From the Daily Mail, probably the worst alliance you could hope for if you are in the global warming movement. Manson says in a from prison interview:
‘Everyone’s God and if we don’t wake up to that there’s going to be no weather because our polar caps are melting because we’re doing bad things to the atmosphere.
‘If we don’t change that as rapidly as I’m speaking to you now, if we don’t put the green back on the planet and put the trees back that we’ve butchered, if we don’t go to war against the problem…’ he added, trailing off.
I didn’t know they gave Internet access in prison. Or maybe it’s old magazines. Either way, not the sort of advocate you dream about having.
h/t to WUWT reader “Neo”
Also: Hitler believed in Newtonian physics.
Andrew30 says:
April 18, 2011 at 9:30 pm
“Use real data, show your work.
If all the data from nature supports your conjecture in all cases and under all circumstances and at all times then it might be worth a look.
I’ll wait.”
Please tell me you are not holding your breath Andrew!
Well, so far we have:
1. Prove something that is already proven (the relationship between temperature and co2 is well established – even the counter argument that co2 lags temperature relies on it!)
2. Prove something that is a probabilistic and future risk (runaway global warming).
3. Prove the impossible and that which has nothing to do with the AGW hypothesis (co2 does not and will not increase or decrease for other reasons).
Not convincing.
Re: DeanL says:
April 18, 2011 at 4:32 pm
“Most people, if they were honest, would have to admit, they are lost in this debate. So, why do they take up arms? Is that really what they believe to be skepticism?”
Do you really not “get it” Dean? The history of mankind is tribal. What you often see on this site (and any others) is the distillation of “tribal thought”. A great number of respondents don’t give a whit about “truth for its own sake”, but merely respond in a knee-jerk response to the “tribal line of thought”.
What you should appreciate about this site, however, is its historical significance. This site, for all the blustering of tribal nonsense of many of its adherence, is founded on “factual skepticism”. This site is the only one I know that religiously admits comments from all quarters. It’s the only site I know that would have published my (mild though it was) criticism of its founder. This site is the scientific equivalent of “the cult of Galileo” which, at a time when mindless church doctrine and a compliant public proscribed that the world was the center of the Universe, sensed that “something ain’t right in the Vatican”.
Claude Harvey says:
April 19, 2011 at 1:01 am (Edit)
Re: DeanL says:
April 18, 2011 at 4:32 pm
. . . This site is the scientific equivalent of “the cult of Galileo” which, at a time when mindless church doctrine and a compliant public proscribed that the world was the center of the Universe, sensed that “something ain’t right in the Vatican”. . . .
I don’t want to appear contrary but surely if , as we are told by Einstein , that “the Universe is a sphere of infinite radius” then we are at the center of the Universe. The undeniable fact of our not being at the center of the solar system or even the galaxy is another thing all together.
(1) How about a decoupling for a few million years?
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/CO2_Temp_O2.html
(2) How about the lack of predicted tropospheric ‘hot spot’?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/17/richard-lindzen-a-case-against-precipitous-climate-action/
/Mr Lynn
Since DeanL claims to be an expert on atmospheric physics, maybe he can give me the details on the difference between the cooling effect of GHGs and the warming effect. All I hear about is the warming effect but if the physics of GHGs is as claimed then there must also be a cooling effect.
Just to make it clear what I mean. The warming effect is (1) the interception of certain bands of radiation and radiating 1/2 the energy back to Earth. The cooling effect is (2) the heating of the GHGs by contact with the rest of the atmosphere and radiating 1/2 the energy to space. The relative difference of these two factors will net out the true warming effect of GHGs. I’ve never seen any climate scientist explain the effects together, they only mention (1). Why is that?
DeanL says:
April 18, 2011 at 7:04 pm
“…I find that people use mockery most when they are powerless or ineffective against
something they despise”
I knew you would have a smart ass comment to reply with! And as I understood YOUR typical arrogant mindset, I knew that you wouldn’t have the sense to investigate my claims on humor, that is why I specifically chose a web site with mainly humor on man made climate change from a non-skeptical point of view.
Therefore what your comment above actually means is as follows,
“believers in man made climate change use mockery most when they are powerless or ineffective against something they despise”
So… “Run along now there’s a good chap” (to quote Willis Eschenbach lol) and let the skeptics discuss their opinions in peace before you single-handedly destroy the AGW religion and bring down the entire church of climate change.
Hey, they warmists want to get outside the box with climate communications right?
He might be pretty smug, but Charlie Manson is certainly not Tony Hayward.
I think the prisoner population is a heretofore untapped research resource. We should embrace our criminal population as people with lots of time on their hands, but little funding. This is much more useful than what we have now, which is people with lots of public money in their pockets, but no time to do the little things. I suggest creating an incentive for the prison population. For instance, a warden could say, “Anyone who wins a nobel prize in a basic science gets early parole.” The best part about it, of course, is the prisoners would basically be sleeping in their lab, no creative time lost to commuting or annoying things like laundry and food purchase/preparation!
This is just crazy enough to work.
//until one of them makes a bomb.
Deanl, you say you are a meteorologist for the past 20 years, and you also talk about the “AGW Theory”. I guess you do not realize you just slammed the field of meteorology as being “non-scientific”?
your first problem is that there is no theory. In fact, there is not even a valid hypothesis yet. You have statements made by “knowledgable” scientists that something is happening, and yet no data, tests or results to start to test any hypothesis (the models are woefully wrong, and that is the extent of the “proof” offered.
And you do not even know what the null hypothesis is or you would never have made the statement above!
I do not know if you are blowing smoke or are really who you say you are. But if the field of meteorology is anything like you, then it is clear there is no science in Climate science. At least not from the warmists side.
Perhaps you can salvage your reputation and that of the warmist camp by being honest about who you are and what your qualifications are? It is clear by your writings that you do not know what you are talking about.
No, that has never been proven. It is theorized, but the quantifcation is grossly lacking. Do you even understand what scientific “proof” is? I suspect you are simply a plant – and not a good one.
Well, gee, uh thanks for the heads-up? Now, I know “global warming” to be a lie, if the advocate they choose to be the siren is Charles Manson!! I wonder why they don’t choose him to be the advocate for the NWO??? That would really put things in perspective…..
huh? Slow news day??? Is this what passes for “science” in the so-called “best science blog”?
REPLY: Heh, typical anonymous whiner, can’t read the masthead – Anthony
I bet the global warming types must be really impressed with having Manson come out for them.
Q. Besides what the difference between Manson and Gore?
A. only Manson is in prison.
DeanL says:
I have looked into nearly all the counter claims and arguments against the fundamental science behind AGW and, generally, found them to rely on much less rigorous science than those for.
Dean, surely you can recognize that your above statement is extremely vague, at best? That is, are you aware of the fact that “Climate Science’s” *CO2=CAGW* is not only not based upon real, scientific method and principle science, but also specifically avoids using it?
*h/t Smokey