News Boulderites can use – Seven global warming alarmist setbacks in 2013 | The Daily Caller. No I’m not gonna spoon feed it to you, click on the link.
-
“Damn” was her audible response
I recently heard a surprising story: A female CEO was briefed on a stellar candidate for a top job at her company. “Sounds ideal,” she said to the group in the room. “Male or female?” Male was the answer. “Damn” was her audible response. The guy wasn’t even interviewed. Why Are Men SilentSearch BIS
DuckDuckGoPrivacy
Goolag T Shirt
Men On Strike
- “This has been the coldest season with the most ice since we started Arctic Watch in 2000. Almost no whales. The NWPassage is still blocked with ice. Some of the bays still have not melted!”
Richard weber, owner/operater Arctic Watch Generation Screwed
And rather than follow the conventional path of indebting yourself for 13-years so that you can attend university for four, and then fork over the bulk of your pay to the government, instead focus on learning tangible, valuable skills overseas.Government Cheese
FIRM
Boulder County Fairness in Road Maintenance (FIRM) On November 5, 2013, residents and property owners of subdivisions in unincorporated Boulder County will go to the polls to vote on 5C. A group of your fellow citizens has banded together to provide you, our neighbors, with facts and information about why you should vote NO on this tax increase. To learn more, click on the button below.-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Clifford Norman on Against Doomsdayism
- pushin p on
- Mark on
- ChrisA on
- Mark on
Archives
I think it helps a lot if people begin with some basics of rational argument. Though the article I link to here is not up to the quality I’d like, it’s still on the right track. If they can’t accept something like that, there’s no point in going further with them.
From there, I think it’s more valuable to tell people that if they want to understand why “deniers” don’t think CAGW is happening they should first understand thermodynamics, and then they should look at what’s being said about AGW as a theory, and see if the people promoting this idea can back the theory with observations that enlighten them about how our climate system works. A key indicator of something being of scientific value is if it helps you learn something new about the nature of our universe. If it can’t do that, then it is of little value, and is probably flawed.
If people want to understand the alarmist argument, I’ve found James Delingpole’s arguments to be insightful in that regard. He’s said that the vast majority of what people see as AGW advocacy online is produced by people with nothing more than English literature degrees, or people who tried to be scientists, but didn’t quite cut it in their professional lives. I think he’s on to something with that analysis.
People have to own this knowledge. Anything less, and they will be swayed at some point down the line by the latest “confidence artist” who can convince people that, “They know what they’re talking about, and I should only listen to them.” Unfortunately the Daily Caller article takes the tack that, “These authorities report contrary to AGW theory, therefor the AGW premise is false.” The problem with that argument is the people who maintain that AGW has legs will insist that all of these sources are somehow compromised–they’re being untruthful. I’ve seen too many times where alarmists wipe away a perfectly good argument by attacking the messenger, or by saying, “It’s not a reliable source.” It comes down to “my authority vs. your authority, ” which is as bad as, “He said, she said.”