Canadian Tar Sands Mining/Keystone Pipeline

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

I only said 'dark ages' because the radical approach wants to remove as many sources of energy as possible. and access to energy has been THE main thing that has lifted various societies out of poverty and sickness. 2 billion people currently live "in the dark ages" because for whatever reason they have been prevented from upgrading their standards, political, technical, or otherwise. so you cant really say because modern lifestyle exists, it simply does not logically follow. if you want to say because of mismanagement and corruption, etc, then you have a solid logical progression.

 

regardless, hunter-gatherer culture is only able to support a small population - so in the end, staying hunter-gatherer forever also meets that same dead end when the sun runs out of fuel. at least the technological advances would allow humans to propagate beyond the planet and survive that event - but its all moot anyway because from what I gather the end of the universe is something one gets by on an individual scale, having gone beyond time and death. the great barrier is there for all, and there is no spiritual welfare to carry everyone along.

 

perhaps I simply have more faith in mother nature's resiliency (and I dont doubt a very real path to the dark ages is via the Progress of civilization, but that has more to do with the survival of graft and corruption.)

 

 

While i think we share the same faith in nature, i do not see civilization, as being in attempt to remove itself from the authority of nature, to be any form of example for "upgrade" or "better" than "dark ages" survival.

 

When we live without purpose, we do not truly live, but if we must work to survive every day, THAT is truly living.

 

 

 

I would rather be alive and LIVING for 30 years and die, than just be "alive without living" for 5,000 years.

 

What happens at the "end" of civilized progress? we all let machines do all the hevy lifting for us? Do we willingly build the matrix and submit our lifeless bodies to it so that we may "create" LIVING?

Edited March 7, 2013 by Northern Avid Judo Ant

[Birch]

"the onus of individuals taking action."

 

I'm seeing this everywhere at the moment.

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

can you elaborate? Where isnt everywhere?

[JustARandomPanda]

People think we need to "save the world" but basically the reason people should try to do environmentalism is because they don't have a choice -- Nature is in charge and so Nature will take revenge if people don't obey Nature. haha.

 

This is exactly what JMG constantly talks about!

 

The only thing I know about at the moment vis-a-vis Green Wizardry is the GreenWizards forum he runs. The only reason I know there is a "program" of de-petroleumizing your living is because maybe once in a blue moon JMG will mention it briefly in his blog posts. But from what I've read from the responses of his readers who participate in it it sounds like a program that can take several years to make a full switch over. He actually inspires a not-small number of his readers to do what you do - LIVE "green" and thus their pocketbook signals it too.

 

Anyway I'm interested in joining them. I have only lately been looking into this stuff (as in just these past 2 weeks) seriously because I live on SSD in a small apt (550 sq ft) that's rather old for my town (ie early 1930s) and don't have any say in how the apt management company spends their budget on maintenance repairs and have zero land and space to grow my own food or catch, purify and store water. (I own those 2 latter books but it takes money and lots of space to do what they teach - two things I don't have). There's only so much one can do to 'greenify' property that's owned by someone else but if anyone can teach how I suspect it's all those Green Wizards.

 

Anyway - about JMG - there's his book The Long Descent which I'm about to check out from the library. Supposedly it's partly designed to help you ween yourself off of petroleum dependent living. I'm also currently reading his The Wealth of Nature: Economics as if Survival Mattered and am liking it quite a lot.

 

And there's his latest book Not the Future We Ordered: The Psychology of Peak Oil and the Myth of Eternal Progress which was published just last month. I'm hoping my library will pick it up soon.

 

There's also one other book I'm hoping to get via inter-library loan.

 

Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air

 

 

And Drew...You never answered my other question...is there such a thing as being "too Eastern" in one's lifestyle and PoV? Just curious...

[JustARandomPanda]

Here is JMG's intro to his GreenWizard website/forum

 

 

"One of the things the soon-to-be-deindustrializing world most needs just now is green wizards. By this I mean individuals who are willing to take on the responsibility to learn, practice, and thoroughly master a set of unpopular but valuable skills – the skills of the old appropriate tech movement – and share them with their neighbors when the day comes that their neighbors are willing to learn. This is not a subject where armchair theorizing counts for much – as every wizard’s apprentice learns sooner rather than later, what you really know is measured by what you’ve actually done – and it’s probably not going to earn anyone a living any time soon, either, though it can help almost anyone make whatever living they earn go a great deal further than it might otherwise go.

