Does anyone know the pedigree of this “21stcenturysciencetech”? I haven’t heard of them before. It’s very hard to get mainstream anything to do anti-GW stuff and you never know what the cat dragged in.

He FINALLY got himself a decent forum, huh? I am going to enjoy this.

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/MornerInterview.pdf

2005-2008

http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/06/university-of-colorado-global-sea-level.html

1993-2008

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_ns_global.pdf

I think the Rev should run a feature on that!

True, Pam. (But evidently this seems to be quite beyond the capacity of a considerable majority of college-educated adults.)

It is truly a study in fooling people. This website uses the basic “sky is falling” rhetoric to spread consternation and ultimately unscientific political agendas. However, I think the site is also done with good intentions and complete belief (as in fooled) in AGW. For example, it hysterically states that the South Pole will melt and soon, even though a child could simply google that issue and learn readily that the South Pole is gaining ice. The fooled mob political mentality mixed with genuine concern for planet Earth demonstrated at this website will lead us to silly and wasteful economic programs that benefit few and rob many.

Hmmm. I wonder if they are sophisticated enough to have heard of the term “educated incapacity”?

Didn’t Rand refer to that as “The Aristocracy of Pull?”

If you like what is goin on, good growing season, pleasant spring and fall temps, for example, it is weather, if you dont like it, hurricane hits a vulnerable spot (vulnerable spots inordinately correlate with places with dysfunctional politics) such as New Orleans or Burma, then it is climate.

I agree with all three of the above.

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003238.html

“KT, Luke, Gavin, Louis and Eyrie:

My personal bias: We are in a late interglacial and the climate is warming naturally. Some level of AGW has occurred in the last century and perhaps more will follow this century. Divining the natural from the human induced is an invitation to a game of hyperlink ping-pong. For instance, the MWP was as warm or warmer than today.

Surface temperature is the noisiest and most variable component of climate, i.e. an elastic yardstick. And finally, the whole debate has serious basic epistemological problems, which undermine all propositions for direct radical human intervention at this time based upon the AGW or CC premise. There is a calm, rational approach to address our dependence on fossil fuels, which has little to do with fear driven assaults on reason.

In my risk assessment the balance of evidence is that climate sensitivity to CO2 doesn’t exceed 2c. That’s not enough to cause climate disasters larger than the one we face by allowing irrational fear to coercively deny the economic aspirations of humanity’s billions living in poverty, speciously based on a phantom of our collective consciousness.

No matter how fashionable the trope of “green” energy is to wealthy and free bourgeois, to impose it in a kind of collectivist pseudo-ritualistic frenzy has deep socio-psychological motives that have yet to be exposed in the debate.

Ultimately, a polity driven by a kind of civic madness will come to challenge of the basic principles of our civilization: reason, democratic due process, inalienable rights, freedom of speech, property and movement, scientific progress (ie, integrity of method and freedom of research.) More on this later.

That said: If a preponderance of new research eventually reveals the climate sensitive to CO2 is above 4c. (Bob Brown believes its 6c or more.) Then I would reasonably change my position on the dangers of AGW. I have an open mind to the science and look for new information to update my position all the time.

We should all approach this debate with humility and compassionate reason foremost in our minds, ready to receive and adapt to new information.

I know Luke is capable of compassionate reason should he put his heart in the right place. Personally, I bore of duelling trolls and hereby swear off engaging in ad hominem. (Hope I can resist temptation, beside I always win. ;0) So boring. Personal attacks push us into ideological corners more extreme than we would otherwise chose to defend.

I did not come to this debate with an agenda. I came to it as a young environmentalist in the 1980’s fighting on the ground in the forest to save Redwoods. I first heard of the “Greenhouse Effect” in a lecture given by James Lovelock in the early 1980’s. Today, as an old conservationist, I love nothing better than to sleep out in forest listening to the koalas talk. I live on a large remote property backed up to a national park. Most of it is primary forest. My wife and I planned to bequeath the property to the national park when we depart. So if I am a shill for anyone it would be for rational thought, perspective, Gaia and my favourite “faith”: Evolution.

Posted by: wes george at July 10, 2008 11:19 AM”

I wish I could have ‘penned’ these words, instead of just fantasising about reaching for a troll whacker.