Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 Next
Comments 97051 to 97100:
-
actually thoughtful at 14:25 PM on 2 February 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
HR "Yep you actually did make me scream this time." Just to be clear - that is not a response based on fact or logic. It appears to be your emotional response to the fact that global warming is a threat to our civilization. In some circumstance, I too would scream - but I don't think you meant your scream that way. Are you going to stick with the emotion? Or try to structure an argument, based on facts and logic, that attempts to counters the fact that the threat exists? -
scaddenp at 14:20 PM on 2 February 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
HR - do think that projected climate change poses no threat to food production? Is that your beef? -
Karamanski at 14:16 PM on 2 February 2011Animals and plants can adapt
Hydrogen sulfide is thought to have been a major player in the Permian mass extinction 250 million years ago, because CO2 emissions from the Siberian Traps warmed the atmosphere and oceans, causing the oceans to lose oxygen. With less oxygen, the anaerobic bacteria produce hydrogen sulfide that spreads through the ocean and into the atmosphere and poisons most of the animals on the planet. When we hear about the potentially dire consequences of global warming, why don't we ever hear about hydrogen sulfide emissions from the warming oceans as a result of decreasing oxygen? -
curiouspa at 14:15 PM on 2 February 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
When I look at this graph, for most warming periods, I don't see much of a lag between temp and co2. The explanation of the lag during warming seems reasonable enough, but it seems unnecessary. There doesn't seem to be much of a lag during warming. I don't even seem to get the basic argument you are debunking here. Most of the time, the two seem to rise fairly concurrently. The lag seems to occur when there is a general cooling long-term trend. CO2 is the longest lasting GH gas from what I have read, and so may take longer to decrease as temps decrease from other causes. Overall, I must be really lost. I don't even see what is being debunked here. -
HumanityRules at 13:45 PM on 2 February 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
49 actually thoughtfull Yep you actually did make me scream this time. 48 dana1981 I didn't say it was cooling I described it as unrealised. The cooling was in relation to aerosols in the way you use it. But no worries I look forward to the post. -
robert way at 13:40 PM on 2 February 2011Norwegian translation of The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
John I only noticed cause I went to email it to one of my norwegian friends (so she could make fun of me for being a climate nerd of course) and I noticed it was in spanish lol -
John Hartz at 12:44 PM on 2 February 2011The Fake Scandal of Climategate
In August 2010, the Project on Climate Science produced a white paper on this topic, "Scientific Foundation of Climate Chage Remains Sound: Independent Studies Reject 'Climategate'" This white paper covers some of the same ground as James Wright's article. The two works are mutually reinforcing. -
actually thoughtful at 12:41 PM on 2 February 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
Scaddenp - I think you understand that we are all part of that experiment right now -whether we want to be or not. I restate it because I am not sure my post at 49 was clear. The CO2 injections into the atmosphere are an experiment with our biosphere, with no control, and no undo button in our lifetimes. -
scaddenp at 11:54 AM on 2 February 2011What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
Being worried that variations in irradiance dont fit with the magnitude of the changes is only a problem if there is a reason to exclude all feedbacks (which skeptics would dearly like to do with CO2). Meanwhile back in the world of real physics, the variations in solar radiance, amplified by feedbacks do a very good job of explaining past climate variation. -
scaddenp at 11:49 AM on 2 February 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
Every civilization has been based on food production capable of supporting specialists. However, I think it is exceedingly difficult to quantify how much damage to the food production system a civilization can take without it collapsing. Past examples are very hard to extrapolate to present day so from a science point of view, this is a hard problem. On the other hand, I accept that the risk exists (..and I wonder why HR apparently thinks it does not...), and I certainly don't to be part of an experiment to quantify that risk. -
Eric (skeptic) at 11:26 AM on 2 February 2011CO2 limits will harm the economy
Chris G, it looks legit, the owner of the domain is Thomas Stokes who seems to be reputable. Having just read Hansen's writings more carefully here http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2010/ I agree with the tax and dividend approach. If it were proposed with a decent phase-in period (since I also believe there is no urgency), I would support it over cap and trade because cap and trade is much harder to measure and enforce. -