 

 

 

****edit***

 

While we're at this one can always join Instructibles or the Maker culture. That is - taking things that one might not use much and use them to create something totally new (example: $10 eco washing mashine). Ditto for old electronics with the Maker culture..

 

There's even the Society of Primitive Technology that I used to be a member of.

Edited March 7, 2013 by SereneBlue

[Birch]

I suppose I ought to:-) Briefly, I'm reminded it's everywhere when I open the internet and most of what I read are first-person 'news' stories, injunctions to the individual to adopt attitudes and behaviours that will magically solve collective issues like unemployment or celebrations and acclamations of a president or a CEO for being the first of his or her 'race' or 'gender' and that does absolutely nothing for anyone else of that 'race' or 'gender'. The 'personal development' and 'self-help' industries bag millions of $ each year based on the premise that it's all down to the individual. Hell, cultivation assumes much of the same:-)

 

I'm not saying individuals don't have personal responsibility for many of the ways in which they can respond to wider issues, just that they ought not to confuse which are which.

 

--very personal opinion--

 

Edited for autocorrect. Dang

[ralis]

I suppose I ought to:-) Briefly, I'm reminded it's everywhere when I open the internet and most of what I read are first-person 'news' stories, injunctions to the individual to adopt attitudes and behaviours that will magically solve collective issues like unemployment or celebrations and acclamations of a president or a CEO for being the first of his or her 'race' or 'gender' and that does absolutely nothing for anyone else of that 'race' or 'gender'. The 'personal development' and 'self-help' industries bag millions of $ each year based on the premise that it's all down to the individual. Hell, cultivation assumes much of the same:-)

 

I'm not saying individuals don't have personal responsibility for many of the ways in which they can respond to wider issues, just that they ought not to confuse which are which.

 

--very personal opinion--

 

Edited for autocorrect. Dang

 

 

If you see yourself as a separate being then that view is a problem. Even in cultivation practice. However, there are a few in the past that have changed the world.

 

Read about Edward Lorentz and the 'butterfly effect'. Tiny changes in complex systems can have a massive effect globally.

 

Stop listening to the ones that see themselves as selfish separate beings. They don't have the best interest of our biosphere in mind.

[Birch]

"If you see yourself as a separate being then that view is a problem."

 

I see myself as both. Is that a problem?

[ralis]

"If you see yourself as a separate being then that view is a problem."

 

I see myself as both. Is that a problem?

 

I was talking in the context of the problem of feeling powerless to make a difference. MLK or Gandhi didn't have a separate view.

[Birch]

I was talking in the context of the problem of feeling powerless to make a difference. MLK or Gandhi didn't have a separate view.

Ah, I see. The above examples I gave reinforce the 'separate' view and that's IMO part of the problem. It's not 'powerlessness' as such but a misleading suggestion as to where power stems from.

[joeblast]

 

 

Read about Edward Lorentz and the 'butterfly effect'. Tiny changes in complex systems can have a massive effect globally.

'Can' being the operative - i.e. 'has the potential to' - but will it necessarily happen? Just because something has the potential to manifest doesnt man that it will happen...on any reasonable timescale. In a system dominated by negative feedbacks, is a tiny positive feedback necessarily going to overwhelm the negative feedbacks that have kept the system in stable states for eons?

 

Funny I was reading an article about water vapor content in the atmosphere having decreased lately - and the miniscule amount it decreased is over an order of magnitude greater in coefficient-weight than the last 10 years worth of carbon emissions or so. I still assert that we've got exponentially more to fear from a climate crisis on the cold end of the spectrum.

 

 

 

 

so that little notch in the IR there for CO2, that's a positive feedback that's going to break all of the negative feedback mechanisms?

 

how they say across the pond....bollocks! that's one thing that's missing from the AGW story...data...

[ralis]

'Can' being the operative - i.e. 'has the potential to' - but will it necessarily happen? Just because something has the potential to manifest doesnt man that it will happen...on any reasonable timescale. In a system dominated by negative feedbacks, is a tiny positive feedback necessarily going to overwhelm the negative feedbacks that have kept the system in stable states for eons?

 

Funny I was reading an article about water vapor content in the atmosphere having decreased lately - and the miniscule amount it decreased is over an order of magnitude greater in coefficient-weight than the last 10 years worth of carbon emissions or so. I still assert that we've got exponentially more to fear from a climate crisis on the cold end of the spectrum.

