This will get a lot of views I can assure you. Interesting tidbits within.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
We’re looking at 40 years of no warming at least. But of course the only solution is to immediately cripple the economy with carbon tax.
#62 – LowFreq
>>I’d say he’ s better qualified than many folks on
>>this blog on the subject.
No doubt. But that doesn’t make him qualified. Reading a teleprompter for 50 years, telling us that it’s hot with a chance of rain, doesn’t really give him any creds in the climatology department. He’s just playing off that Weather Channel thing (“oooh, he founded the Weather Channel…he must know all about global climate changes over time!!”) that igonoramuses fall for.
And I see the guy who posted these on Youtube goes by the moniker “TheJohnBirchSociety”. HAW!!
#63 – Mr. Dvorak
>>mmmm Kool-Aid
Eloquent. Were you on the debate team?
#65 – No. You would be offering what is called statistical evidence, in a situation where certainty isn’t possible. The conclusion that cigarettes cause cancer is also based on statistical evidence, since we don’t yet understand cancer completely. While not ‘certainty’, statistical evidence can be a clear basis for action, especially where the stakes are high.
You may continue to smoke if you wish – I’ve decided not to wait for certainty.
#60 – jim h
>>You would be offering what is called statistical
>>evidence, in a situation where certainty isn’t
>>possible.
You’re confusing Lyin’ Mike. That kind of “nuanced” stuff is beyond his ken.
He read something by a pulp fiction author (that just so happens to agree with his preconceived notions), and that’s all there is to that. If the author of Jurassic Park and the Andromeda Strain says something, the discussion stops there. The word has come down from On High.
#22 – all noble goals: as long as it can be done without the average American reducing their lifestyle. Nothing is worth that.
There is absolutely nothing that is worth the sacrifice of smaller cars, reducing urban sprawl, etc. Bigger houses, bigger cars, more driving or the human race might as well be extinct.
This debate will soon be pointless as the emissions of carbon will be cut 2/3 when no petrol is available (at $12 a barrel).
Has anybody here heard of the ‘notices of credit’ or whatever ceasing to be traded. International shipping is about to stop and there is zero mention of this tragedy about to hit us and what the hell we need to do to avoid it.
If solar output is down, easily told by less sun spot activity, you might want to add some insulation to your home.
The last time we had a real solar slow down they were able to go ice skating on the Thames river every winter for about 50 years.
Hope it doesn’t get that bad. I don’t think they’ve had any ice in the Thames for decades.
Climate is not stable.
Mr. Coleman is a voice of reason in a sea of “the sky is falling” bureaucrats with visions of new legislation, myriad new laws, new research grants to liberal university professors, new agencies to monitor climate events, new taxes on everything, new restrictions on everything from cars to cattle farts, new enforcement officers, and thousands of new federal employees to lord over.
I wish this guy had run for office.
#74 – Mark T.
>>I wish this guy had run for office.
Yeah, he’d fit right in with the rest of the Repugs, bloviating on about things he has no expertise in, setting policy from the depths of his ignorance.
He’s a frigging TV WEATHERMAN fer chrissakes. Although it may be comforting for the bottom quartile of the IQ distribution to think that TV weathermen are experts in climatology, it just ain’t so.
Maybe Ronald McDonald denies global climate change, too. He’s got about as much credibility.
Lets have the government fix it! Look at the bang up job they did for New Orleans. That’s the big problem most people have with the solutions to ‘fix’ global warming. Do you really think Congress and its contributers will find a cost effective way that really address the problem. More likely they will spend billions and make a fortune themselves, but it it ultimately do nothing.
Really people, the whole point of scientific debate is to test the theories and try to poke holes in them to find weakness and global worming has had some holes poked in it. Global warming needs more real scientific proof, not some vague statement that its a bit warmer without decent records to back it up. And then they need to point out what is causing the affect, 1 volcano pours more sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere then years worth of jets.
The Weather Channel hypes it up to boot ratings, and plenty of people with large egos can’t possibly even admit that natural forces may play even a part of the cause. It’s on record that Krakatoa changed weather patterns for years, and we still have volcanoes erupting, but they can’t possibly be a factor because a low level eruption is not news worthy enough to get any credit.