robert way at 10:42 AM on 2 February 2011Norwegian translation of The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
The Norwegian copy didn't appear and when i clicked on the image i got the spanish copy?Response: This is what happens when you blog before your morning coffee :-( All fixed, thanks for the tip. -
Chris G at 10:41 AM on 2 February 2011CO2 limits will harm the economy
Cap-and-trade offers no incentives for reducing emissions beyond the set limits. To me, it looks like a shell game, CO2 emissions aren't reduced and the carbon credit brokers are the only ones to make money. I was pleased to discover some time ago that James Hansen and others had reached the conclusion before I did, that a revenue-neutral, phased-in carbon tax was the most sensible way to reduce emissions. I hope this site is on the level http://www.carbontax.org/ It appears to be, but sometimes it's hard to tell. -
hank at 09:42 AM on 2 February 2011Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
More from Spencer, who appears to be doing for his blog the sort of data-fiddling that Statistics 101 teaches against. I wonder if he's submitting this to a journal? "....The “best fit” I got after about an hour of fiddling around with the inputs is represented by the blue curve in the above chart. Importantly, the assumed feedback parameter (5.5) is solidly in “negative feedback” territory....." You know how to find it: ~2011/01/update-further-evidence-of-low-climate-sensitivity-from-nasas-aqua-satellite/ -
Tom Curtis at 07:27 AM on 2 February 2011OK global warming, this time it's personal!
Rob, thanks for the pitch :) In responce to Marvin Gardens original question, the important graphic is this one, which shows the heights various historical floods would have reached if the current dams had already been built.
For comparison, the 2011 flood came to a level of 4.48 meters.
If you allow for the effect of Somerset dam alone, only four floods in the 1890's would have shown up as significant floods, 1841, the two largest floods of 1893, and possibly 1824. With the exception of 1893, which was exceptional in many respects, the record in the 19th century is not much different from that in the 20th. (Note, flood levels were lowered even before the construction of Somerset Dam by the dredging of the Brisbane River at around 1900.)
If you allow for the effects of both Somerset and Wivenoe Dams, only one flood since settlement would have qualified as a major flood, that of 2011 (although 1974 comes with 2 cm's of qualifying).
1893 was a freak year because Brisbane was impacted by the effects of two cyclones in less than a month. Although neither of the 1893 floods would have been as bad as 2011 by itself, the combined effect probably still makes 1893 the worst year for Brisbane flooding, even once the effects of the dams are included.
-
muoncounter at 07:13 AM on 2 February 2011What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
#105: "variation in solar energetic particles should be used instead" What relationship between solar energetic particle (SEP) events and earth climate do you expect to see? The Svensmark models haven't stood up to scrutiny (see the thread KR linked, It's cosmic rays). SEP events are transients. The last one of substance (Jan 2005), lasted approximately 36 hours. It's difficult to see this as a driver of climate. -
BKsea at 06:24 AM on 2 February 2011Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
One thing I find curious about Monckton and skeptics of his ilk is that they seem to be drifting in the direction of AGW. It used to be that CO2 was not increasing, temperatures are not increasing, sea level is not rising. Now it has changed to acceptance of C02 rising, with effects on temperature and sea level, but its not too bad. It seems that this can be turned back against the skeptics - "Even Lord Monckton has had to admit that AGW is real." -
dorlomin at 05:45 AM on 2 February 2011Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
jhudsy at 15:27 PM on 1 February, 2011 Apart from the fact that there is a winery at "Accomb, Yorkshire, within 5km of Hadrian's Wall." (according to http://www.winelandsofbritain.co.uk/book.htm) I think you will find that it is in Northumbria not Yorkshire, a mile or so north of Hexam. And us sweaties are going into the wine business now. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2010/02/08/scotland-s-first-homegrown-wine-set-to-be-launched-86908-22027207/ Part of the issue with wine though is that bad wine can be grown in places where you would not be able to grow a comercial wine, but back in the middle ages with the sacrament so important they were not looking for quality. Sameul Pepys famously had some London grown wine and he was around in the 1660s, the depths of the little ice age. Wine growing the UK died off in the 1800s mostly through the arrival of cheap imports and what Riccardo would call the 'comparative advantage', better for the English to grow wool to sell and buy wine with. -
