(Photo credits: NOAA)
By WUWT regular “Just The Facts”
We are pleased to introduce WUWT’s newest addition, the WUWT “Extreme Weather” Reference Page.
Realizing the difficulty in selling “Global Warming” when the globe hasn’t warmed in the last 16 years, the Warmists are now attempting to convince the public that CO2 has somehow caused “Extreme Weather”. This “Extreme Weather” meme follows a number of other ill-fated Warmist narratives including “Climate Change“, “Ocean Acidification”, “Global Weirding” and “Climate Disruption”.
Being the skeptical sort I looked at the Big Picture and noted that “There is no evidence of a recent increase in “Earth’s Temperature” due to “Climate Change,” which could have caused “Extreme Weather” to arrive and become the “new normal”. However, this observation got me labeled an “Extreme Denier” and “Tamino seemed disappointed that I had not attempted to debunk claims that there’s been a ‘dramatic increase in weather-related catastrophes.'” As such, with the help of an array of WUWT readers and articles, we crowdsourced the WUWT “Extreme Weather” Reference Page. I leave it to you to review and decide for yourself whether you think there has been dramatic increase in “Extreme Weather”.
As in the crowdsourcing thread, if you have any suggestions for additional credible 3rd party data on weather extremes, please post them in comments below and we will review them for inclusion. It is interesting to note that I provided Bill McKibben with an opportunity to submit non-anecdotal empirical evidence in support of the “Extreme Weather” meme and he apparently had none to offer.
In addition to our “Extreme Weather” Page if you have not had the opportunity to look through some our other Reference Pages it is highly recommended:
- Atmosphere Page
- Atmospheric Oscillation Page
- ENSO (El Nino/La Nina Southern Oscillation) Page
- “Extreme Weather” Page
- Geomagnetism Page
- Global Climatic History Page
- Global Temperature Page
- Ocean Page
- Oceanic Oscillation Page
- Polar Vortex Page
- Potential Climatic Variables Page
- Scafetta’s Solar-Lunar Cycle Forecast -vs- Global Temperature
- Sea Ice Page
- Solar Page
- Spencer and Braswell Papers
- Tropical Cyclone Page
- US Climatic History Page
- US Weather Page
Please note that WUWT cannot vouch for the accuracy of the data within the Reference Pages, as WUWT is simply an aggregator. All of the data is linked from third party sources. If you have doubts about the accuracy of any of the graphs on the WUWT Reference Pages, or have any suggested additions or improvements to any of the pages, please let us know in comments below.
lts looking like the jet stream is setting up some extreme winter weather for northern asia from around Dec15th onwards.
A strong Polar jet looks like pushimg up from the Atlantic, up across Greenland and the pole and then flood lots of cold air down across northern asia. lts looking like a big cold weather event is
on the way.
l think climate science is going to have its work cut out trying to hide this decline. 🙂
Pat Ravasio says:
December 9, 2012 at 3:44 pm
“Wow, most of you are so juvenile in your responses……..”
“…….without ever really addressing the big picture.”
===================
So, paint me a picture !!
Pat Ravasio says: December 9, 2012 at 3:44 pm
Wow, most of you are so juvenile in your responses, it is obvious you suffer the stress of knowing you hold a losing hand. To be pitched against the prevailing views of 99% of all scientists must be difficult.
Still waiting for a cogent response from you. Can you provide any empirical evidence to support your position?
RockyRoad says:
December 9, 2012 at 4:50 pm
A.D. Everard says:
December 9, 2012 at 3:50 pm
…
I keep wanting to tell you: “Power to your pen,” but in this modern era, that’s a bit behind the times, and “Power to your keyboard,” doesn’t have the same ring. But you know what I mean. 🙂
You could say “Power to your IP” and that would be both clever and sufficient.