>>Lets have the government fix it! Look at the bang up
>>job they did for New Orleans.
Look at the bang-up job the Weather Channel did. Look at the bang-up job everyone did. It was a major clusterfuck.
Still, there are some things that can’t be fixed by the Ladies’ Auxiliary, by groups of concerned citizens in a book club, or by anyone BUT the government. That’s why we have governments. They’re not the best that could be hoped for, but they’re the best we’ve got.
Let’s hope that with Dumbya out of the way soon, our goverment will be less of a bumbling idiocracy and more of what it’s SUPPOSED to be.
Before it was outlawed, Coleman
was one of the last guys hit in
the face by professional pie
“hitmen”. I think that this should
be factored into any assessment of
him, but I’m not certain how.
Regarding scientific consensus:
1) Yes. We do believe the distance to the sun because of overwhelming data and scientific consensus. No one yet has measured with a tape measure.
2) We believe evolution because of the overwhelming data and scientific consensus.
3) We believe relativity because of overwhelming data and scientific consensus.
4) We believe quantum mechanics because of overwhelming data and scientific consensus.
5) Deniers do not believe global warming despite overwhelming data and scientific consensus.
One of these things is different. One of these things doesn’t belong.
Is it because you can’t stand the knowledge that we have destroyed the environment so thoroughly that if we do not turn this around very very quickly then your children or grandchildren will die prematurely leaving no future for great grandchildren?
Is it merely because you can’t stomach the thought of our own extinction caused by our own actions?
Is it because homo sapiens is somehow special in your mind and way too smart to go extinct?
Time will tell. Global warming is all around us. You need but open your eyes to look it in the face and know. You need only look at the state of the cryosphere or the rising sea levels or the extreme weather events or the early migration of birds or the early hatching of insects or the movement of plants and animals into new ranges and the extinctions from prior ranges.
Humans are not smart. Or, more accurately, humans may prove ourselves to be smart enough to survive.
To do so, we must first wake up to the threat that is all around us. We must first pry our heads out of our anuses and look around.
Try it. You won’t like it. But, it may spell survival for our species if you do.
Arr its so funny … we have some of the coldest winters in the northern hemisphere, inconvenient data about mass balances of the ice continents and yet we have overwhelming evidence of global warming.
The notion of self thought is not part of the Pagan religious virus that has infected those ill-educationed (by that I mean courses that practice and develop thinking skills) scientific/politico class who are collectively ramming the GW meme into all government veins.
#80
Well gosh, cgp. If it was cold in your neck of the woods last winter, I guess that knocks the entire body of scientific evidence concerning global climate change into a cocked hat. Doesn’t it?
No, just remove the word overwhelming.
No more than that stop and re-engage your brain. Do not accept unsubstantiated statements. Stop using the word consensus.
I bleed that ANY global warming person at least attempt an explanation of how the CO2 green house gas hypothesis works in relation to other agents that many see as vastly outweighing a 300ppm molecule in the atmosphere in the flux of heat that must balance every season else the planet’s atmosphere would boil off or freeze (3 days if the sun turned off).
Amazing … After the Chicken Littles have been screaming about the sky falling for years:
– Since Katrina we’ve been told we’ll have the ‘worst hurricane season, ever!’ and another season has just ended where their predictions are spectacularly WRONG.
– This year, 30 years of temperature increase has been wiped out. Oh, let’s change it from global warming to global climate change, they’ll never notice how wrong we’ve been.
– More and more scientists are coming around to the notion that CO2 is a LAGGING indicator and NOT a cause of warming.
And the greatest irony, those who swallow the Eucharist of human caused global warming seem to always be the most critical of everyone else’s religion (see invisible people).
Silly humans … get over yourselves.
Truly inconvenient truths about climate change being ignored
http://tinyurl.com/66e8bm
But don’t let facts throw you off your beliefs.
#84 – Imagine that, unelected bureaucrats lying and manipulating science for their own agendas. Say it aint so Joe!
And people actually want to be MORE like the EU.