actually thoughtful at 05:43 AM on 2 February 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
HR - 44 "threat to civilization" is a fact. Facts are wonderful because they can be proved true or false. You appear to doubt the fact. What is your evidence that we can continue to dump 26.7 billion tons per year of CO2 into the atmosphere and NOT trigger natural events that threaten civilization through famine, floods, droughts and wars over resources (food & water being particularly important ones)? I fear you are running pretty hard into the logical razor blade of the null hypothesis. This is a scientific experiment we DO NOT want to be part of! Source for CO2 tonnage: http://www.hydrogen.co.uk/h2_now/journal/articles/2_global_warming.htm -
dana1981 at 05:06 AM on 2 February 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
HR - the 0.6°C isn't cooling, it's delayed surface warming, and it's due to the thermal inertia of the oceans. On top of that, there's the cooling effects of aerosols. You'll see the numbers in the upcoming article. I'm hoping to publish it this weekend - trying to stay focused on Monckton Myths right now. actually thoughtfull - I just needed a label for those of us who accept the scientific evidence behind AGW. "AGW camp" was the best I could come up with. -
What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
ssilvie - Cosmic rays and solar particles (theorized to link to climate via cloud formation) don't show a correlation either; in fact, they show less of a correlation with recent warming than the small scale solar irradiance variations. Irradiance and orbital variations do have an effect, albeit on much longer timescales such as in glacial cycles. -
ssilvie at 04:22 AM on 2 February 2011What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
Hi, I thought that irradiance was only a minor variable and that the variation in solar energetic particles should be used instead (Landscheidt etc). Surely the variability of irradiance hardly worth plugging into the models as it can't explain the variations in global climate that are seen to accompany the variation in solar cycles. -
jhudsy at 04:09 AM on 2 February 2011Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
JMurphy@22 Thanks for that link. -
MarkR at 03:45 AM on 2 February 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice calculations
It is, indeed, an approximation. But run it up on a function plotter for the range of temperatures 288-294 K and you'll see that a straight line is a very good fit indeed! R^2=0.9999 Take the residuals to check - fit a quadratic to see that the real results do accelerate faster than the linear fit, but the effect is tiny - the range in residuals is 0.25 W m-2 from an average of over 400 W m-2. So we are looking at mathematically 'small' changes, and the approximation is good. -
JMurphy at 02:59 AM on 2 February 2011Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
What I don't understand is this : when Monckton is asked by the Republicans to testify for them (the last time, I think he was their only so-called expert ?), why don't the Democrats challenge him on his credentials. Are they not able to ask (such) questions ? It does, though, show the bankruptcy of the Republicans when their best witness is not even a scientist, let alone a Climate Scientist. Why don't they go for Lindzen, Carter, Christy or Spencer more often ? -
Dennis at 02:18 AM on 2 February 2011Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
Lou @26 -- the problem with deniers like Monckton is that they get an audience where it matters. Monckton can expect to be invited to testify before the U.S. House of Representatives (now that the deniers run the House) and be presented before the cameras as alegitimate scientist. A collection of Monckton Myths like these needs to be made available and publicly presented to the Members of Congress who are willing to give Monckton a megaphone. It won't change the deniers' opinion, but some in the media might pick up on it. -
Riccardo at 01:59 AM on 2 February 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice calculations
Ken Lambert the change in the S-B radiative flux is ΔF=εσ(T4−To4) for ΔT=T−To small compared to To you can write it as ΔF=4εσTo3ΔT=YΔT with Y independent on temperature. Similar approximations apply to any other feedback, you can always linearise something if changes are small. -
Lou Grinzo at 01:47 AM on 2 February 2011Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
