Comments on: Names That Cannot Be Said

By: Pat Frank

Pat Frank — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:55:28 +0000

Re: Jeff Alberts (#15), Michael Shermer is only human, Jeff. Even though a believer, he did go ahead and publish my critical article in Skeptic, so he deserves some slack. Maybe we're all susceptible to just the right conversion experience. A chastening thought.

By: Jeff Alberts

Jeff Alberts — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:53:05 +0000

Re: Pat Frank (#14), I lost a LOT of respect for Mr. Shermer when I found that out a couple years ago.

By: Pat Frank

Pat Frank — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 01:53:32 +0000

Re: Geoff Sherrington (#12), Tim Flannery is one of the deep-thinking guys, along with Al Gore, who convinced Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic Magazine and renowned skeptic, to become an AGW believer.

By: Craig Loehle

Craig Loehle — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 01:22:23 +0000

Re: Geoff Sherrington (#12), Fortunately for our entertainment there is an endless supply of such stupidity. My favorite is that we are going to beat global warming by burning natural gas, followed closely by painting roofs white.

By: Geoff Sherrington

Geoff Sherrington — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 01:09:59 +0000

Re: D Johnson (#5),

Don’t laugh. We have one Tim Flannery in Australia, selected for greatness at the coming Copenhagen, stating that coal burning electrical utilities should capture the CO2, chemically remove the oxygen, make “biochar” and spread it on the soil, where, among other thngs, it would both remain sequestered forever and also enhance crop growth. I kid you not.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2611906.htm

Three difficulties.

1. If the carbon is sequestered forever in the soil it cannot assist in plant nutrition.

2. Enhanced plant growth increses the flux of CO2 in the atmosphere, especially at death when it rots.

3. The cost and energy of removing the oxygen from CO2 is far greater than adding it on, as we do by burning coal in an exothermic reaction. For simple Tim, the simple solution would be to sprinkle coal over the soil before it’s burned, but that’s a bit stupid when other forms of biogenic waste are available, rather than needing diggin up.

Sorry this is OT, but it highlights more of the stupidity that CA so effectively exposes.

By: John M

John M — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:12:37 +0000

Re: D Johnson (#5), and TAG #4

Almost.

I think this guy wanted to invent something that sort of looks like he does.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080929123941.htm

By: RomanM

RomanM — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:03:32 +0000

Re: Bill Jamison (#9),

One side is open to debate and stresses full disclosure and the other side not so much.

Yes, but one side has little to gain, and can't afford to lose...

By: Bill Jamison

Bill Jamison — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:47:47 +0000

Ironically they use the exact opposite tactic used here on CA and WUWT etc. where you always name names!

I noticed the same thing as far as other resources are concerned, on sites such as this you provide a link to RealClimate but the AGW sites never provide a link to CA, WUWT, etc. Seems very telling to me.

One side is open to debate and stresses full disclosure and the other side not so much.

By: Thomas J. Arnold.

Thomas J. Arnold. — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:46:04 +0000

I have read this statement quite a few times and still find it fuzzy. Thought MM alog’s were debunked. Is he talking about the Mediaeval warming?- which did not fit the ‘hockey stick’???

By: Kazinski

Kazinski — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:03:17 +0000

multi-centennial temperature changes over the past millennium is still not well understood

What? I thought Mann has pinpointed the temperature within .2C over the last thousand years. That’s better that what GISS can do for last months temps.