Comments on: Climate Denialists Smear, Taunt Liberal Blogger

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 23:29:05 +0000

Dennis, they are close enough to being the same. No serious scientist questions the A part of AGW. None of this has anything to do with religion.

Current deniers of the A in AGW are like ID’ers to creationism.

But worse, because denying the A in AGW is nothing, absolutely nothing, other than selling out one’s fellow human and the planet for profit.

By: Dennis

Dennis — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 22:07:44 +0000

Good grief.
When are people like MadScientist (I believe the first part, but not the last)[and that was a joke btw] going to accept that questioning AGW does NOT necessarily mean questioning GW.
It really doesn’t.
There is no need to continually polarise the debate between ‘Believers’ and ‘Deniers’ – it really isn’t religion…

By: Richard Chapman

Richard Chapman — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 14:53:18 +0000

It took me a while to find it but here it is: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0273868/

I saw that episode of “The Name of the Game” in the early 70’s. It was quite memorable. As I recall, a recurring “dead spot” in some ocean didn’t fade away one season. It grew, and just kept on growing until it sucked up all the atmospheric oxygen. For 1970’s television “LA 2017” is beginning to look terribly prophetic.

By: Jack Jackson

Jack Jackson — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 13:23:50 +0000

The oceanic plankton dying out is a huge problem. I think there should be some serious research done to find the reasons, because I don’t know of any proof that this is global warming. This may be pollution as well.

By: Marion Delgado

Marion Delgado — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 11:13:48 +0000

Also, this is partly RW infighting. The billionaire who owns the “examiner.com” pseudo-news-sites is also the owner of the Weekly Standard. He’s trying to create a slightly less overt Murdoch system online. The examiner.coms are mostly a sort of modified Matt Drudge model.

Since they’re not in the Murdoch orbit, it makes perfect sense a Fox vehicle would attack a blogger there, especially if he approaches heterodoxy.

By: Marion Delgado

Marion Delgado — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 10:58:48 +0000

Greg:

With the NYT’s Virginia Heffernan putting her shoulder to the anti-science wheel, someone should win the Internets by writing something like

“Yes, Virginia, there IS an objective reality!”

By: MadScientist

MadScientist — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 22:14:26 +0000

But – there isn’t even any such thing as climate, so how can the earth be warming?

Such fools can be found throughout history. Basically, many people are content with the Status Quo and will grumble about change and some will vehemently oppose change for any number of reasons ranging from the religious through the selfish to just plain “I like things the way they are”. In the corporate world there is a rampant belief that change = loss of profits. Hey, just look at some of the BIG computer companies like DEC – Intel and IBM started making much cheaper and very capable processors and DEC just disappeared; SUN eventually disappeared as well. That change thing will kill your business – so keep things the way they are. Drill, baby, drill!

By: Tony Sidaway

Tony Sidaway — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 21:55:52 +0000

I can’t say I care for this Steve Andrews chap’s style of blogging or the website he uses (I clicked on an inline quote and it popped up some kind of commercial advertisement). But the subject he writes about is a serious one and should not be discounted. The Dalhousie study seems kosher and is very worrying.