Alarmists are such pathetic little weenies.
what does it mean to have a forbes post called out?, whats a called out comment on forbes-
Archives
-
Recent Posts
- Have You Heard of Comet Elenin?
- 50 Billion Humans by 2032?
- Are you beginning to see that you’ve been lied to?
- Earth Day 1901
- Earth Day 1928
- NOAA : Cheating For 840 Months In A Row
- Jeff Masters : An American Traditionalist
- Michael Mann – The Human Proxy
- Ice Free Arctic Trajectory
- A Disturbing Trend In Atmospheric CO2
- 1950 Shock News : A Whole New Atmosphere
- Opinion : It Is Difficult To Enjoy Life When You Are Severely Neurotic
- Measure This …. Heidi
- 600% Permanent Drought Returns To The Southwest
- Put The Secret Service In Charge Of The Budget
- Weather Statistics For Mental Midgets
- Global Warming Sunday Sermon
- Time For A New Ice Age Scare?
- Why Hansen’s 1981 Predictions Have Come To The Surface
- Mann “Faces Off” All By Himself
- Congratulations To NOAA And Jeff Masters
- Mann-Made Climate Change In The Himalayas
- Three Days Of Normal Ice
- Site Was Hacked Yesterday
- Earth Day In The Capital Of Greenland
May 2013 M T W T F S S « Jun 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Recent Comments
- Dave Burton on Sea Level Data Corruption – Worse Than It Seems
- Chris Korvin on Canadian Polar Bears Doomed
- Scarface on Have You Heard of Comet Elenin?
- Barry Musser on Joe Bastardi Nailed It
- _Jim on Are you beginning to see that you’ve been lied to?
- _Jim on Are you beginning to see that you’ve been lied to?
- _Jim on Are you beginning to see that you’ve been lied to?
- Rob Ryan on About Me
- Andyj on Correlating CO2 And Temperature In The Geologic Record
- Scott Brooks on Correlating CO2 And Temperature In The Geologic Record
Partners
The whole Gleick affair is a nice litmus test for the AGW crowd. The rational and honest do themselves credit (Revkin), while complete hacks like Zwick fail to be either ethical or objective.
Out of 90 comments to that story, 77 are identified as “called out” ….whatever that’s supposed to mean. I don’t think the story has many fans.
True story. Awhile back, I took about three controversial aspects of climate science that Gavin Schmidt, Ben Santer and others had discussed and posted them in the comments of one of Zwick’s rants without identifying where the information came from. Reisman responded to me in an intelligent manner and actally accepted that there was a time limit inherent in model falsification (Santer). Zwick however called me out as a denier and I have to say I did enjoy informing him that what I posted all came from IPCC contributors. Zwick is bottom feeding propagandist who has no idea about the science. Reisman at least knows some science and will engage in an honest debate.
I thought about continuing to take info from peer reviewed papers and/or actual data that conflicted with Zwick,s strident views and post it, but realized it would be like picking on the developmentally disabled.
The debate is over. An idea (keep it simple / short, [stupid], reference the 2 main AGW main debunking points) on how to approach this ongoing debate with the leftist bs artists. A replay of my wuwt comment:
I like the potential depth of our arguments. But this depth should be part of our “deep bench” that we go to when needed… in support of essentially only 2 basic fundamental points. Sometimes I see lengthy (say: 45 pages) 218 point rebuttals of AGW. We must anchor such a laudable but word-heavy rebuttal to the 1 or 2 key points, and not let such a meandering treatise flail out there like it’s floating in space. Why? Because a casual independent type will glance at the seemingly verbose rebuttal, and dismiss the skeptic position simply because of the long length of the rebuttal. True.
It’s obvious to everyday Joes: either the globe is warming unusually, or it’s not. Either CO2 is causing it, or it isn’t. If a “treatise” doesn’t concisely and up front address these 2 main points, but seems to digress into endless banter about secondary points, it’s lengthiness will, in itself, sadly, provide corroboration for the warmist position! It’s fine if we always anchor the extended passages to main themes, like in a high school essay. You need a theme statement up front.
In short, we always need to make this clear because it’s not self-evident to everyone that: 1) there’s nothing wrong with climate [h stick debunked], and 2) CO2 has nothing, or effectively nothing, to do with it. Lengthy arguments should be raised in the context of support of a main point somehow.
(By the way, everybody should see this key short 3 minute video on the CO2 question, which also catches algor in the pivotal deception: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK_WyvfcJyg)
There are subsidiary points. Like about net ice melt (even if so, we are coming out of the Little Ice Age), the deceptive / political nature of the Chicken Littles, and more of course. But, for the most part, try to present things under the umbrage of the concise main points.
Sorry about the all bold, [expletive deleted!]. Wish there was a preview feature.
Major fail on my part above. All bold was not intended, and this didn’t come off well. It did I think look fine at wuwt, with unbolded proper formatting: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/23/no-need-to-panic-about-global-warming-revisited/#comment-901778
Also, Steven, I forgot to congratulate you on the called out comment, even if it was by that Zwick stick. 3 weeks ago I ran a few comments at one of Forbes Zwick articles (not called out!). Interesting, I had a kind of run in with that under-educated hack, and M Mann groupie, J Reisman. Above, Sundance seemed to be suggesting that Reisman was a fine fellow or whatever. “BS Artist” is Reisman’s middle name. I wouldn’t get carried away in effusive praise of him.