 

 

 

 

so that little notch in the IR there for CO2, that's a positive feedback that's going to break all of the negative feedback mechanisms?

 

how they say across the pond....bollocks! that's one thing that's missing from the AGW story...data...

 

 

I said 'can' which does not mean an absolute. Doesn't mean it will happen but has the potential.

 

Nice cut and paste from a right wing blog which gives no sources for the data in the above graphs. I get the impression you believe anyone who reads your stuff is naive. Posting unsupported, unverifiable data that is not peer reviewed is outside the domain of good research.

Edited March 8, 2013 by ralis

[voidisyinyang]

Here is JMG's intro to his GreenWizard website/forum

 

 

 

 

 

****edit***

 

While we're at this one can always join Instructibles or the Maker culture. That is - taking things that one might not use much and use them to create something totally new (example: $10 eco washing mashine). Ditto for old electronics with the Maker culture..

 

There's even the Society of Primitive Technology that I used to be a member of.

 

Ah now I remember -- JMG used to have a Green Wizard website out of Chicago back around 2000 -- and I had my http://nonduality.com/hempel.htm posted there -- he published it as an article - and then the website vanished soon after. Kind of strange.

 

http://www.greenwizards.org/?q=forum

 

Yeah this is a new website by him -- so...

 

I found a book today that is Eastern -- a collection of "yoga meditaton" essays by Sivananda, etc. from the 1960s or so.... with a Buddhist focus.....

 

Yeah I'm in full lotus -- not since this a.m. so I'm just going to stay in full lotus since it feels too good. I could go get the book but anyway I'm just relaxing and recharging in full lotus.

 

So by too western - someone else made that comment about too eastern but actually my focus is on the original human culture for 90% of human history.

 

Qigong is really an affirmation of that original training with the boiling heat in the pit of the belly shooting up the spine and going down the arms as trance holographic love healing energy.

 

Yeah I mean the Green Wizards thing is a survivalist skill sharing site -- that's a good thing.

 

I mean I guess I was referring to JMG's more esoteric training -- with his readership -- if only he was promoting the small universe meditation exercise or if he met a real qigong master like Effie Chow -- to get the charge up. The whole Western esoteric "ritual magic" scene to me is just like Christian in dialectic reversal -- just as fake as the priests are but only with some fancy new words to it.

 

I mean intentions are crucial and also visualization but the Emptiness and resonating with it is a whole other layer with all the deeper psychophysiological transformations necessary.

 

But I realize that type of training is way too difficult -- and yet the original human culture relied on it for survival.

 

You know - how to go without food and very little water for say 2 months -- and yet not be hungry and even increase your energy and bliss and heal others.

 

I suppose -- like consider those fake ummm.... sun eaters -- breatharians -- they don't do hardly anything except claim to feed off the sun's energy.

 

Sure looking at the sun maybe just when it's low on the horizon at dawn and dusk -- it is o.k. for a little while - but it's not going to be the basis for becoming breatharian.

 

The sun meditation is the yang chi of the blood from the heart.

 

There is an electrogravitic connection so meditation is twice as strong from 11 to 1 -- twice every 24 hours -- based on the sun's opposite resonance for the upper and lower tan tien.

 

I mean this is real practical information but it doesn't get out in the Western "ritual magic" scene - not that I remember from JMG's coauthorship on that book. I'll see if it's on googlebooks....or amazon review.

[voidisyinyang]

This is exactly what JMG constantly talks about!

 

The only thing I know about at the moment vis-a-vis Green Wizardry is the GreenWizards forum he runs. The only reason I know there is a "program" of de-petroleumizing your living is because maybe once in a blue moon JMG will mention it briefly in his blog posts. But from what I've read from the responses of his readers who participate in it it sounds like a program that can take several years to make a full switch over. He actually inspires a not-small number of his readers to do what you do - LIVE "green" and thus their pocketbook signals it too.

 

Anyway I'm interested in joining them. I have only lately been looking into this stuff (as in just these past 2 weeks) seriously because I live on SSD in a small apt (550 sq ft) that's rather old for my town (ie early 1930s) and don't have any say in how the apt management company spends their budget on maintenance repairs and have zero land and space to grow my own food or catch, purify and store water. (I own those 2 latter books but it takes money and lots of space to do what they teach - two things I don't have). There's only so much one can do to 'greenify' property that's owned by someone else but if anyone can teach how I suspect it's all those Green Wizards.

