An interesting item from my site meter--I saw that someone arrived at my "graphs" page, with a referring URL from this comment (below) on Joe Romm's blog. By the time I looked at the comment, I found no link to my blog, but I did find the interesting edit in bold:
Comment: Climate Progress » Blog Archive » Top 5 reasons Chu is a great energy pick — #1: “It’s not guaranteed we have a solution for coal”
And if your case is so strong, why would you go out of your way to prevent people from checking out my blog?
Comment: Climate Progress » Blog Archive » Top 5 reasons Chu is a great energy pick — #1: “It’s not guaranteed we have a solution for coal”
groweg Says:Hey Joe: Exactly how do each of these graphs qualify as "long-debunked disinformation"?
December 15th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Chu apparently wants us to forego new fossil fuel energy development in favor of pie-in-the-sky solar and wind energy. We would likely sink into third-world economic status or worse before his favored energy sources were developed. Such a futile policy is in line with a CO2 driven global warming theory that is built on falsified climate records and disporoven “science.” For some of many web-based sources see:
[Links to long-debunked disinformation deleted.]
Increasingly, as the world is entering a period of global cooling, even everyday observation of the world around us falsifies the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis Chu foolishly espouses.
[JR: You have come to the wrong website. We rely on science, not anti-science. And we’re desperately trying to save future generations, including your descendents, from decades and centuries of misery despite your best efforts to the contrary.]
And if your case is so strong, why would you go out of your way to prevent people from checking out my blog?
Update: In my comment section (below), Romm now makes this astonishing claim:
Your graphs are closer to what I would call misinformation or non-information, in that they have little or no relevance to the climate discussion.Check out the graphs and decide for yourself.
Posts
3 comments:
I didn't check out all of his links, once I saw a couple of the others were about the nonsense that we haven't warmed since 1998.
Your graphs are closer to what I would call misinformation or non-information, in that they have little or no relevance to the climate discussion.
I am not really trying to make a "case" -- I am primarily trying to inform people about the implications of the science, the solutions, and the politics. I have explained many times on my website that is not a productive use of my time to debunk this stuff for the 100th time.
Congratulations, Tom. If Romm deletes you it confirms your blog is too dangerous for his kool-aid drinking readers to be allowed to be exposed to.
Can't really comment on the graphs except I think it's a mistake to read anything into increasing ice at the south pole.
Warming brings more ice and snow to the south pole. It's not as if it's anywhere near the melting point down there. It's something like -30 on the warmest day of the year. If it goes to -25 they just get more snow and ice.
Post a Comment