*
PERFECT. Thank you, Rocky! 🙂
And to Pat – I don’t think you’re actually reading any of the responses. I don’t think you’re looking at any of the evidence. I took you at your word when you said (or implied) that you were “open-minded”. My mistake. Nevertheless, I have thoroughly enjoyed the discussion in here today. You might have been expecting angry responses, or perhaps wished to trigger “flaming” which has not occurred. Only you know what you hoped to achieve. You certainly sound more upset at this end of the thread than you did at the beginning, so I take it you are not pleased with the wonderful debate and sharing of science here. That’s a shame. Seriously, that is a shame. I hope one day you dare to consider that the world is safe enough from humankind, and always was. We really are very small in the scheme of things, the world is really huge – we just think of it as “smaller” because we traverse it so easily now, and we have forgotten the true resilience of nature.
I look forward to hearing from any and all of you when you are willing to answer my specific questions. Your dancing around the subject does not amuse me. This issue is too important. Please see my last post and answer my specific questions? Thank you.
Pat Ravasio,
At various times in history, 99% of “scientists” supposedly believed the earth was flat, that the sun circled the earth, that bumps on your head could be used to diagnose mental conditions, that letting the blood out of you in just the right amount could cure all manner of diseases… if you were to study history, you’d discover that while it was the official position of the scientific community who would, in defense of their position, role out the same tired arguments that there was a “consensus”, it turned out afterward that the bulk of actual scientists knew the truth. They were silenced by the community in power for whom blood letting and diagnosing of disease was very profitable. Astrology was once consensus science, as was alchemy, they survived for as long as they did because the “consensus” was a fiction from which the practitioners profited.
So who exactly are you, who clearly have no science background at all, to tell us, whose background is science, what scientists believe? We’re trying to explain to you that we have looked at the science, that dozens upon dozens of the commenters on this forum aren’t just scientists, they are frequently climate scientists. You’ve been duped into believing in a consensus which doesn’t exist, and is being challenged by actual scientists, but you, who have no science background at all, sit in judgment over us.
You may be right, we may be playing a losing hand. Not because we’ve got the science wrong, but because people like you are so secure in your “knowledge” that you haven’t bothered to question it, can’t be bothered to educate yourself to the point where you can question it, but in pompous certainty rain your condescension down upon those of us who have. If there are enough of you who buy the story line without question, can’t be bothered to look at a single temperature graph and ask why the global temperature has been flat or falling for 16 years, why it is that drought on a global basis is in decline, why it is that frequency and severity of extreme weather are in decline, why it is that antarctic ice and many glaciers are growing, not shrinking….
If you can’t be bothered to look at this information yourself and ask those questions, and there are enough people like you who do the same…. then yes, we’re playing a losing hand.
All of humanity shall suffer for your folly.
Anthony – while I agree with your comment, there is another aspect to a person trying to teach a pig to sing. While it may waste the person’s time, a careful observer watching the effort can learn much about both singing and pigs.
“The reason why the big oil companies have not switched to the readily tappable energy resources that are clearly available is that they have not figured out a way to meter that energy from the sun, wind, waves, etc. If they could only stick solar power into a pipe and put a meter on it before it reached our homes you can bet we’d have more solar power”
Odd. You mean those brochures I get stuck in my door telling me I can switch my power generation to one that’s based on those forms at XX/kwh are all lies? And that all those folks in California getting energy from companies based on those sources are getting it for FREE? Amazing.
Pat, you *do* seem to live in an alternate universe. We should compare carbon footprints sometime: I generally ride a bicycle and have never driven a car (largely, believe it or not, for ideological reasons), have flown less than 20 times, haven’t bothered with a working TV for a number of years, and spend less than $1500/year heating/cooling a very well-insulated home which I’ve lived in and maintained for 30 years. Think we’re shipmates … or are you on a yacht of a different color?
– MJM
Pat Ravasio says:
December 9, 2012 at 6:03 pm
You and I both know your request is a complete waste of time and effort, Pat. Are you so conceited that you feel it is our obligation to teach someone as close minded as you? But I’m glad you admit to being not “amused”–it means we are effective in our arguments and you are not. You are simply making a fool of yourself, and on the most viewed blog in the world for the issues you find “important”, no less.
