Comments on: James Randi EF supporting AGW denialism again?

By: orjin krem

orjin krem — Fri, 08 Apr 2011 15:50:30 +0000

Orjin Krem Bitki Ã¶zlerinin mikro Ã¶lÃ§Ã¼lerde birleÅ?tirilmesi ile elde edilmiÅ? naturel bir Ã¼rÃ¼ndÃ¼r.
Orjin Krem Emilimi Ã§ok gÃ¼Ã§lÃ¼ olduÄ?undan etkisini dakikalar iÃ§erisinde gÃ¶sterir.
Orjin Krem Bitki Ã¶zleri sayesinde kaslarÄ±n rahatlamasÄ±na ve gerilimin giderilmesine yardÄ±mcÄ± olur.
Orjin Krem 100 ML ve 25 ML set olarak satÄ±lmaktadÄ±r.
Orjin Krem iki kutu bir arada bir kutu iÃ§erisindedir holagram bulunmaktadÄ±r.
Orjin Krem alÄ±ndÄ±ktan sonra bandrollÃ¼ sayesinde sahte olup olmadÄ±Ä?Ä±nÄ± kontrol edebilirsiniz.

By: Ben Wolf

Ben Wolf — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 19:48:14 +0000

Reason doesn’t deny Anthropogenic Global Warming, it simply opposes any effort to mitigate its effects. Ronald Bailey, the magazine’s science “correspondent” takes the tack of misrepresenting and selectively reading virtually every study on the subject.

By: highnumber

highnumber — Sun, 17 Oct 2010 15:08:27 +0000

Greg,
Ideas are transmitted through media. Now I see how I could have missed this brilliant solution.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Sat, 16 Oct 2010 14:01:59 +0000

highnumber: Is media coverage your criterion for knowledge? Interesting.

The problem is the release of fossil carbon into the existing carbon cycle. The solution is to stop releasing carbon into the existing carbon cycle then find some god that works and pray to it that the excess carbon returns to some carbon sink in time for the oceans to not lower too much in pH to support aerobic life on this planet.

By: highnumber

highnumber — Sat, 16 Oct 2010 13:56:28 +0000

Cedric,
It sounds like you know of a magic bullet for AGW. I must admit that I missed the media coverage of this spectacular foolproof solution that ends the need for debate. What exactly is it?

By: Chas

Chas — Sat, 16 Oct 2010 09:42:24 +0000

Sure. But it’s a legitimate opinion. Now that we’ve balanced the local federal budget and worked out a system to achieve world peace, lets work on stopping AND reversing global CLIMATE fluctuations so that will stop changing too.

By: Cedric Katesby

Cedric Katesby — Sat, 16 Oct 2010 02:41:00 +0000

As the evidence piled up, the denialists disappeared.

Who disappeared?
Name names.

Who, from the Reason team, walked away in disgust due to a pro AGW stance being adopted by the entire staff?

Who are the new, young fire-brands that are very pro-science and are not prepared to hem and haw over the issue?
Who?
Judging by the archived articles from yesteryear, the same names are still around.

These days the differences of opinion at Reason have to do with how to deal with global warming, not with whether it’s happening.

It’s the same dogs, but with different fleas.

The traditional denialist and the “more nuanced” denialist both have the same end-game.

Do Nothing.

It used to be flat out denial:

“Nope, it’s not happening. So Do Nothing”.

Now it’s ‘nuanced’:

“Okay, maybe it’s happening. If you squint real hard, maybe it’s happening. No denial here. No Sirree! Yet sadly, and most unfortunately, the problem is too big/small/undefined/complicated/expensive/statist/leftist to do anything about. Oh look, CLIMATEGATE!!! So Do Nothing.”

Every single article connected with AGW by reason.com has a “yeah but…”.
Every single article looks for that all important shadow of doubt.
All the while they carefully phrase things to maintain plausible deniablity that they are not really being exactly deniers.
They damn AGW with faint praise.

They’ve written dozens of articles in exactly the same pattern. It’s no coincidence.

The dog-whistle blows loud and clear.

By: peanutbutter

peanutbutter — Sat, 16 Oct 2010 00:48:43 +0000

Reason ran a mix of views on climate change when I started reading it about 20 years ago, when denialism was more defensible. As the evidence piled up, the denialists disappeared. These days the differences of opinion at Reason have to do with how to deal with global warming, not with whether it’s happening.

By: PicassoIII

PicassoIII — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 22:45:12 +0000

This may (or not) help clarify ‘who’ Reason is.
http://reason.com/archives/2008/10/29/whos-getting-your-vote/singlepage
Barr got my vote.
As for a former president who i dislike (no physical harm please): While Wilson was a eugenicist/racist/statist douche, i have a very personal beef with FDR. He sold out my dad’s family at Yalta.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Keelhaul
Reason is of course in the Koch’s pocket to a point. Yet let’s not forget that David also supports PBS’s NOVA.

By: lunchstealer

lunchstealer — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 22:12:32 +0000

Also, Greg, re: insults, I think most of the libertarians you’re seeing here see ‘neocon’ as an insult. Libertarians and neocons found common cause during the Cold War because both opposed socialism and communism, and there are still some common threads in that both oppose Iranian- and Taliban-style theocracy. Hence those libertarians and Reasonoids who supported the wars early on. But as Bush got further and further out of hand, the libertarian/neocon divide deepened. Reason’s staff went about 25% McCain, 30% whoever-was-the-LP-guy, and 35% Obama, IIRC. Well, of those who didn’t endorse principled-non-voting.