 

Anyway - about JMG - there's his book The Long Descent which I'm about to check out from the library. Supposedly it's partly designed to help you ween yourself off of petroleum dependent living. I'm also currently reading his The Wealth of Nature: Economics as if Survival Mattered and am liking it quite a lot.

 

And there's his latest book Not the Future We Ordered: The Psychology of Peak Oil and the Myth of Eternal Progress which was published just last month. I'm hoping my library will pick it up soon.

 

There's also one other book I'm hoping to get via inter-library loan.

 

Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air

 

 

And Drew...You never answered my other question...is there such a thing as being "too Eastern" in one's lifestyle and PoV? Just curious...

 

You should be able to grow your own food if you just have a window in your place... I saw some design for that. I'm thinking -- it was some vertical grow design... hold on....

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/a-year-round-garden-using-a-vertical-hydroponic-farm-2012-11?op=1

 

yeah so plastic bottles? I don't know about phthalates leaching ...

 

http://verticalfoodblog.com/

 

http://www.ted.com/talks/britta_riley_a_garden_in_my_apartment.html

[ralis]

You should be able to grow your own food if you just have a window in your place... I saw some design for that. I'm thinking -- it was some vertical grow design... hold on....

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/a-year-round-garden-using-a-vertical-hydroponic-farm-2012-11?op=1

 

yeah so plastic bottles? I don't know about phthalates leaching ...

 

http://verticalfoodblog.com/

 

http://www.ted.com/talks/britta_riley_a_garden_in_my_apartment.html

 

 

Some friends of mine put up a little greenhouse with pvc pipe and white plastic. They grew greens all winter. On bitter cold days it was warm.

[voidisyinyang]

Some friends of mine put up a little greenhouse with pvc pipe and white plastic. They grew greens all winter. On bitter cold days it was warm.

 

Wow I should do that -- I kind of loathe buying all the plastic though. I know a lot of organic farmers use plastic but the leaching of phthlates is totally out of control now. A new study of organic food documented phthalate leaching from organic milk and organic spices -- from the processing.

 

I know the plastic is supposed to be heated up -- but I mean just the waste cycle of it all...

 

Yeah I have a cold frame -- which is plastic and wood but I didn't buy it - just found it here -- was on the house but it's not that big....

 

We had six inches of snow a few days ago but it's still drought conditions here for food growing in the spring....

 

Yeah I know hard core food growing can be done - using compost to heat the green houses for example.

 

There's a new aquaponics farm in Minnesota growing greens in the winter -- so Minnesota does not have to import greens from California.... it's a newly designed system -- proprietary - but will be expanded....

 

But that tilapia craze is a scam since they are corn fed and so low in Omega-3. Fish don't eat corn just like cows don't eat corn. haha. I know it's a type of grass but still - not like it used to be in the wild.

[ralis]

[joeblast]

I said 'can' which does not mean an absolute. Doesn't mean it will happen but has the potential.

 

Nice cut and paste from a right wing blog which gives no sources for the data in the above graphs. I get the impression you believe anyone who reads your stuff is naive. Posting unsupported, unverifiable data that is not peer reviewed is outside the domain of good research.

Hand in hand with potential is probability Something may be able to manifest amongst the 10,000 things, but the given set of circumstances may make the probability so low so as to be negligible. I suppose, see my previous Feynman quote, I just found the way you mentioned it there was the glaring omission of probability and context - not saying the butterfly effect doesnt exist at all, its just subject to the same laws and probabilities as everything else. i.e. the laws of nature (and not the theoretical musings of men with preconceived notions about how the world should work.)

 

I get the impression you're simply doing anything and everything you can to avoid actually discussing this. Those graphs are measurements of spectral lines, pretty standard stuff - but all you do is go look where it came from and immediately dismiss it. If you really want me to dig up sources on it it wont be too tough. Sure I do the same ignoring with regard to things that come from james hansen, but where this differs is that I'm actually backing it up, I've elaborated before on how they skew the GISS dataset, do I need to reiterate how and why? I dont go hide behind the peer review process and say if the analysis doesnt come from the official alarmist mouthpieces then its automatically crap. Truth stands of its own accord and enough data will simply rule out those theoretical musings that have significant components of reality missing from them.

