Friday, May 18, 2012

We need two new earths or we'll die (poll) - TOWN HALL - Colorado Springs Gazette, CO

Do you believe the following statement? "We will need two Earths by 2030." Vote in poll to the right. Must vote to see results.

Is the holocaust denial/climate change denial comparison apt? : denialism blog

I don't contribute to the literature, and I don't have the technical expertise needed to challenge real climate scientists that are the true experts in this field. I am something of an expert in crankery though, so when you have cranks like Christopher Monckton, who asserts he's a member of parliament when he's not (they even had to send him a letter telling him to stop), who routinely makes the same debunked arguments over and over, and makes other bizarre claims like that he's discovered a cure for HIV, then I'm going to weigh in and call bullshit. Part of the problem is the Dunning-Kruger effect, people who are incompetent have a great deal of difficulty recognizing competence in others, while inflating estimates of their own competence. Cranks and denialists are probably incapable of judging whether someone is a legitimate source or authority. This is where crank magnetism comes from, as long as an "expert" agrees with them, their otherwise ludicrous views and behavior have no bearing. Intellectual consistency and expertise in the field in question has no relevance in their eyes as long as they spout out BS that fits with their ideological biases... Climate change denialism does not meet the standards for legitimate debate, it relies on conspiracy theories, bogus experts, cherry-picked data, crank journals, and appeals to the almighty.

Is New Green Law Creating More Green for Logging Companies? | NBC Bay Area

While Cap and Trade is being sold as the first step towards reversing global warming, NBC Bay Area's Investigative Unit discovered some critics who point to the very law and say there are loopholes built into it that allow the program to be "gamed" to make some companies millions of dollars without significant benefits to the environment or significant reductions in greenhouse gases.

...

Basically, these critics say the logging companies benefit twice under the current Cap and Trade rules, first by cutting the trees, then by getting paid through carbon offsets to r

"You hear the critics," Stock said. "If you're doing business as usual how do the rules improve the environment if you're not taking more carbon out of the air?"

"Right," Young answered. "But you're not doing business as usual. We have very strict rules. You have to grow trees bigger, you have to manage the trees better."

Companies that harvest timber like Sierra Pacific Industries, also known as SPI, admit they stand to gain tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars through carbon offsets.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Climate change denialism does not meet the standards for legitimate debate..."

Spoken like a true climate cult fundamentalist. One obvious thing to me about the "denial blog" linked is the use of the fallacial argument from authority. He even trots out the Dunning-Kruger effect, the irony of which seems completely lost on him.

Anonymous said...

Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius is credited as developing the greenhouse theory. If the denialism blog wants to dismiss all of Monckton's arguments as those of a crank, shouldn't the blog also call bullshit on Arrhenius' belief that electricity "perfected" the growth of children? Arrhenius was also a member of The Swedish Society for Racial Hygiene. Yep. Eugenics. I'm seeing a pattern here with CAGW believers.

Brian G Valentine said...

"We will need two Earths by 2030."

PUT ALL THE FRUIT LOOPS ON THE SECOND ONE AND KEEP THEM THERE