I've made the assertion several times on my own site and elsewhere online that we should not leap to conclusions about the beliefs of the high-profile deniers like Monckton, Plimer, various politicians (especially in the US), et al. While I can't prove it, I strongly suspect that for most or all of them CC is nothing more than a convenient means to an end: Achieving fame, getting (re-)elected, selling books or themselves for speaking engagements, or whatever. If it weren't for his involvement with CC, would any of us even know who Monckton is? For most of us he would be a colorful gentleman from the UK who claims to have cured a bunch of diseases and invented some game. My point is that it's not enough to say, "the deniers aren't restricted to the facts and don't feel obliged to be consistent", as that understates the situation. They actively look for ways to exploit the topic to serve other ends, which has non-trivial tactical and strategic implications for everyone involved. By the way -- great work on this, John. -
Ken Lambert at 01:13 AM on 2 February 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice calculations
MarkR #28 Given that Y is quoted as a 'constant' with units of W/sq.m-degC, how are the differing components of feedback forcings handled? eg. S-B cooling forcing is proportional to T^4, WVIA forcing is unknown wrt T, Cloud cooling again unknown wrt T. With S-B in particular being 4th power exponential, how do we know that Y stays constant and independent of T? -
John Gibbons at 00:00 AM on 2 February 2011Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
I "debated" with His Lordship recently on a national radio station in Ireland. Usual gish-gallop style, as you'd expect. However, when I switched focus to his 1987 comments on locking up AIDS victims permanently, it got interesting. First, he flatly denied ever having made such a suggestion. Then, under pressure, he changed tack, saying we should have "isolated the carriers immediately, compulsorily, permanently but humanely". Or, concentration camps, as they're more commonly known. Monckton, having started out denying the above charge, ended up reminiscing about the fact that compulsory, life-long detention for all AIDS victims (gays only, as his article was entitled 'The Myth of Homosexual AIDS') was not in fact implemented. Relevant blog posting and audio clip from radio show can be accessed at link below: http://www.thinkorswim.ie/?p=1279 What's extraordinary is not that characters like Monckton make one outrageous claim after another. It's that we live in a world where anti-science charlatans are actually taken seriously, have open access to the media and can count on generous industry funding to assist them in spreading disinformation and counterknowledge. -
Paul D at 23:35 PM on 1 February 2011Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
I'm not sure what Monckton's belief is. He seems like an evangelical preacher, going around claiming he can cure everything (Graves disease, HIV etc) and says climate change isn't bad or even happening. If I were a Christian, it has all the hallmarks of the antichrist! -
Paul D at 23:19 PM on 1 February 2011Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
jhudsy and Hadrians wall. I agree. If you read the text you linked to, it refers to modern possibilities for grape growing due to climate change and is the context in which they mention Hadrians wall. -
JMurphy at 22:51 PM on 1 February 2011Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
jhudsy, there was a good discussion at RealClimate a few years ago, which included this link : Grape ripening as a past climate indicator -
JMurphy at 22:41 PM on 1 February 2011Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
RSVP, neither of your implications is true. Monckton's belief is that we can continue to pollute (a little or a lot - it doesn't matter) because Nature will take care of things. Simple as that. And examples of human activities that would benefit the environment, are the funding, building and use of renewable energy. By the way, I have read that Monckton (in court) tried to have the programme include a longer piece by himself. He failed. -
BillyJoe at 22:37 PM on 1 February 2011Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
"I like the Monckton Myths logo!" And the alliteration. Pity his name is not Lonckton though. ...and that's all I can say without contravening the ad hominem policy at Sceptic Science. -
jhudsy at 21:45 PM on 1 February 2011Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
The Ville@18 My memory is rather hazy, but as far as I recall, it's been shown that while amphora of wine were found near Hadrian's wall, there is little, if any evidence of any wineries there (I think most of the wine was imported from Gaul and the Rhineland). This is contrary to the standard skeptic argument... I do wonder, following your comment, if wine quality, or wine growth records, can be used as yet another temperature proxy (if they exist). -
Paul D at 21:00 PM on 1 February 2011Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
judsy@12 I think there is research that shows that Europe and Rome in particular went through a few very cold patches. Is there a scientific record of the quality of Roman wine, region by region? For all we know, wine across much of the Roman empire could have be poo, so any wine that might have been produced in Britain may have been of a similar quality. It's the same for beer, we are accustomed to manufactured beer of uniform quality today, but in the past it would have varied tremendously, but if you don't know any different, you drink whatever is available. -