[ralis]

Hand in hand with potential is probability Something may be able to manifest amongst the 10,000 things, but the given set of circumstances may make the probability so low so as to be negligible. I suppose, see my previous Feynman quote, I just found the way you mentioned it there was the glaring omission of probability and context - not saying the butterfly effect doesnt exist at all, its just subject to the same laws and probabilities as everything else. i.e. the laws of nature (and not the theoretical musings of men with preconceived notions about how the world should work.)

 

I get the impression you're simply doing anything and everything you can to avoid actually discussing this. Those graphs are measurements of spectral lines, pretty standard stuff - but all you do is go look where it came from and immediately dismiss it. If you really want me to dig up sources on it it wont be too tough. Sure I do the same ignoring with regard to things that come from james hansen, but where this differs is that I'm actually backing it up, I've elaborated before on how they skew the GISS dataset, do I need to reiterate how and why? I dont go hide behind the peer review process and say if the analysis doesnt come from the official alarmist mouthpieces then its automatically crap. Truth stands of its own accord and enough data will simply rule out those theoretical musings that have significant components of reality missing from them.

 

 

I was giving support to K and you butt in and make a big deal out of it! Your insistent use of terms; dataset, data points or whatever, is not convincing. Your narrative is not based on verified research and never will be. Politicizing the debate on AGW, is not a credible argument. Consistently attacking Dr. Hansen lends no credibility to the debate. Appealing to bloggers lends no credibility to the debate. Posting unverified graphs lends no credibility to the debate. Appealing to a great scientist as Feynman is supposed to lend credibility?

 

You seem to have some deep need to be absolutely right and while making everyone else absolutely wrong. I am not interested in playing into that scenario. The cosmos is far too complex and to create anthropocentric views which are small and rigid misses the point.

 

All of the forecasts in the AGW model are of a probability of <1. Your quest is to make your prediction absolutely = 1. That is the problem. The domain of science has no use for prophets.

 

 

 

Honestly, it is a waste of my time!

Edited March 8, 2013 by ralis

[joeblast]

Well, you could have simply come out and said you are not interested in hearing anything outside of what the AGW orthodoxy says. You clearly accept everything they say without a second question and dismiss anything not from the AGW community without a second thought. Sorry, but most of the argument against, regarding the topic here, rests on there being the fictional catastrophic positive feedback mechanism from co2. The models dont reproduce *any* of the nonlinear events that actually precipitate significant changes in climate - no predictions for volcanism, no predictions for changes in the solar cycle (coupled with a narrow view of solar irradiance,) no predictive ability for el nino la nina. You have nothing to say about those things? AGW orthodoxy says what about them? We neednt be concerned with those things because co2 drives the entire climate by now?

I disparage Hansen particularly because in my correspondence with him he was blatantly feeding me lines of BS in trying to assert that human influences had well overtaken solar influences are main drivers of the climate and "his equations proved it," as if his mathematical masturbation could be taken for reality. But one can easily do the same for the Manns, Briffas, Jonses of the community for bastardizing science and attempting to rid the climate record of the medeival warm period because it was "inconvenient data."

You disputing the existence of the MWP, too? Is that "unsanctioned data" also?

 

I dont have any "deep need" to be "absolutely right" - I'm asking pertinent questions and backing it up with data that contradicts the status quo story we've been fed over the last 30 some odd years. Questions that basically shoot enough holes in the AGW argument so as to call the good ol boy pal review climate science network into question. You're just refusing to even consider it because of the source of the data, and wont even so much as look at what's being pointed out. Blinders, much? That's why I asked you a bunch of times for substantive replies, because if you can back up what you believe and why, I could at least respect that. I dont respect someone simply thumbing their nose up at something like this for political reasons and not empirical reasons.

Edited March 8, 2013 by joeblast

[JustARandomPanda]

All of the forecasts in the AGW model are of a probability of <1. Your quest is to make your prediction absolutely = 1. That is the problem.

 

I know this was directed at JB but I don't see it that way. All I saw JB calling into question is the axioms used to get a probability of <1. I never saw him put forward a different axiom that would lead to an absolute = 1.

 

Also as far as I remember from logic class the source of a supporting argument or data is a separate issue from the argument itself.

 

It's my understanding that each argument will have at least one and possibly more axiom(s) that itself/themselves can not be proven. They're just givens and you proceed from there. And it was my understanding from reading JB's posts he's calling into question these axioms climate researchers are using, he's not putting forth a different alternative.

 

At the very least I think I'd like to see the group of original studies and their axioms that began to convince other researchers they were the correct axioms to start with and then proceeded to continue building into their research from there. For isn't this how researchers build up a body of work that they then begin to check against later? I don't know of any science currently where many researchers invent their axioms for an experiment each time from scratch.

