Comments on: It’s the Lizard Brain, Stupid

By: Con michael

Con michael — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 00:21:46 +0000

It’s all a matter of sticking to facts.The rigors of scientific discipline demand,inter alia,that atheory imply the kind of evidence that would prove it wrong.Predictions based on the theory are chaecked against the facts.If something occurs that should not have,and vice versa,the theory is discarded.The principal AGW alarmists themselves lament that they cannot explain the lack of warming.Ergo the AGW theory has been discredited.The comprehensive defeat of the Emissions Trading Scheme in the Australian Parliament clearly demonstrates that the public has had enough of the lies,cheating,filibuster,spin and obfuscation.

By: Steve Bloom

Steve Bloom — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 21:42:54 +0000

“Innovation first, regulation second” (Tom’s phrase, referring to Keith’s preference for the ideas of the Lomborg/Pielke Jr./Breakthrough Institute axis) can be summarized thusly:

“People prefer not to solve the problem using existing tools. Let us accept that, say instead that the problem should be solved in the future with tools that don’t yet exist, and presume that with no change in attitude people will be willing to apply those tools.”

Now, have I made this view seem like a blindingly stupid manifestation of magical thinking? I hope so.

By: Anand

Anand — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 18:36:40 +0000

The problem of ‘communication’ is a general one regarding all ‘green’ ideas. Since the green movement has not one single positive contribution to humanity, since it has always been a reactionary force, it will find itself in this position.
It is always about restriction, regulation, preservation, control etc etc. Or it is about alternatives. Meaning it is about re-doing something.
Name one thing that is an original synthetic contribution from the green movement to humanity.
Why do you think there is ‘cap and trade’? It is the green version of capitalism. People who don’t have anything of value to offer first make a play for your pocket.
If you have a message that’s worth something you would not worry so much about selling it.

By: Collide-a-scape » Blog Archive » Collide-a-scape >> The Art of Climate Communication

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 18:11:18 +0000

[...] a recent post and comment elsewhere, I have suggested that better communication will not be enough to convince [...]

By: Michael D Smith

Michael D Smith — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 15:42:08 +0000

I’m aware of those papers… Theories are very interesting, but I used the word evidence. There should be an effect, I agree. Measurable? Evidently not. There’s that word again…

By: Michael Tobis

Michael Tobis — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 01:11:42 +0000

“can produce a single paper with evidence causal link of CO2 and temperature”

Here’s two. There might be some in the intervening century as well. Why don’t you go check?

Svante Arrhenius “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground” Philosophical Magazine 41, 237-276 (1896)
http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/arrhenius.html

Reto Knutti1 & Gabriele C. Hegerl “The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to radiation changes” Nature Geoscience 1, 735 – 743 (2008)
http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf

There ought to be a law. Seriously. There ought to be a freakin’ law.

By: Joseph A Olson, PE

Joseph A Olson, PE — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 23:03:56 +0000

It takes a lot of synthetic data to support a synthetic theory and despite the best efforts of NOAA, GISS and Hadley CRU there is just too much that can’t be blamed on the lowly CO2 molecule. No matter how artfully you tell the tooth fairy story, repeated experimentation will not turn a tooth to money without intervention.

Google my name and read the 21 original articles posted at Canada Free Press, Freemen Institute, ClimateRealist and now linked to 25,000 web/blogs in a dozen languages. The biggest variable in Earth’s climate is the 700,000 cubic miles of fisionable material beneath our feet, which is profoundly indifferent to us or our silly carbon footprints.

By: Michael D Smith

Michael D Smith — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:56:37 +0000

Michael Tobin: Of course, this is rooted in misunderstanding. Once the car has ridden over the cliff it is too late to apply the brakes. People have the capacity to understand this and it needs to be explained to them.

OK Michael, I’ve read around 400 climate papers, and have studied the subject for 2500 to 3000 hours. I still don’t see any evidence of a link between CO2 and dangerous warming. In fact, once you account for ocean, solar, UHI, measurement error, I hardly even find room for the mere suggestion of such an idea. If you would start by explaining where the danger is, or how feedback even approaches the IPCC guesstimate within a factor of 6, or can produce a single paper with evidence causal link of CO2 and temperature, I sure would like to hear about it.

By: Collide-a-scape » Blog Archive » Collide-a-scape >> The Clash over Wind

Mon, 18 Jan 2010 04:23:57 +0000

[...] Craig Goodrich, a new reader to this blog, decried the scourge of wind turbines in a recent comment: The plague of industrial wind plants is utterly destroying countryside and wildlife habitat at an [...]

By: Denis Ables

Denis Ables — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 03:23:38 +0000

Since there’s no chance in succeeding in using science to convince others about your global warmng scam, I suggest that you try the direct approach. Simply put the following question to those AGW skeptics:

Are you gonna believe me or your own eyes ?