That you are too fearful to even see the evidence of how fraudulently deceitful the material you pin your denialist beliefs upon speaks volumes Grendel.

It is a six minute video, two pop songs worth, and it is pretty damning evidence against ever taking the "Oregon Petition" as anything but a blatant attempt to fraudulently promote misinformation as scientific opinion.

It should be mandatory viewing for any who have ever cited that document as being supportive of their views, to see just how totally shonky it is.

You see the real scientists have to deal with this sort of stuff daily from the denialist groupies, and they invariably debunk them, and expose them for what they are, lies, frauds, and blatant misinformation propaganda.

Now the fact that you refuse to even look at the evidence that so thoroughly discredits these fraudsters, shows that your desire is not for truth, but for validation, and you are so desparate for it, that you no longer seem to care if it's based on truth, or lies.

Geez Mozz do you honestly think 6mins is going to make up for the years of reading I've already done?

No you stick to the 6min pops of propaganda if it keeps you happy.

Coral Sea wrote on Jun 11^th, 2009 at 11:34pm:


If you read that article fully, you'll find that it's totally factual, and it's saying exactly what I've been saying all along. I don't know where you get the idea that it's telling a different story. Do you think that that was the intent or belief of the NASA researchers cited? Of course not.

That's actually a very good article which explains the influence of solar cycles. Nobody has ever denied that solar activity has caused changes in climate in the past. In geological times, it has caused ice ages. That's not news. Of course that's cold comfort for the fact that increasing greenhouse gas levels (CO2, methane etc) have caused a very significant warming trend over a very short period (150 years).  


Nowadays of course, we can monitor the sun's influence directly by means of satellites. We can plot the solar irradiance over time, so we have virtually a 100% firm grasp on how much the solar irradiance has changed in recent times.  

Coral Sea wrote on Jun 16^th, 2009 at 2:30am:


I think it's important to encourage economic growth. New technology by itself has spurred incredible growth in the past. How would you go with a Toyota Lexus hybrid? It's not exactly a loser car. Hybrid technology is a good PR testing ground for electric vehicles, and Electric vehicles have the potential to be carbon neutral. I can tell you that they pack a punch at the traffic lights too.

First of all, I'm an Environmental Scientist, but I'm also the biggest capitalist out there. I believe in encouraging free enterprise, and if we don't do something fast, our world economy will be nada in 50 years time. The Global downturn will be insignificant by comparison.

Put it this way, I worked in Africa and I know how the environment is taken care of when countries are cash-strapped. We need to maintain affluence in order for this to happen.


http://www.autobloggreen.com/tag/toyota-lexus-hybrid-sales/

Quote:


Without seeming overly antagonistic, please provide some examples. The NASA paper you quoted is not at odds with AGW.

muso wrote on Jun 16^th, 2009 at 9:42am:

I would have no objection to a steady state economy per se, but global competition is inevitable and therefore economic growth necessary.

muso wrote on Jun 16^th, 2009 at 9:42am:

Lexus hybrids are not actually environmentally friendly.  The Prius, which is the cause celebre of the hybrid movement, is fuel efficient (though of questionable environmental friendliness if non-carbon factors are considered) but one of the crappiest cars I've ever seen.  It's slow, has tiny brakes, tiny wheels, and looks awful.

I drive a BMW M3.  It is by no means fuel efficient.  I do not want to stop driving this car, nor do I want such cars to cease being made or made much more expensive.  I think an "everybody wins" scenario is an increase in good mass transit options.  That would people who don't want to drive, which is actually very many people, don't have to.  Those who truly enjoy motoring can then continue to do so without being annoyed by point A to point B drivers.

muso wrote on Jun 16^th, 2009 at 9:42am:

Electric vehicles besides the Tesla are thus far terrible, but there is no technological barrier to them being good in the long-term.  One needs battery packs capable of very rapid charging (technology exists, but too expensive at the moment) and a new infrastructure of very high power charging stations would be needed to supply 300kW+ charging power for recharging in a few minutes.

muso wrote on Jun 16^th, 2009 at 9:42am:

That's nice, but I'm not making a free enterprise critique unlike perhaps some of your antagonists.  I think that AGW is a scam (not based on scientific analysis, but gut feeling) but am in favor of acting anyway because reducing pollution is always desirable.


muso wrote on Jun 16^th, 2009 at 9:42am:

Very true indeed.  I don't even need to leave my country to see this.  Observing the stewardship, or lack thereof, of Third World immigrants is proof positive.

muso wrote on Jun 16^th, 2009 at 9:42am:

Wouldn't the most obvious example be Steve McIntyre's work?