“RE: #61 – Beyond the viral popups that killed my Mozilla, I have some real problems with the false claim of methane coming up beneath frozen mud off of SB. Firstly, what bubbles up there is actually mostly hydrogen sulfide, not methane. And it is from the same trends as the oil deposits, not some shallow deposits below so called frozen mud. And because the entire area of the So Cal coast is continental crust, and non abyssal, while certainly there are deep water temps down in the upper 30s, there ain’t no frozen mud. Lies, and damned lies.
by Steve Sadlov”

Stop wasting your time man. You are anti-preaching to the quire.

You’re still begging the question of climate. You claim to know the answer without actually knowing the answer. When the uncertainty limits from theory are easily 10-fold larger than the effect claimed, it is scientifically impossible and incorrect to claim certain facts support a conclusion. In case you didn’t know, that’s called prejudicial bias, Lee.

I stand by the observation that a morally-freighted conclusion is immorally-derived when it is imposed with full factual knowledge that the conclusion is based on ignorance.

And it’s a fact, Lee, that there is no theoretical basis at all for presuming a large-scale anthro-CO2-driven increase in global climate temperature. Nor is there any rationally undisputable empirical evidence that 20th century climate was unprecedented during the Holocene (much less the Pleistocene).

Ok, the other view to that is “At what point does increasing evidence there is a fire in a theatre mean you say ‘I think there is a fire’?” Should on keep quite in a theatre if one sees smoke? And, crucially, we can’t leave the theatre (Earth).

Essentially many of us, myself inculded, honestly think we see a ‘fire’ (please don’t twist this parallel, I’m running with it, but I don’t think we need to panic/evacuate but instead address the problem over the next decades). I say ‘fire’ because that’s what I see, ‘fire’ starting and yes imo. I really resent the smear I say ‘fire’ to alarm or to frighten. I say it because that’s what I see – OK? (no, perhaps not, I suspect you still think I’m lying and or trying to frighten alarm…???).

What would you ‘unequivocal’ evidence be?

What is your position vis-a-Vis AGW and how we should be forestalling the great danger ahead.

But your definition of reasonable is difrerent than others definition of reasonable. If I smell smoke, as I did yesterday, I look around, I examine, and then I detrmine it was a grill down the street. That was reasonable. Certainly not trying to frighten people that Bangledeshi grills are going to wip out half the county, I wouldn’t consider that reasonable. Not calling in the fire department to find out what’s causing the smoke. Not spending millions on a smoke trading plan.

Adn I’m not “yelling fire on a crowded planet” (to continue using a really badly flawed analogy). I’m saying, “I smell smoke – perhaps we should take reasonable precautions while we look to see if there’s a fire.”

I don’t know, is it okay to yell “fire” in a crowded theatre?

Your yelling Fire on a Crowded planet, S’okay since no one is panicking. But then you, and others are calling for billions to put out the fire. Then it starts to have another effect, because that Billions comes out of peoples pockets. Yet there is no fire to put out.

You want the Billions to put out a fire that you -Think- will happen. I won’t say you have no evidence of this, but the rest of us want unequivocal evidence. That you haven’t got.

If you want to talk moral. It moral to use your own money to fight an imaginary fire, but it is immoral to force others to pay for it.