Silly humans …
#85 – Jeff
>>Imagine that, unelected bureaucrats lying and
>>manipulating science for their own agendas. Say it
>>aint so Joe!
Yeah, man! Don’t believe what you read from Aussie newspaper reporters, or geriatric weathermen. Take a taste of what real scientists, working in climatology, have to say.
http://realclimate.org/
Wow, I’m so glad we have a bunch of scientists here cherry picking data from both sides.
Here’s my solution, take personal responsibility. I think, based on my “vast” statistical background, that there is a problem with climate change. I also think we are destroying natural habitats, which is unethical. Finally, I think using wasteful amounts of energy to move myself around is unaesthetic.
I could wave banners, yell on streets, or link to some stupid science story by a reporter. That does a lot, eh?
Personally, I do the simple things like insulate my house, buy efficient appliances, drive less, buy local food, and a number of other things. Here’s the wacky thing, in the long run I save money. Cost/benefit – piece of cake.
I also take time to support organizations that protect natural habitats, contribute to conservation programs, and invest in small companies doing fundamental research on alternative energy. If you actually think that something needs to be done, then put your money where your mouth is.
As for the nay sayers, I won’t waste your time by arguing over isolated corner cases that are too complex for us amateurs. I hope my approach will make you stop and think, nothing more.
Anything else is just hot air.
Finally, some people are starting to get it. All the hype about all this stuff has always amazed me too.
so john succeeds once again in driving up his site traffic. hey john, climate change + macs suck = result!
The farther up north you are, the more you like global warming.
“The conclusion that cigarettes cause cancer is also based on statistical evidence,”
statisticly my dad who has been smoking 70 years should be dead. Instead he is still working still driving and could probebly whip most men half his age. Lyes damn lyes and statistics.
so john succeeds once again in driving up his site traffic. hey john, climate change + macs suck = result! don’t forget Sara Palin.
phht… As a “scientist”, he says, he “knows” there is no climate change caused by human activity.
Please.
That’s not science. That’s evangelism.
It’s all just “the little guys picking on the big guys”! Wow, what an analyst!
And notice that he doesn’t want to talk about the thousands of scientists who have never been invited to the UN.
# 62
Pardon, are you listening to my arguments?
You can if you want throw another dozend instances at me where science was wrong or unclear.
That proves only that it science is not absolute and sometimes surprising.
Hell yea, would be bad if it would not be so.
Still, it is not like predicting a sports game. Sport games are usually fairly balanced.
If it is totally unbalanced (professional vs. amateur) you still can not predict the outcome with certainty.
But you would be right if you say it is pretty likely the professionals win.
The track record of science is btw. completely awsome.
“Mr. Coleman has as much right as anyone in debating the facts on global warming.”
Hell yea!
“I’d say he’ s better qualified than many folks on this blog on the subject.”
Sure, I just say I rather listen to the professionals.
“One many not agree with his findings, but he shouldn’t be ridicule for challenging the science and scientists behind global warming. Any scientist should freely be able to challenge another’s hypothesis without fear of being called ‘unpatriotic’ or ‘evil doer’.”
Bullshit. If you say something outrageous like this you will get this kind of response.
The bigger will be your smile if it turns out you where right.
But until then, life is hard.
Going with the masses is easy. If you have a completely different theory, expect the others to be absolutely sceptical.
Should I be respectful to anyone who says the earth is flat?
No of course not!
Well, I don’t say Mr Coleman is stupid. I just say you will be ill adviced to listen to him.
“That’s not science. That’s religion.”
Oh come on!
# 91
I don’t believe it!
You are trying to lecture us about statistics!?
Your fathers experience does not contradict any statistic. There will be always someone you know who got over 100 years old smoking and drinking.
That tells you absolutely nothing!
I find it really offensive of you that you call this a lie without even knowing one little bit about statistics!
You are a sorry asshole. Go away.
#91, thruther,
statisticly my dad who has been smoking 70 years should be dead. Instead he is still working still driving and could probebly whip most men half his age.
Statistically speaking, you must fall into that large portion of the population that is between totally ignorant and know less than enough.