But that’s where you’ve made a grave error, Pat, and have helped the “skeptical” argument big time. We also find these issues to be of great importance and I’m glad you recognize this group as the best source of information or you wouldn’t have come along. And that should make you even less amused.
In the meantime, I shall simply post the well-regarded TROLL ALERT Pat Ravasio is a troll! She is not sincere; she is not teachable; she’s a waste of time except, as davidmhoffer points out, there are many people reading this that will see how futile her arguments have become.
Actually, there *is* another alternative to extremely long, multi-posted discussions like these where the “troll” is simply able to ignore a wealth of good points and argumentation simply because there is so much of it. About eight years ago I got tired of the same tactic being used in the smoking ban debates, so I developed a short, quick-reading, Tom Paine style .pdf booklet titled “The Lies Behind The Smoking Bans” that I could simply refer folks like Pat to along with a simple request for “specific substantive criticisms” of any of the material in it. The booklet is pretty superficial, but I worked carefully on it so that I could feel confident in defending anything inside. I’d guess I’ve offered that “challenge” at least several hundred times over the last eight years (Google the phrase “Specific substantive criticisms” and you’ll see the challenges, with occasional off topic hits from others using the phrase, but not too often.) and I think only TWICE has anyone actually attempted and tried to defend serious specific substantive criticisms.
It’s amazing how often the “Pats” out there simply run away when pinned down to a specific, clear challenge that they can’t meet. WUWT could offer a page/booklet like that perhaps: just outlining a few of the most basic arguments, exposing a few of the most basic lies, and doing it in such a way that you leave no avenues open for attack. If you indeed have “the truth” in an area, you can put such a thing together… while the other side can’t. And the “passersbys” — the folks you’re largely trying to reach out to and communicate with — can see the simple gauntlet being thrown, will be interested enough to take a quick trip to see the substance of the challenge and hopefully learn something in the process, and then will learn even more when they see the opposition run away. Meanwhile all the tired typing fingers get a break. :>
– MJM
ROFLMAO!!!
I see that Pat Ravasio has crashed another thread and turned it into another trolling fest about his superficial environmentalist concerns which are comically shallow and bereft of logical and rational thinking as clearly shown in these words he started with in this thread at comment #2 where he write a completely off topic rant:
“My question remains: What is motivating this intensive, daily effort by you and your supporters to deny that there is environmental damage done to our ecosystem by our use of fossil fuels? Could it be that you are affiliated with and supported by the Heartland Institute, a major supporter of the fossil fuel industry?”
This is gobsmacking because hardly anyone in the world is affiliated with The Heatland Institute and getting $$$ from Oil companies.It is the usual low IQ thinking that has nothing to do with the AGW conjecture that Pat has yet to discuss not only that Pat your precious unreliable LOW MASS wind and solar power INCREASES damage to the environment with toxic plastic and rare earths materials and degrades the landscape with roads and power lines in wilderness and open areas all the while the Fossil Fuel,Nuclear and Hydroelectric power continues to stay on and running the ENTIRE TIME since wind and solar are so gosh darn unreliable for CONTINOUS power generation.
Strike one.
More of his completely off topic ranting:
“If not, please explain what you have to gain by continuing to deny that there are environmental problems that could be solved by a reduction in the use of fossil fuels? Can you justify that the continued and increasing use of fossil fuels is a good thing for our planet?”
You have yet to show that anyone here is denying alleged or observed environmental problems but you really don’t care because you are a full bore greenie weenie who slyly ask these questions with a purpose of getting onto what YOU really want is a world built on socialist environmentalist utopianism that only deficient humans like you can dream of.
Strike two.
Then you get uppity with the following that shows to me that you are a typical eco jerk:
“If you are fueled by anything other than greed and an interest in advancing your own interests, could you please state what your motivation is, so that those of us with open minds might begin to understand?”
Why should I tell to jerks like you who is openly LYING your ass off in claiming you want to understand people whom you are clearly implying that skeptics/deniers are in it for selfish reasons.A quick visit to your sorry blog make it clear that you have made up your shallow mind about skeptics and that you are in war with them as you make clear in your soggy little blog.