RSVP at 20:43 PM on 1 February 2011Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
"This is supposedly our Get Out Of Jail Free Card - we can pollute as much as we like and nature will take care of things" If this is a untruth (i.e., myth), it then either implies that it's OK to pollute "just a little", or perhaps that nothing man does could possibly benefit the environment. Furthermore, this "truth" is held by the same folks that want you to believe the problem is not rooted in poplution. Put more simply. Is there any human activity that by some definition is "good" for the environment? Hint: "mitigation" only implies an adjustment in degree, not in kind, so that doesnt count. -
tobyjoyce at 20:36 PM on 1 February 2011Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
Monnckton encounter with a feisty Irishwoman. "Withdraw, Madam, withdraw!" is now a popular catchphrase around here, though most people have lost track of the reason why. Withdraw, Madam! Nice to see the egregious lord being publicly challenged. -
Same Ordinary Fool at 19:54 PM on 1 February 2011Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
Note the lesson here. Monckton has been corrected before, website by website, without any press response. But now there have been a succession of large scale efforts by Barry Bickmore, John Abraham, and the 21 climate scientist who critizued Monckton's House committee testimony. And now SkSc's Monckton Myths series. The press can no longer ignore the specific rebuttals of each of his arguments, because there are so many of them. From our side it's pretty obvious why there haven't been any skeptic scientists defending Monckton's personal views on climate science. But how do deniers explain this lack of support? -
Kevin Hood at 19:24 PM on 1 February 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
One other thought: in a sense, it would be like applying some skeptical scutiny to the moderation that occurs. -
Kevin Hood at 19:23 PM on 1 February 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
Since the topic has come up, I think it would be an interesting post to open a thread on where moderators should draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable comments. I am not a do-it-by-committee person myself, but I think such a thread could stimulate interesting discussion, particularly if moderators could offer posts that they struggled with - to delete or not to delete, that is the question. Or even (especially?) offer some deleted comments for comment. In the least, such a thread would likely underscore how difficult it is to moderate. At the most, perhaps some collective wisdom would arise, or at least a sense of skepticalscience commenter tolerances. Just a thought. -
Riccardo at 19:16 PM on 1 February 2011Heat stress: setting an upper limit on what we can adapt to
Karamanski they're loosely similar in what they both consider humidity. But the heat index is related to human perception while the wet bulb temperature is a physical property. -
HumanityRules at 19:01 PM on 1 February 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
#38 Dana Thanks maybe I should wait for the upcoming thread you promise but... In the first post you stated the following "In fact, the planet has warmed approximately 0.8°C over the past century, and the IPCC estimates that if we were to freeze atmospheric greenhouse gases at today's levels, the planet would continue to warm another 0.6°C before reaching equilibrium." Is the unrealised 0.6oC coming from the cooling effect from aerosols or the 'lag' effect as the ocean and atmosphere return to equilibria? You seem to put forward both as explanations for the unrealised warming. If it's a bit of both do you know what the contribution is from each effect? -
HumanityRules at 18:48 PM on 1 February 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
thepoodlebites It's easy to take the stance you do on moderation, I often think what you say is spot on especially when I spent a fair time on the comment. I think it's probably natural that Daniel is going to see comments that generally chime with his own opinions as more tolerable than those from the other side of the debate. I'm sure it would be true the other way around. Comments such as #43's "is a threat to civilization" make me want to scream but probably get an approving nod from many. Having said that I don't think there's any real attempt on this website to curb the debate, from either side. I've seen plenty of evidence for tolerating all opinions. You just have to face the facts that given you might be expressing the 'other' opinion you're going to have to work to stay within policy. And if all else fails you can save a copy then go post it on WUWT ;) -
Rob Painting at 18:24 PM on 1 February 2011OK global warming, this time it's personal!
