tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post6401492320753195329..comments2023-12-28T06:30:48.808-05:00Comments on The Rule of Reason: The Climate “Creationists”Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-79873395187085501402009-12-12T22:22:59.520-05:002009-12-12T22:22:59.520-05:00In the old days they threw virgins into the volcan...In the old days they threw virgins into the volcanos to appease the climate Gods to preserve the weather's optimum temperatures and levels of storms. <br />Today we throw liberty and free market people into a regulatory & tax hellfire and brimstone to appease the climate Gods to preserve the weather's optimum ...Jim Hlavachttp://www.thedailymush.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-81601003844124715832009-12-07T10:09:25.822-05:002009-12-07T10:09:25.822-05:00My sister sported a sweatshirt about 30 years ago ...My sister sported a sweatshirt about 30 years ago that read,<br />"Stop Plate Tectonics!"<br /><br />Then it was perfect ridicule. Today it could just as easily be Al Gore's next big venture.Melindanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-69506041870779009402009-12-06T17:53:34.710-05:002009-12-06T17:53:34.710-05:00I'd also like to point out that IBD.com has po...I'd also like to point out that IBD.com has posted that the Competitive Enterprise Institute is getting the Goddard Institute in trouble for not fulfilling FOIA requests as to their own numbers and arguments in support of AGWar. http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=514429<br />These are the same people who are defending the CRU people, as Ed mentioned. So, it looks like the defenders are going to be in the same hot water as the defended. To continue the meme, something's rotten in the state of climatology.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02934952144259431516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-92141585055407669342009-12-06T15:16:06.671-05:002009-12-06T15:16:06.671-05:00Much appreciated.Much appreciated.Michael Labeithttp://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/labels/MichaelLabeit.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-22135181600728551212009-12-06T14:47:37.509-05:002009-12-06T14:47:37.509-05:00Algore and his cohorts will do more to discredit s...Algore and his cohorts will do more to discredit science than all the Bishop Ushers and Creationists who ever lived.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-17046117928148626612009-12-06T07:38:08.056-05:002009-12-06T07:38:08.056-05:00Correction to my answer to Michael: It was Archbis...Correction to my answer to Michael: It was Archbishop Ussher, not Usser. Slip of the finger.<br /><br />EdAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-70247511229614269922009-12-06T07:27:21.669-05:002009-12-06T07:27:21.669-05:00Michael: If you want a thorough "falsificatio...Michael: If you want a thorough "falsification" or "deconstruction" of AGW, and how AGW is linked to the political agenda, Christopher Monckton among others has done that already more eloquently and damningly than I ever could. The Wall Street Journal ran Richard Lindzen's refutation of AGW just last week, along with Bret Stephens's piece on the poltiical ramifications. Books have been written that deflate the scientific and political imperatives of AGW. <br /><br />How much persuasion do you need? The "data" are all out there, suppressed or ignored by the MSM in the same manner and for the same reasons Phil Jones diddled with data he didn't like. You have to look for it. I've cited it here on ROR often. You've got to read all the available literature and judge for yourself. <br /><br />You answer your own question: This is more a political issue than it is a scientific one, and why is that? Because government is inappropriately involved in science, just as it is inappropriately involved in economics. Once you grasp the significance of that relationship, then you'll "know" for sure. Monckton and others have taken AGW arguments at their strongest, and shown them to be as ludicrously false as Archbiship Usser's contention that the world began in 4004 B.C. What more could you want?<br /><br />EdEdward Clinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12160209827969614964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-88390594549754147782009-12-06T05:36:33.444-05:002009-12-06T05:36:33.444-05:00How much of this involves scientific debate and ho...How much of this involves scientific debate and how much involves politics? I'm still convinced that the best way to discredit AGW theorists is by deconstructing their arguments and disproving their conclusions. It definitely *seems* like AGW is nonsense but I can't *know* its nonsense unless its properly falsified. Vested interests certainly stink but they themselves don't allow one to conclude that AGW theorists are con-artists (not that this was implied). How broad are the implications of the Climategate scandal? Surely they don't indict all significant AGW theorists. In the end, we should make the maximum amount of logically permissible concessions and take the AGW arguments at their strongest, so when they're refuted, the refutation is conclusive. Keep up with the polemics though.Michael Labeithttp://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/labels/MichaelLabeit.htmlnoreply@blogger.com