Pat says,
“Some of the deniers I’ve been chatting with really don’t like this Buckyworld blog at all. That’s okay. If you would like, as some of you requested, to read a more in-depth story, here’s a great little piece on climate deniers from Truthout. Some of you will get to see your name in lights! And if you scroll down here, you can also find many links to recent climate change new stories. And just to cover all sides, here’s a link to one of the most popular climate change denial blogs, http://www.wattsupwiththat.com (where you can find several very lively attacks on me!)”
LOL,
yeah suuuure you are interested in chatting skeptics with your open mind……,as shown vividly in your silly blog.
Liar!
Snicker.
Strike three.
I despise you for your condescending attitude and your upfront assumption that skeptics are selfish and want to advance their own interests regardless what the cost is.
Why is it you like so many environmentalists for years have been full stupid in fighting Thorium and Nuclear power,Coal,Natural Gas and anything else that does not fit YOUR version of Gian Utopianism which also happen to be the only reliable venues for continous power generation in todays world.Solar and Wind power are at best a NICHE power supplier as they are profoundly unreliable for continous power generation and require a huge amount of land surface to construct these stupid things for at best small amount of megawatt generation capability.
Solar and Wind power are DIRTY low mass power producers that damage a significant part of the environment and kill a lot of birds but hell you care less because it does not fit your eco bullshit paradigm.
The rest of your babble:
“Read more about my questions and concerns, if you like at…”
No!
I will pass on another typical LOW IQ warmist blog that has built on a unfounded and stupid premise that we are in dire straits over a small increase in atmospheric CO2 and that it is the fault of the skeptics who needs to be told what to do and believe to repair the perceived environmental damage.
Only eco retards think CO2 is a pollutant and that after it is shown to be only .0395% of the atmosphere with a small radiative absorption range that amounts to very little in any future temperature increases they still fear it with their silly proclamations such as getting it below 350 PPM as it was in ….. he he 1988.It must mean the worlds climate was safe and benign before then as your fellow eco moron McKibben seem to think as he is the nut who runs such a blog about this magical CO2 world is now safe at and below the magic 350 level.
I have put up with people like you for decades now and I am amazed that you eco poodle dogs never seem to realize that Fossil Fuels consumption over the years have been getting cleaner and cleaner something that you ueducated eco warriors never seem to know about because you are so busy being a superficial thinker and in love with socialist environmentalism.
It is clear that this eco dweeb will not answer questions and address rational scientific statements here in the thread because he is not interested in them as he is busy being a little socialist with his superficial environmental concerns as shown in subsequent replies.
But hey you CAN prove me wrong if you just answer E.M. Smith point by point who wrote a specfic reply to YOU here in this thread:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/08/introducing-the-new-wuwt-extreme-weather-reference-page/#comment-1168486
But you will not do it because you are too busy being that little ignorant envoronmentalist that you are being pegged to be.
Just when I was going to say, enough beating the troll, it turns up again.
Hey Pat, no-one is more strident, than a true believer loosing their belief. You have my deepest sympathy, honest.
And you blithering dimwit, the Athabasca Tar Sands are the biggest natural oil spill in the world. What, you don’t feel we should clean it up?
There is a river running through all that oil saturated sand, every flood contaminates the watershed north, all the way to the Arctic Ocean.
And let me finish on a note of sweet reason, I did not attempt to deprive you and your ilk of your freedom, property and wealth.
Having realized that this is the aim of your great cause, I now regard you as the enemy.
Whether your actions are due to ignorance or malice, I care not.
Well thanks for an highly entertaining post, the reference posts are invaluable I must remember to use these more often, thanks again Mr Watts & volunteers.
Pat,
You make this too easy…
– 99% of climate scientist support the theory of CAGW: False Actually, the original claim, based on the Doran paper, was that 97% of “expert” climate scientist support the theory of CAGW. Of course, the 75 out of 77 (97%) of responses that they culled out of thousands of responses do not form a concensus of scientist.
