Your good ole day guide to marital bliss »« Another reason to love Twitter

Comments

  1. khatru2112 says

    Wow!
    Who coulda predicted the “Consensus Project” would claim a consensus ? case closed I guess ;)

    oh wait,
    Science & Public Policy Institute claims differenrly ?
    and they have a nice PDF. so ?
    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/1000_scientists_dissent.html

    Flame On Friends! Flame On :)

    one more thing,
    Wind Turbines are killing Eagles at alarming rates,
    and Obama Admin is trying to cover it up ?
    ” the administration is also helping the wind industry cover up the number of birds it is killing. ”
    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/348424/latest-wind-energy-outrage-robert-bryce

  2. mildlymagnificent says

    There be sticky traps in them thar hills. I checked on Skeptical Science as usual – and now you can go to “The Consensus Project” for everyone and do your own ratings. (It’s a bit tricky getting your head around what each rating means, but it’s worth it.) And it turned into a bit of an addictive game for me. They give you a list of 5 randomly selected abstracts at a time – and the urge to see what mad mixture of topics might turn up on the next page is a strong driver to rate this lot. And then the next, and the next. The occasional deeply weird item is a real bonus.

    There are many lost hours in store for some weak willed spirits I fear.

  3. says

    Number one is in that class of hilarious dreamers who believe if they can only convince us that Obama is doing something the left is not supposed to like, then we’ll be so fucking stupid and outraged that we’ll 1) believe them lock stock and barrel, and 2) vote for Mittens or whomever the next iteration is. I’m not sure why they think this, but I see it a lot. It would be like telling them, hey, Bush helped some poor Africans! … so you should vote for Kerry …

  4. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    Who could have predicted 97% of all climate scientists accept human induced warming?

    Lots of people actually – anyone who has really been following thsi year for thepast few years I’d say.

    Its been well known for many years that about 97 to 98% of climatologists accept the scientific reality of Human Induced Rapid Global Overheating (HIRGO) as I prefer to call it.

    But this is still a great graphic and project.

  5. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    Typo fix : anyone who has really been following this issue for the past few years I’d say.

  6. Trebuchet says

    Phil Plait’s post on this study at Bad Astronomy now has over 1500 comments! No, I haven’t read them; Slate’s commenting system sucks (can’t read them oldest first, for instance) and it’s going to be the same stuff over and over.

  7. markr1957 says

    When someone posts information about contradictory websites they really should check the who’s who. Any organization with Lord Monckton as policy advisor has a denialist agenda and can safely be accused of lying. As for National Review – are you kidding me? If President Obama said the sun rises in the morning and sets in he evening they’d deny it! The 3% denialists have zero credibility among actual climate scientists – only liberturdians pay them any attention! Now it is possible (as my drill sergeant used to say) that Johnny really is the only soldier on parade who is in step out the entire brigade, but the odds are against it.

  8. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    Potholer54 has an excellent new video here :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OJ6Z04VJDco

    The evidence for climate change WITHOUT computer models or the IPCC answering three key questions and discussing the facts of Global Warming – or, really, Global Overheating. (“Warming” soudns misleadingly mild I think.) The rest of his series is well worth watching too if folks haven’t already.

    As is this clip of the actual very dramatic decline in Arctic sea ice levels :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgiMBxaL19M

    Arctic Sea Ice Minimum Volumes 1979-2012 by Andy Lee Robinson.

    As one climatologists aptly stated :

    ““I like ice also as an indicator of climate change for its political neutrality.
    Ice asks no questions, presents no arguments, reads no newspapers, listens to no debates. Its not burdened by ideology and carries no political baggage as it crosses the threshold from solid to liquid. It just melts.”

    - Dr Henry Pollack, geophysicist, University of Michigan.

    Source : http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-wbzK4v7GsM

    ‘Watts Up with Sea Ice?’ by Greenman3610 at the 1 minute 14 secs to 1 minute 51 seconds mark.

    There are, natch, plenty of other great clips and resource / informative / news websites out there starting with Skeptical Science, RealClimate and Co2now.

    Really I think anyone still parroting Climate Contrarian crap now is either brand new to the discussion and totally uninformed or, more likely, deliberately willfully misinformed due to ideological beliefs.

  9. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    @ 6. Trebuchet

    Phil Plait’s post on this study at Bad Astronomy now has over 1500 comments! No, I haven’t read them; Slate’s commenting system sucks (can’t read them oldest first, for instance) and it’s going to be the same stuff over and over.

    Now 1739 comments – Link here :

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/05/17/global_warming_climate_scientists_overwhelmingly_agree_it_s_real_and_is.html

    Seconded about the horrible commenting system on slate. No numbered commenst and having to constantly click ‘view more’ stinks too.

    So much preferred commenting on the old Discover mags site. Sigh.

  10. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    If I may add one more link please I’d add this one :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA7tfz3k_9A

    ‘Pumphandle 2012: Time history of atmospheric carbon dioxide’ by CarbonTracker.

    Which puts it all in a geological perspective albeit for geology / astronomy short time~wise. In these scales 800,000 years is an eyeblink. In ours not-so-much. Longer timescales already kinda covered or available elsewhere.

    Hope that is okay and that these are interesting / useful for y’all.

Leave a Reply