Skeptical Science notes that when the coal externalities of the study are included in coal's price, it increases the levalized costs to approximately 28 cents per kWh, which is more than the 2009 U.S. Energy Information Administration cost of hydroelectric, wind (onshore and offshore), geothermal, biomass, nuclear, natural gas, and solar photovoltaics, and is on par with solar thermal, although the costs of solar thermal are falling.
Skeptical Science notes that while Linzen has published a large body of peer - reviewed work, some of his points remain disputed.
Not exact matches
I am sadden to
note that no amount of
science can convince a
skeptical mind.
Others: please
note that there is a user mwsmith12 over at
Skeptical Science asking much the same questions.
It is hard to dispute this except to
note that Krauthammer here has taken a radically
skeptical position not merely on climate
science, but on all
science.
The survey
noted that those
skeptical of man's influence on global warming aren't
science illiterate, a favorite talking point of the far left.
2 Evidence that the survey was held at the
Skeptical Science website --(please
note the Wayback machine archive, shows that it is impossible for a survey to have been held at
Skeptical Science, to match the LOG12 paper claimed content analysis.
The actual physical mechanisms advanced by the IPCC, Rahmstorf, Schmittner and
Skeptical Science are problematic to say the least and
note the IPCC do not make an anthropogenic attribution to 0 - 2000m (only to 0 - 700m) and only for the 20th century (not for the 21st century).
In response to our questions in a previous
Skeptical Science article, Natalia Shakhova
noted that her preliminary isotope studies of the released East Siberian Arctic Shelf methane show mixed origins for the gas.
Skeptical Science also
notes that the graph on page 33 of the SPPI document has taken a sea level graph from the University of Colorado at Boulder which shows a 3.2 millimeter per year sea level rise trend, and literally rotated to make the trend look flat.
For
Skeptical Science readers wondering what Trump has to do with climate science, note that this article is actually about critical thinking and inoculation, key topics in our Denial101x online course (Trump is just a case
Science readers wondering what Trump has to do with climate
science, note that this article is actually about critical thinking and inoculation, key topics in our Denial101x online course (Trump is just a case
science,
note that this article is actually about critical thinking and inoculation, key topics in our Denial101x online course (Trump is just a case study).
Here is the
skeptical side of Abelson at a time, almost 2o years ago, when climate
science in general operated on a much smaller set of data (but
note that he quotes more or less the same wide range of climate sensitivity estimates that are the norm today)-- Abelson
I like the verdict of the Economist, which found the critique «strong on contempt and sneering, but weak on substance,» and
noted the strange attitude in the headline: «
Science defends itself against the
Skeptical Environmentalist.»