For more info:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/
Next:
– Big Oil has not switched to solar, wind, or water power because they cannot make money from it.: False First, Big Oil is so “old school”. Nobody uses oil to generate electricity any more. Since you mention solar, wind, and water, I assume that you are referring to electricity because none of those energy sources apply to vehicles, the primary use of oil today. So, I’ll let you slide and switch to talk of “Big Energy”.
Photovoltaic solar power has been around for what, 40-50 years or so and the units are readily available on the commercial market. Don’t you think that if solar energy was cost effective that we would have all bought them for our homes and cut ourselves free from the grid, ie free from “Big Energy”, by now? How is “Big Energy” preventing that? As well, don’t you think that some enterprising individuals outside of “Big Energy” would be filling WalMart with cheap and effective solar power units if such a thing was possible. Why don’t we have massive solar generating stations already tapped into the grid and operating (without huge government subsidies) to reap huge profits on the free energy? There are investors that would line up like shoppers on Black Friday for that if it was possible. How is “Big Energy” preventing that? In fact, our governements are throwing billions of dollars of subsidies at solar energy companies that can’t seem to do anything but go bankrupt. Is that caused by “Big Energy”?
Wind power technology is even older than solar, going back centuries, if not thousands of years. With respect to electricity, wind power technology has been there ever since electricity was invented. Why do we all not have windmills in our yards so that we can cut ourselves free from “Big Energy”? Heck, why did we even bother trying to dig coal out of the ground or drill for oil in the first place if all we had to do is throw up an old fashion wind mill? Is it because the wind, in most places, often does not blow enough to raise a flag, much less turn a windmill or is it because nasty, mean, “Big Energy” stopped us? Why is it that the poor people in Britain, Germany, and Spain are are having power shortages based on their reliance on wind power? Is it because it does not work or is it because of “Big Energy” sucking the juice out of the grid? Why is it that the only way that wind power can be implemented is through massive goverment subsidies and, why is it that every wind power resource has to be backed up by a fossil or nuclear energy source? Is that because it is unreliable or is “Big Energy” the cause?
Water power is a great thing of you have a large source of running water, a gradient (ie. water running downhill), and a valley that can fill up when dammed to give enough water pressure to make electric power. In fact, I have worked at several hydro-electric plants and I think that they are the best thing since sliced bread. However, based on the above requirements, it goes without saying why we all don’t have dams in our yards or why many states or countries cannot take advantage of this technolgy. Of course, it also goes without saying that if the funky thing that your beloved Fuller patented could actually generate power from the tides, some enterprising individual would have built it by now and be reaping big profits from the “free” energy. How is “Big Energy” preventing that?
Next:
Actually, I’ll stop the detailed response here because my post is getting rather long. Our enslavement to “Big Oil”? You can cut yourself free from “Big Oil” and the electric grid anytime you want. Nobody is forcing you to continue. Also, suffice it to say that we have not discussed the benefits of fracking or tar sands on this thread because it was not a part of the topic that you hijacked. That being said, the benefits of both are releasing massive quanities of oil and natural gas for our use. I’m not sure what other answer you were looking for. Finally, methane gas release from melting permafrost? I have not seen any true research to support that this is taking place. When and if it comes, I’m sure it will be addressed in this forum.
If I missed anything else, I’m sure on of the others on this forum will pick up where I left off and probably do a better job than I have in continuing to pick apart your rant.
By the way, I presume that you only sell houses that are bucky-domes made from pure recyclables that are manufactured and powered only by wind, solar, and water energy sources. Anything else, like for example envying the large, massively energy consuming, estates of celebrities, would be somewhat hypocritical.
I spent some time on a response to Patricia that did not go through, obviously due to some error on my part. In any case, I am not disappointed since DavidMHoffer said it much better than I could.
Nice job David!!
Well, my post was delayed but it did go through at 12/9/12, 7:29pm. I still think David did a better job. In fact, his later comment about teaching a pig to sing was hilarious while, at the same time, being a very appropriate analogy to the situation at hand.
