|
This Episode’s Executive Producer: Laurence Roik Direct link to show here. Direct link to Donation Page. |
0
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
If global warming deniers are Denialist, I would call the believers Stoicist who suffer from Stoicism.
Depends on whether the deniers are denying that it’s man-made or if global warming is natural (i.e. caused by our sun). Then there are those who are open-minded but are skeptical….. hardly deniers.
I’d like to hear a bit of this but don’t want to sit thru the chaff.
PLEASE give your readers a time line for major discussion items? Could even coax your public into listening to more than they initially intended????
IOW–do a little work.
#4 although that would be nice, I think it is asking a bit too much. How about listening to the podcast at 2x the speed, or just skipping a few seconds to jump the schaff? that is the reason why it is a download and not a live show – that is unless you listen to the stream. Maybe do the work yourself? all you need to do is skip on the timeline in your media player. Not that tough.
If the “Global Warming” skeptics have no agenda to lie, what about the true believers?
Is it “denialism” if what your denying was never real in the first place?
forgot the link
The Hockey Stick was never accurate–and CRU knew it
#5–DFC==heh, heh. Yes, 1000’s of people going hit or miss doing the work themselves rather than one person being proud enough of their work to document it for the rest.
As Colbert might say: I think I have you and JCD NAILED!!!!!
etc!
#7–Jim==thanks, links always appreciated.
Your position though shows the tyranny of “either/or” thinking. Reality is usually a little of both in a sea of ignorance.
The quality of a “denier” in the main is someone that restricts their view on forming a conclusion rather than maintaining a broad position of inquiry.
#10
“The quality of a “denier” in the main is someone that restricts their view on forming a conclusion rather than maintaining a broad position of inquiry.”
Avoid these type of people when you can. It’s pointless to chat with them.
10, And as Socrates found out the hard way, maintaining a broad position of inquiry to see what “experts” truly knew will get you killed….. politically nowadays of course.
You can tell that the zealots of AGW are getting desperate when they run to calling the other side “deniers” in a lame and cheap effort to associate them with the likes of holocaust deniers. Now that there “scientific” evidence is proving to be just as cooked, cherry picked and fabricated as the case for WMDs in Iraq, they have to resort to mudslinging. Come on guys, just get it over with and call us racists. you know you want to.
#12–Guyver==your post reminds me of the recent interview with the Iranian News Reporter just released from Espionage Charges.
All agree he was “non-biased” and had a reputation for being fair and balanced to both sides which is why he had credentials and an 11 year history in Iran.
But come the revolution, authorities adopted the more traditional position of “you are either for us or against us” and fair and balanced became the enemy.
And so it often goes in politics.
Do any of these donations go partially to Will the hairdresser?
#13, nospam,
Yes, holocaust deniers are wrong. They have prejudged events and refuse to see facts. Usually because their racism overwhelms their logic.
Yes, evolutionists deniers are wrong. They too have prejudged events to fit their notion of “god”. Anything contrary to the “word of god” ia automatically incorrect.
Yes, those that claim WMDs in Iraq are wrong. The whole exercise was contrived to make Bush a war President, thus assuring his place in history.
Yes, Climate Change deniers are wrong. As with the others, they too believe and expound an position made up of myths, lies, bad science, and continued planet rape. They argue more for the profits of large energy companies simply in order to deny those differing in political opinion.
Myths, lies and bad science…now there’s some irony in light of recent events. Oh, and before I forget, nice job on going along with the re-branding campaign. I mean something had to be done when the term “global warming” turned into a pile of shit after it turned out that things were getting cooler. And if you guys want to keep calling CO2 pollution, well, go on with your bad selves. But you all have already hit the peak of what the public will swallow, and now the tide is turning against you.
I don’t deny that global warming could happen. I just deny that climate scientists even know enough to say that it is, for certain. And I deny that they know for certain that mankind is responsible. And deny that they know of a sure fire solution, that won’t backfire and make things a lot worse. THEY, rarely if ever, deny that they make more money declaring global warming is real and man-made. Than they would if they did the exact opposite. And that this, more than anything else, is why they’re on this particular bandwagon.
Nobody ever heard of the term Denier or Denialism (neither is in my New World Dictionary), until some racists began denying the holocausts of WW2. Then it started be applied to everyone who didn’t follow the consensus opinion, about whatever was in vogue. Apollo Moon Landing deniers. Evolution deniers. Homosexuality deniers. Etc.
But never God deniers. Or Intelligent Design deniers. Nor peace or compassion deniers (aka Dick Cheney). Only what amounts to “don’t rain on our hell bent parade” deniers. If you’re not willing to follow the mindless crowd into the abyss, then you’re a “denier”.
Get ready to have your hand or forehead stamped, or tattooed, if you’re not. Because Hell only accepts those who prepaid and booked ahead, to get in.
#17, nospam,
And if you guys want to keep calling CO2 pollution, well, go on with your bad selves.
So, as a denier you are positing that CO2 is not a pollutant?
News Flash for nospam. We require oxygen to survive. Yet, in a very rich environment, extended exposure will kill you. And painfully.
We require iron for metabolism. Too much iron will cause irreparable damage to the intestines, liver, heart, and lungs.
Guess what ingesting too much water can do for you?
CO2 above 1.0% can cause dizzyness, nausea, and unconsciousness and above 10% will cause death. OSHA regulates the duration people may spend in CO2 rich environments.
So while we, and the environment, have adapted to live with all these (and many many more) elements within certain ranges, excesses can be deadly. Too much CO2 is a pollutant as it overwhelms the environment and can’t be readily absorbed.
