Google hangout notes: 'I've never seen Revkin less convinced that CO2 causes bad weather'

Roberts really is bonkers. I’ve learned that any link to a Grist article will take me to a political rant. Contrary evidence seems to be invisible to him.
I think the discussed dichotomy can be summed up like this:
AGW sceptics tend to understand science. Warmists tend to believe in Science.

milodonharlani says:
June 15, 2013 at 6:05 pm
What does ones opinion about evolution matter in regards to AGW theory? It looks like a huge Red Herring. The notion that it represents a science “high ground” is in fact more science ignorance. There isn’t a global tax and control system associated to believing in Creationism unlike the AGW cult.

@Janice Moore –
Thank you so much for your kind words.
It so happens I have wrutten the first volume and am working on the second volume of what is to be a trilogy about an alien world that is very like our own – not your typical sci-fi stuff at all. And in this long story, there are some not-so subtle criticisms of leftist ideology and anti-science, including a reference or two to global warming (the planet where the story takes place has 10 times as much CO2 in its otherwise earthlike atmosphere, and ain’t burning up) and a general view of how our own world might be if people behaved themselves and had some solid spiritual grounding. While I am an atheist, I believe it is possible nonetheless to find spiritual and moral grounding in some very simple concepts: the Golden Rule, the focus on well-being and the agreement to disagree being perhaps the most important aspects of this – and that is one of the messages of my story, that one can be spiritually grounded and moral without believing in a supreme being. The second volume, which I am presently working on, is a biography (fictional, of course) of a man whose teachings eventually become the guiding philosophy of everyone on the planet (very human-like people they are). This man is a sort of Jesus, Leonardo da Vinci, Johann Sebastian Bach and Abraham Lincoln all rolled into one, but he is a mortal figure, not a divinity, and I am being very careful as to how I express his influence and power with (not really over) people strictly without supernatural elements or magic or miracles in the Christian sense.
No publisher yet – but I am hopeful. Several people have raved about the first volume, and I hope to be able to use them as testimonials in my query letters to literary agents.

@Janice Moore, george e. smith
(For cover, I write this to encourage all my fellow skeptics in the good fight against AGW lunacy.)
Thanks, Janice, for more kind words (and call me Chad). A suggestion: 20th-century music can take some getting used to, but there is actually a very easy way to approach Bartok’s music – his Concerto for Orchestra, which is wonderfully tuneful and tonal, yet also unmistakably modern. Listening to it might be a way to sort of ease into enjoying Bartok’s music – after hearing the Concerto for Orchestra, I think you will find pieces like the Divertimento for Strings or the Music for SWtrings, Percussion and Celesta rather more congenial – at least this has worked for some other folks who were hesitant about modern music. Another good item is Ravel’s Mother Goose Suite, similarly tuneful but definitely modern. And (not to toot the old horn too loudly) but the fourth number of my Organ Recital, Op.24, of which I have a complete synthesizer realization seems to have reasonated with folks ddespite its astringency – one person even told me it opened her eyes (or ears) to the possoibilities of twentieth-cebntury music. Organ Recital is a set of four pieces in successive styles – Baroque, Classic, Romantic and 20th century, with thematic links among them – they are intended to be played in chroinological order, as it were. My music runs the gamut from High Baroque to some pretty challenging and astringent modern, but I think that even my most dissonant pieces still preserve the elements – you can still follow the melodic development, the harmonic progression and the formal structure.
Mr. Smith – that is very interesting that you can play the organ but not the piano. – the pedals add a whole big new dimension to the difficulty of playing, to all accounts.
For myself – I actually play no instrument, never had lessons groewing up in a less-than-ideal environment – composing is strictly a mental process for me and I am totally self-taught (although when I studied music it was only after I had swritten a great deal, and the study confirmed what I had basically figured out on my own and from listening). If this seems too weird, remember that composers who write symphonies can’t play the orchestra.
Again, let’s all keep up the good fight!! Go science, and to Sheol with AGW.

This is very elucidating indeed. David Roberts is far more concerned about manipulating the power structures of society than anything else, not good reporting, not fairness, not happiness, only in utilizing the powerful to control the weak.

“””””……Janice Moore says:
June 17, 2013 at 6:03 pm
::::::::::::::::::: With George E. Smith on the Organ
Wow, Mr. Smith — that you could make all that happen on the pipe organ (EVEN IF you COULD play the piano) is amazing. You are a genius……”””””
Well I am a very ordinary person Janice; far from genius category. It was a labor of love to learn that organ piece, and find that I actually could make so much happen. You have to know something about both instruments to fathom why I was able to play on the organ, but not the piano.
A piano key is struck, and released. If you release an organ key, the sound shuts off immediately, so you have to hold the key down as long as you want the pipes to sound, and if the music is supposed to be played legato style rather than staccato, then you have to press the next key coincident with the release of the previous one. Here I am assuming that you are playing a single voice, so only one note is sounding at a time. But most likely there will be more voices; four or more; well don’t forget, those 32 pedals are a keyboard as well about 2 1/2 octaves.
So with ten fingers and thumbs, and two feet (each with a toe and a heel), you can get a hold of a lot of notes at the same time. But now you have to slide to a new set of notes, without leaving a gap. Your fingers get tied up in knots, walking from one key to another, often switching fingers on one key to shift your hands so you can even reach the next set of keys. That’s why you have to “finger” the piece. I literally wrote down on the score, exactly which finger had to get which note. With a piano, the music may have two staffs ( I hope that’s the correct word) With the organ, there will be more; one for the pedals, and one for each manual, so maybe five in all.
Well in the mid 1800s there was this French organ builder, by the name of Aristide Cavalle-Koll who invented a quite different organ. Typically three manuals plus pedals. He also invented some totally new organ pipe types; literally new instruments, so the organ, became a veritable symphony orchestra. The keyboards can be linked together, to add more power and tonality to the sound. It’s about comparable to driving the 16 inch gun turret of a battleship, in terms of manipulating power. So the mid to late 19th century French organ composers, started writing quite symphonic music, where they dictated the actual stops (instruments) to be used, just like other composers would dictate the instruments required for their compositions.
So the “crown jewels” of France are literally the Cavalle-Koll organs of St Clotilde, Notre Dame, and too many others for me to name (even if I knew them).
Anyhow it was fun, and I wish I had been able to keep it up. If I could get the electronic innards of mine upgraded to current technology, I’d have another go at it, instead of paying to keep it in a storage shed.

It seems the manuals have 61 keys, five octaves