Singing pigs would be considerably more entertaining than Pat’s writings though — and probably more educational to boot.
;>
MJM
If you were actually serious scientists, you would surely be more mature than to refer to a genuinely interested blogger as a “troll” a “pig” a “singing pig” and a “prostitute”. Can’t we keep the discourse civil?
Believe me, I wish you were all right, that we could all just sit back, ride our bikes and relax and trust that the world is safe in the hands of Exxon, Chevron, BP and the other fossil fuel giants.
Maybe a simpler way to look at this, together, is to to evaluate the risks involved with either direction. Ok? So. what are the worse case scenarios of both?
1) (Cautiously belief in 99% of all scientists): We encourage the world to pursue cleaner, affordable, renewable energies, while we phase out, or at least substantially reduce the use of fossil fuels. Worse case: some pursuits fail, some just don’t work, the oil industry has to re-adjust its priorities and strategies, the economy may continue to stagnate for a time
2) (Go along with those who say they know more than 99% of all scientists): We stay the present course, relying almost exclusively on fossil fuels. Fossil fuels continue to be depleted; we resort to more and more dangerous and hazardous ways to release them from the earth, more people are sickened, prices rise, conflicts and wars over oil continue, the environment worsens. Worst case: We release enough carbon (and resulting methane) into the atmosphere that the thin layer protecting us from the sun is eventually depleted beyond repair and is unable to sustain life on the third rock from the sun.
So which is worse? Even if you had 50% of all scientists in your corner, of even if you had the 99%, if we seriously look at the maximum risk involved with either approach, the smart money would be on the side of doing the right thing for the environment, and the life that resides within it.
Pat says 99% of scientists…
Wow, 1% of scientists, or in other words hundreds of thousands of scientists throughout the world don’t believe in catastrophic anthropological global warming. I find that very disturbing because that is a very large number. For example, 100% of scientists believe in gravity and 100% of scientists believe in the existence of the atom. To have such a large number of scientists find something wrong with the “consensus“ view means that there must be something seriously wrong with the reasoning that went into that “consensus“ and one should look into what these other scientists have to say to find out why there are so many scientists who do not accept the so called consensus.
😉
There lives more faith in honest doubt, believe me, than in half the creeds.
Alfred Lord Tennyson
What you gonna do, believe your lying eyes, or follow the wisdom of your purists, who are the immaculate authorities, no?
You encourage the world…. Eh. Baloney; act on your beliefs, show us all this new way of righteous living.
If you are so deeply concerned, why are you here, trolling for traffic for your pathetic little blog?
Check out the psychology of true believers or go look in a mirror.
What was that Nina Hagen song? 99 lead balloons?
Note to self stop feeding the concern troll. Pat you are a gas, thank you for a fine afternoons entertainment. Like the CRU emails you are a gift that just keeps on giving.
If your 99% had science backed evidence of the evils you fear, it would be available in every archive of the world, plastered all over WUWT and proclaimed at every climatism blog site.
So post it on up or next post I will explain the proper use of the precautionary principle just for you.
Ravasio says:
“…belief in 99% of all scientists…”
Wrong.
The ‘consensus’ — the real majority of scientists — agrees that the rise in CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. There is no downside to more CO2.
The 31,400+ co-signers to the OISM Petition have clearly stated that CO2 is “harmless” and “beneficial”. More CO2 is better. Those thousands of co-signers were all vetted professionals in the hard sciences, and they include more than 9,000 PhD’s. No group of climate alarmist scientists has come anywhere close to those numbers. The truth is that the climate alarmist clique is quite small.
Ravasio — an admitted non-scientist — is posting emotional, unscientific horse manure. The nonsense spouted by Ravasio’s ilk is refuted by tens of thousands of degreed professionals who understand the science. Ravasio does not understand the science. She is only a friggin’ Real Estate agent! The emotional scare stories have gotten to her, and she has swallowed them hook, line, and sinker.