Dissolved in rainwater, it becomes acidic and erodes our buildings. Transport to higher elevations act as a heat shield holding in heat to the planet’s surface.
And yes, CO2 already performs a heat shield function. Playing with that by small amounts will result in small changes in heat retention on earth. Very small changes in the overall scheme of things are really major changes to the very narrow band earth uses for life.
Machine Converts CO2 into Gasoline, Diesel, and Jet Fuel: http://tinyurl.com/yz7erz7
It’s pretty complicated. What if it is a real threat and we don’t nuke it just because a bunch of scum are trying to make billions off a phoney-balony cap and trade scheme? They are in the way of progress, and may go the way of the Dodo for all I care.
19, The mere act of you exhaling contributes to “pollution”. You could argue that China’s one-child policy is good for the environment since there’s less people exhaling CO2. Should Obama propose a one child pollicy and heavily tax people who have “too many” children?
Yes, CO2 performs as a heat shield because it’s a green house gas. Guess what? Water vapor is a green house gas too. Should we try to control water vapor levels as well?
As a skeptic, I have not seen anything that scientifically proves CO2 is the cause of global warming / climate change or whatever the new political flavor of the day is. Does that mean I’m opposed to conservation? Nope. I just see no reason to use the force of government onto people just to make some political environmentalists happy before all the facts are in.
#19 Mr. Fusion said:
“So, as a denier you are positing that CO2 is not a pollutant?”
No, it’s plant food. They need it to make oxygen. And knock it off with the “denier” horse shit. I’ll posit that a lot of Holocaust survivors get more than a little pissed off with people like you bastardizing the term.
The models are flawed, the way the data is presented is dishonest at best. Fraudulent at the worst. Passing that off as science is about as valid as claiming the same for cold fusion.
“Dissolved in rainwater, it becomes acidic and erodes our buildings.”
And under pressure combined with tap water and mixed with vodka makes a nice drink. Volcanos and rotting trees make a hell of a lot more of it than we do.
For the skeptics, what do you thing will happen if this continues?
http://tinyurl.com/2gy3f8
24, What are you concluding from what you’re presenting? Is it causal? Is it correlation?
just spotted the new NA cast..
Thank you,Thank you,Thank you,Thank you,Thank you,Thank you,Thank you,Thank you,Thank you…
for finally providing the direct link to the mp3 again..
I’ll make a donation on Dec, 2nd..wont be much…but i appreciate the link…(i’m tapped out, trying to stock up before the crash..)
Many Thanks,
-gregO
as for all the “denier” talk..
I’ve been a lover of science and mechanics my whole life..it comes natural to me.
In 2007 i started to question *everything* i was every taught. as science news starting in 2002 mostly never added up..being stuck home during this time pretty much 26 days out of the month because of bone issues. i have spent almost 95% of that time doing research.
Not only did i confirm my long term suspicions of the man made issue (from 2004) but i learned that ALL of the science we are taught about how the climate works is grossly false.
–but the entire model of how the universe [planets, comets, you name it] works is a hoax of the grandest scale! -as is the true origins of humanity, the solar system, what was our original “sun” before we were captured by our current sun, Venus and a whole slew of other stuff.
a minor discovery, Venus was a comet..hows that for a shock. -and was most likely what fried Mars’s atmosphere..
-and so so much more.
You will all learn it very soon as events unfolding in the universe will no longer allow any of this to be suppressed.
The weather is electrically driven
-as is gravity. -and the model of the atom needs to be updated:
learn how simple gravity works.
Learn this stuff. it’s easy, and its the truth..and it will be common knowledge soon..
Stop parroting the political science and study the works of some 30 people, combine them and you will see how simple everything really is.
And for to know the “real science” of everything -Science and “Spirituality” MUST be combined as one body of work, One Science.
-something that i just figured out in the past year myself, -and still cant believe i didn’t see it 20 years ago..
until then, [my] -Mirror Image Rule applies..
-s
#23, nospam,
#19 Mr. Fusion said:
“So, as a denier you are positing that CO2 is not a pollutant?”
No, it’s plant food.
Oh, is it really? Well what happens when you put a plant in a pure CO2 atmosphere? Or feed your plant solid CO2? It dies.
Nitrogen is also plant food. Go ahead and dump some on your lawn. Not a little spread out, just dump it. The same as what dog shit does, it burns the grass and kills the roots. The same with phosphorus, copper, and every other nutrient plants (and animals) need to survive.
The point is too much of anything is not a good thing. You want to ignore that. We live in a narrow specific band of environmental concentrations. Too much of any or too little of any one item can and will effect how the living organisms survive.
Adding too much of anything to the environment becomes a pollutant.
28, Well said! Under the right circumstances anything natural can be labeled as a pollutant. Given enough spin and politics, we can make any naturally occurring item to be public enemy #1.
Sorta reminds me of The Sharper Image TV ads for their Ionic Breeze which talked about how their product puts out Ozone. Unfortunately O3 is called “ozone” when it’s in our atmosphere. When it’s down where we dwell it’s called smog.
#29, Guyver,
At surface level, ozone is indeed a pollutant. It is not, however, “smog”. Smog is the combination of particulate matter, ozone, CO2, and water vapor held close to the earth by a temperature inversion.
Phosphorus is another example. Long used as a laundry detergent additive, it was discovered to contribute to algae buildup so it was removed. Yup, phosphorus was declared a pollutant even though plants require it to grow.
Maybe you should stop and think before hitting the “Submit” button.