[ralis]

I know this was directed at JB but I don't see it that way. All I saw JB calling into question is the axioms used to get a probability of <1. I never saw him put forward a different axiom that would lead to an absolute = 1.

 

Also as far as I remember from logic class the source of a supporting argument or data is a separate issue from the argument itself.

 

It's my understanding that each argument will have at least one and possibly more axiom(s) that itself/themselves can not be proven. They're just givens and you proceed from there. And it was my understanding from reading JB's posts he's calling into question these axioms climate researchers are using, he's not putting forth a different alternative.

 

At the very least I think I'd like to see the group of original studies and their axioms that began to convince other researchers they were the correct axioms to start with and then proceeded to continue building into their research from there. For isn't this how researchers build up a body of work that they then begin to check against later? I don't know of any science currently where many researchers invent their axioms for an experiment each time from scratch.

 

 

If you read his past posts in the pit on AGW then you will see my point. Witch stopped debating him because of his patronizing attitude toward her even though she has a B.S. in Math.

 

His argument appeals to junk science purveyors and is a rehash of what he gleans from a few blogs and in particular Anthony Watts who entertains AGW deniers. JB believes he has debunked Dr. Hansens work via email exchanges on AGW, by claiming that the sun is responsible for global warming as opposed to co2. That issue has been addressed by the research community and found to be baseless. Yet the denier crowd still holds this point of view.

 

If you care to read the data on the research, Google it. However, an understanding of non-linear chaotic dynamic systems will be required. The anti AGW crowd fails to understand the biosphere as such a system. When the forecasts slightly change, the research scientists are accused of manipulating the data. Such are baseless accusations given that such systems are sensitive to initial conditions with the only constant being change.

 

I don't believe for one minute given JB's past history on this issue that he wants to debate but slam me down for adhering to real science based on sound research. Seems more like an inquisition as opposed to debate.

 

Watts blog entertains junk science purveyors who cherry pick data to prove a point.

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

Edited March 8, 2013 by ralis

[joeblast]

pretty much.

 

too-heavy coefficients being used to describe stuff. too much weight on aerosol cooling led to too much weight on co2 cooling - all done "to make the equations describe reality a little better," only the problem is, the aerosol coefficient was kept high and a solution was sought in another coefficient instead of calling into question the true extent of aerosol cooling - I know hansen didnt want to toss out almost a decade of work he'd done when he made that choice, but in not doing so he was raping the scientific method.

 

I can understand someone still believing this AGW stuff as recently as 10 years ago or so, but by this point in time its just a laughing stock, they're trying to keep their abandoned fundamentals just like the federal reserve is keeping it abandoned fundamentals of the stock market, keeping everything afloat on...ahem,...hot air. especially in light of the climategate scandal - the AGW community was entirely focused on how those documents were obtained rather than what was contained within them, were they obtained illegally, how can we keep our stuff away from those pesky FOIA requests. that's just shady, man.

[ralis]

pretty much.

 

too-heavy coefficients being used to describe stuff. too much weight on aerosol cooling led to too much weight on co2 cooling - all done "to make the equations describe reality a little better," only the problem is, the aerosol coefficient was kept high and a solution was sought in another coefficient instead of calling into question the true extent of aerosol cooling - I know hansen didnt want to toss out almost a decade of work he'd done when he made that choice, but in not doing so he was raping the scientific method.

 

I can understand someone still believing this AGW stuff as recently as 10 years ago or so, but by this point in time its just a laughing stock, they're trying to keep their abandoned fundamentals just like the federal reserve is keeping it abandoned fundamentals of the stock market, keeping everything afloat on...ahem,...hot air. especially in light of the climategate scandal - the AGW community was entirely focused on how those documents were obtained rather than what was contained within them, were they obtained illegally, how can we keep our stuff away from those pesky FOIA requests. that's just shady, man.

 

 

Serene Blue,

 

The above statement says it all as to why I don't take him seriously. Terms such as coefficients used out of context with no reference to the researched data that one may find in journals such as 'Nature' and so on. Generally calling the scientific community laughing stocks No data or research whatsoever with baseless accusations.

[joeblast]

stay away from that substance, man. it'll kill ya.

 

 

or at least it will do so to your argument.

 

 

you've had a million and one chances and you step away every single time.