Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
It went out today at 10:20 PDT:
Greetings. I was really interested in your story, and I’d really like to feature this in my blog.
But before I do I’d like to get ahold of the evidence that supports the following two claims in your story, specifically, about carbon dioxide:
1. That it is “produced mainly from burning fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas”;
2. That it “is the chief pollutant blamed for global warming.”Both of these claims were made in the same sentence, and I see there is ambiguity involved in both of them because they both could be subject to multiple interpretations. Mainly — among human activities, not natural ones, that produce CO2? Chief pollutant…in terms of effectiveness as a greenhouse gas? Blamed…by who?
Your story doesn’t revisit these claims after making them, so I wanted to get clarification before writing it up. Thanks so much in advance.
Morgan K Freeberg
House of Eratosthenes
www.peekinthewell.net/blog
Sent in regard to the story here.
Haven’t got a reply yet…
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I suspect, if you were to get an answer, the answer to #1 would contain a lot of references to articles where people have made the same assertation without anything but a theory and speculation to back it.
In answer to #2, they left themselves lots of wiggle room by using “blamed for” because now the impetus for being correct is shifted to those doing the blaming.
I imagine they’d point to statements the IPCC, the political body whose very existence would be threatened by asserting anything else, and various articles that echo the blaming.
But what, in the end, are they basing the blame on?
That is the question. (I know, a lot of people thing “To be, or not to be” is the question … but they’re wrong) 😉
- philmon | 05/02/2008 @ 21:56One of my favorite questions about carbon dioxide is “what would happen if we just waved a magic wand and freakin’ doubled it?” Which would mean 768 molecules per million molecules of atmosphere.
I expect the “global temperature” would…just sit there. Maybe trickle up a fraction of a degree over a couple years.
The ice shelves would just stay where they are.
The scientists would say “well yeah, we knew that.” And the people WOULD say “What??? What about those climate models???” …if they were told about all this. But they wouldn’t be. Nine out of ten of us wouldn’t even know the CO2 saturation doubled overnight.
But my idle speculation isn’t what really fascinates me about this.
What really fascinates me about this is how little it is discussed…in terms of raw numbers…384 doubling to 768. It is supposed to be what gives us nightmares, keeps us all awake at night, as we try to find more ways to save carbon after swapping out every light bulb in the house. But no. People don’t KNOW the numbers, and they don’t care.
The “Morgan Rule” applies. Environmentalism is all about communication. Like a mating ritual, of sorts. It has bubkes to do with saving or protecting anything in what we conventionally call “the environment.”
- mkfreeberg | 05/02/2008 @ 22:07I’m thinking you’ll get a reply about that time Al Gore starts fielding the same kind of questions…
- Ricksteroni | 05/03/2008 @ 10:10The first law of thermodynamics is that energy can’t not created or destroyed.
I’m looking at this title, “Ocean Cooling to Briefly Halt Global Warming” — has me wondering….
If the ocean cools, it is releasing energy. According to the article, it’s because of “shifting” ocean currents.
For the ocean to cool, that energy has to go to one of four places. 1) cooler water in the ocean — in which case the ocean isn’t cooling. 2) melting ocean ice … which technically isn’t cooling but I could see that slowing atmospheric warming — (but that’s not mentioned in the article), 3) to the atmosphere, which would mean a warmer atmosphere and not cooling… or 4) out of the system to outer space through the iris effect as noted by Lindzen et. al.
If you run models out that assume that CO2 is a major driving factor in global warming … and you don’t reduce CO2 … if you run that out long enough, well of course the warming will win out. Duh.
But as Things I Know #3 (Phil’s List, not Morgan’s) says:
It sounds to me like this is an early attempt to deflect the fact that the earth hasn’t warmed in the last 10 years, and may very well not warm for the next 40. It’s an attempt to dismiss it from the conversation (familiar, consistent tactic of the left). It is basically flat out saying “the fact that the earth isn’t warming doesn’t mean it isn’t warming.”
I mean that’s about word for word what is being said here:
Plucked that right from the article. Insanity.
- philmon | 05/06/2008 @ 17:30