Marvin Gardens @ 46 - You clearly misunderstood my one question aligned with that graph which only goes back to 1840 when we have accurate measurements by gauges of river height. I was not referring to any further back No misunderstanding. I was just highlighting that much worse floods are likely to have happened when the Earth was warmer. Suggest you pay a visit here: By Brisbane Waters. And post your question. Tom seems to have detailed knowledge of the Brisbane catchment area. -
Mila at 18:12 PM on 1 February 2011An efficient world facts checker - Zvon.org guide to CIA World Factbook
#7 sign # is required to mark a start of a field, it significantly simplify processing code; you may omit ##################### line; this one is just a visual separator DOIs identify scientific articles listed in the post; we can take them off if you do not want to have them listed if you start to work on it send me URL with a zip file with few entries so I can test the system before we move to full productionModerator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Will do; give me a couple of days (life in the way right now). -
actually thoughtful at 17:13 PM on 1 February 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
The original posts states "The reactions from the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) camp..." I find it helpful to realize there is no AGW camp. There is climate science, which has concluded that AGW is happening and is a threat to civilization. If you understand climate scientists you "believe" in AGW. It simply follows from the data and our current state-of-the-art understanding of climate. And there are skeptics (<10 with the credentials to credibly kibitz). Then there is the echo chamber. I am strongly against "sqeptic" as it smacks of the disrespectful spelling of Obama, Democrat, liberal and any other thoughtful person that is an epidemic on the internet. I find myself starting out treating someone as a skeptic, and if they don't respond to facts and logic they get put in the denier bucket. If they persist, I just go ahead and tell the truth and hang 'em with their earned title: "lier". Note to Daniel Bailey - moderation is a win for creating a credible place for discussion. I am sure the process is not that pretty (I think thepoodlebites has a reasonable point. If politics are verboten, they are verboten. I do get the sense that some things (including my own posts) are allowed to get political, but when a skeptic/denier responds in kind, moderation occurs). I don't have examples to point to and I could well be wrong. -
Albatross at 16:01 PM on 1 February 2011Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
And this is the person (Monckton) who the US Republicans elected to testify before Congress and speak to the science of climate change. This is also the same person who Anthony Watts from (WUWT) fawns over and who is offered a podium from which to spew his vitriol, distortion and misinformation; not to mention making threats against perceived archrivals. By doing so, Watts has also taken ownership of the Monckton's repeated and shameful gaffs, and worse yet, Watts is complicit with Monckton's despicable behavior and disinformation. Question now is, is Anthony Watts (or the media) now going to afford Monckton the podium again from which to launch an attack, this time perhaps on John Cook? Or for once, is Watts (and the media) going to do the right and honorable thing and show Monckton the door? The ball is now in their courts, and they cannot plead ignorance. -
Andy Skuce at 15:30 PM on 1 February 2011Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
About 22 minutes into the BBC documentary, we see Ian Plimer giving Christopher Monckton a geology lesson in the Australian outback. Monckton squirts some acid on a lump of carbonate rock and marvels because it fizzes, gasp, CO2. The two men share a chuckle about the environmental damege they are doing with this experiment. Plimer hints that such an effect has been kept secret because it reveals some truth about paleoclimate that the elites would prefer to keep from the innocent public. The Skeptical Science policy forbidding ad hominem remarks prevents me from commenting any further.
Prev 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 Next
