ourselves. In fact, it is highly probably that without our climate modifications that 6.5 billion of us would not currently inhabit the earth.&quot;
I think what we &quot;may&quot; be doing to our climate now (if the AGW theory is right) would vastly outweigh what we could&#039;ve done in the past; 2 billion cars versus a couple of million camp fires?
Forgive me, I oversimplified there, but, you probably get my point.

I like and agree with most of everything else you said. Just... that thing you claimed about irrigation, that sounded really really stupid.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;About half of all U.S. agriculture comes from the 16% of harvested cropland that is irrigated. In China, over 40% of cropland is irrigated, in India, about one-quarter. In Egypt, virtually all cropland is irrigated. In other words, we have made it rain when, and where, it doesn’t rain enough to grow highly productive crops.  The vast majority of us have human climate modification to thank for the food on our table.&#8221;<br />
Irrigation is not the process of making it rain, has nothing at all to do with climate. It is, simply, diverting water from one place (a river, lake, aquifer) to another (a field of corn); setting up a sprinkler on a lawn is irration.</p>
<p>&#8220;Consider that humans have been altering our climate ever since we first moved into a cave and started a fire to warm ourselves. In fact, it is highly probably that without our climate modifications that 6.5 billion of us would not currently inhabit the earth.&#8221;<br />
I think what we &#8220;may&#8221; be doing to our climate now (if the AGW theory is right) would vastly outweigh what we could&#8217;ve done in the past; 2 billion cars versus a couple of million camp fires?<br />
Forgive me, I oversimplified there, but, you probably get my point.</p>
<p>I like and agree with most of everything else you said. Just&#8230; that thing you claimed about irrigation, that sounded really really stupid.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cknappenberger</title>
		<link>http://www.masterresource.org/2009/10/is-texas-governor-perry-off-climate-base-groupthink-vs-science-revisited/comment-page-1/#comment-3082</link>
		<dc:creator>cknappenberger</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:59:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.masterresource.org/?p=5425#comment-3082</guid>
		<description>Pauld,

For what I can tell, there has not been a lot of critique of the Lindzen and Choi paper (or at least not a lot that has been made public). There was a critical comment (#16) on my earlier &lt;a href=&quot;http://masterresource.org/?p=4307&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;thread&lt;/a&gt; on Lindzen and Choi, and a response from Lindzen (#18).

Lindzen and Choi have a longer paper in the works, which provides more detail, but I am not quite sure of its status (perhaps Rob Bradley may have more info about it).

-Chip</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pauld,</p>
<p>For what I can tell, there has not been a lot of critique of the Lindzen and Choi paper (or at least not a lot that has been made public). There was a critical comment (#16) on my earlier <a href="http://masterresource.org/?p=4307" rel="nofollow">thread</a> on Lindzen and Choi, and a response from Lindzen (#18).</p>
<p>Lindzen and Choi have a longer paper in the works, which provides more detail, but I am not quite sure of its status (perhaps Rob Bradley may have more info about it).</p>
<p>-Chip</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew</title>
		<link>http://www.masterresource.org/2009/10/is-texas-governor-perry-off-climate-base-groupthink-vs-science-revisited/comment-page-1/#comment-3081</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:14:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.masterresource.org/?p=5425#comment-3081</guid>
		<description>Oh man, last week in my fundamentals of engineering class the climate doom and gloom was on full display. Apparently they wanted to tell us that sea level rise was going to be a big problem for Florida because it would raise the water table. Engineers would have to &quot;deal with that&quot;. My generation is expected to create the engineering &quot;solutions&quot;.

I couldn&#039;t even begin to think how to respond to the drivel, so I just joked &quot;Let me know how that works out for you guys-if you need a ride to another planet, just ask.&quot;-I&#039;m &quot;Space Guy&quot; you see, the only aerospace guy in the room.

Anyway, sorry to vent that on you but I just have to wonder why people are worried about &quot;bad advice&quot; that doesn&#039;t alarm people enough, and not about the crap that gets pumped into kids heads that is just &lt;i&gt;wrong&lt;/i&gt;?

Incidentally, a while back you asked if I wanted a copy of some work that Michaels, Davis, and yourself of heat related mortality. I was wondering if I could ask for any &lt;i&gt;other&lt;/i&gt; papers, like, say:

Michaels, P.J., et al., 2004. Trends in precipitation on the wettest days of the year across the contiguous USA. International Journal of Climatology, 24, 1873-1882.

And on a related note, I was intrigued by the reference in &lt;i&gt;Climate of Extremes&lt;/i&gt; of the paper:

Knappenberger, P.C., P.J. Michaels, and R.E. Davis, 2001. Nature of Observed Temperature Changes Across the United States during the 20th Century. Climate Research, 17, 45–53.

And was curious if you guys had ever thought about updating it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh man, last week in my fundamentals of engineering class the climate doom and gloom was on full display. Apparently they wanted to tell us that sea level rise was going to be a big problem for Florida because it would raise the water table. Engineers would have to &#8220;deal with that&#8221;. My generation is expected to create the engineering &#8220;solutions&#8221;.</p>
<p>I couldn&#8217;t even begin to think how to respond to the drivel, so I just joked &#8220;Let me know how that works out for you guys-if you need a ride to another planet, just ask.&#8221;-I&#8217;m &#8220;Space Guy&#8221; you see, the only aerospace guy in the room.</p>
<p>Anyway, sorry to vent that on you but I just have to wonder why people are worried about &#8220;bad advice&#8221; that doesn&#8217;t alarm people enough, and not about the crap that gets pumped into kids heads that is just <i>wrong</i>?</p>
<p>Incidentally, a while back you asked if I wanted a copy of some work that Michaels, Davis, and yourself of heat related mortality. I was wondering if I could ask for any <i>other</i> papers, like, say:</p>
<p>Michaels, P.J., et al., 2004. Trends in precipitation on the wettest days of the year across the contiguous USA. International Journal of Climatology, 24, 1873-1882.</p>
<p>And on a related note, I was intrigued by the reference in <i>Climate of Extremes</i> of the paper:</p>
<p>Knappenberger, P.C., P.J. Michaels, and R.E. Davis, 2001. Nature of Observed Temperature Changes Across the United States during the 20th Century. Climate Research, 17, 45–53.</p>
<p>And was curious if you guys had ever thought about updating it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pauld</title>
		<link>http://www.masterresource.org/2009/10/is-texas-governor-perry-off-climate-base-groupthink-vs-science-revisited/comment-page-1/#comment-3079</link>
		<dc:creator>Pauld</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:37:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.masterresource.org/?p=5425#comment-3079</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve been trying to follow the reaction to Lindzen&#039;s and Choi&#039;s publication, but I haven&#039;t found much response.  Although it is hard for a laymen to assess the implications of a study, it seems to me that the article has major implications for climate science.  Yet I have found virtually no critical reaction.  I am wondering if you could provide any insight as to the reaction to the paper within the scientific community.  Is it too early to expect much by way of a reaction?  I am particularly interested in reading reactions from the pro-AGW crowd.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve been trying to follow the reaction to Lindzen&#8217;s and Choi&#8217;s publication, but I haven&#8217;t found much response.  Although it is hard for a laymen to assess the implications of a study, it seems to me that the article has major implications for climate science.  Yet I have found virtually no critical reaction.  I am wondering if you could provide any insight as to the reaction to the paper within the scientific community.  Is it too early to expect much by way of a reaction?  I am particularly interested in reading reactions from the pro-AGW crowd.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