We would be happy to help an uneducated person like Ravasio. But she makes it impossible with her wild-eyed, emotional attitude. About two years of studying of the WUWT articles and archives every day would bring Ravasio up to the minimum of understanding necessary. As of now, she is merely parroting debunked alarmist talking points. Readers here have moved on well beyond her scientific illiteracy a long time ago. We need facts and scientific evidence, not emotional scare stories and alarmist nonsense. That is witch doctor territory, not science. Give us facts, supported by the scientific method. Everything else is baseless opinion.
Pat says
“The reason why the big oil companies have not switched to the readily tappable energy resources that are clearly available is that they have not figured out a way to meter that energy from the sun, wind, waves, etc. If they could only stick solar power into a pipe and put a meter on it before it reached our homes you can bet we’d have more solar power. Same goes for wind and water. They and you oppose development of such renewable, non polluting alternatives because you know you can’t make the same kind of money you can when you own the pipelines”
Pat do you have a clue as to how foolish this post sounds to anyone who understands how the legitimate business community operates and is aware the numerous failures that the taxpayers are subsidizing in the green energy sector. By the way very few oil companies are in the electricity generating business so your comment does not make much sense. I assume you know that buddies of the administration are doing very well getting grants and loans for fabricating plants to produce clean energy knowing they will fail and they walk away much richer except for the kickback they make via bundling. Rememnber Solyndra, Fisker, First Solar, Shut down battery companies, Numerous celullosic enterprises, Range fuels, etc, etc.
Most of the established energy companies are too ethical to take government funding for an enterprise for which the fundamentals are non existent. The leaders would likkely go to jail for such unethical business practice.
Pat Ravasio says:
December 9, 2012 at 8:38 pm
You’re right, Pat–I wish that comparison with the pig had not been made because it denigrates pigs which, as you know, are useful by comparison.
You claim to be a “genuinely interested blogger” but you are no more interested in becoming educated in any of these topics than a pig is able to fly (again, my apology to pigs). So no, the discourse won’t be civil to someone who is as duplicitous as you are.
If it bothers you to be in the hands of evil Exxon, Chevron, BP et al, here’s your solution: Don’t drive. Don’t take the bus or the plane or even your bike. Invest in a bicycle or lots of shoes. Quit using fossil fuels or anything made from fossil fuels (that should leave you as one hungry puppy*, but at least you won’t be one big hypocrite although using a bike will).
It tickles me that you keep coming back complaining we’re the problem, when you offer no viable solutions–only scary what-if’s. Your “99% of the scientists” meme is a joke (but on you) while your claim that the thin layer above us will be destroyed is another “pie in the sky” claim you can’t substantiate. Plants are growing better and faster now than in the past 200 years, and rather than look at all of the benefits, you go running around like a chicken** with her head cut off screaming that we’re all going to die when it your arguments that are dead.
Face it–if we followed your recommendations, death would come quickly to 5/6 of the earth’s population. That’s where your “smart money” is, Pat. That’s why you are the problem, not the solution. That’s your maximum risk and I’m seriously looking at it–as a scientist and an engineer.
Now please, go troll elsewhwere. You’re making a complete fool of yourself.
*(My apologies to puppies)).
**(Now I must apologize to chickens, too.)
Here’s something I just posted on Tips and Notes:
————–
I suggest the addition of a “Reading List” resource page. It would contain material that visitors should read to “get up to speed.” There would be several divisions:
Online (with links) vs. Not online
Basic vs. advanced
General vs. topic-specific
Highly recommended (top 25%) vs. The Rest
Each item would have a little annotation to describe its contents, slant, etc. Initially, the page could be nearly empty, with an invitation for WUWTers to submit nominations for additions or modifications in comments. Periodically, the List would be updated with selections from those nominations, and the comments list would be purged.
With this “Reading List” in place, visitors who demanded on-the-spot explanations of our positions could be pointed to it and told to come back later. (For testing?!)
(In addition, and for the same reason, I’ve recently suggested that WUWT’s easuky overlooked “Category” drop-down list be moved from the sidebar to the Resource tab.)