Paella wrote on Feb 13^th, 2010 at 1:43pm:

Soren wrote on Feb 12^th, 2010 at 7:12am:


Actually there is a sad irony in that. It's a bit like saying that if all you can do is counter solid science with inconsistent half truths and cherry picking, and mischaracterise your opponent as being part of a global Marxist Maoist Trotskyist, Chicken Littleist, Aleister Crowleyist, (add your favourite -ist) Leftist plot............... then you have clearly lost the argument and are left with nothing but name calling.  

Soren wrote on Feb 13^th, 2010 at 6:10pm:


I have long held the view that a carbon tax is a far better solution that carbon trading. I have no argument there.

Quote:


So it sounds like you have more of a problem with the sales pitch (wtf?) than the idea itself.

All that concerns me are the facts. I'm not concerned with political arrogance or the obvious conclusion that you don't have the slightest clue about scientific principles. I have supplied a reasonably concise explanation in the 'sticky' 'climate change explained' section, and so far  you haven't come up with anything to actually counter any of that. After having (reasonably patiently if I may say so) done my best to explain the basics of radiative forcing, going into some detail of why it stems  from a fundamental property of the carbon dioxide molecule, the best you can do is to shriek in a Hansonesque manner (Pauline that is)  "I don't like it!",  "I don't buy  it" or "AGW is crap" without offering any explanation for why you think that is the case.

Your main problem is that you just think that you're winning the argument. Perhaps you would be more gainfully employed here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYFQZFL0yoo

Quote:


Let's face it, you'd be right at home in the society of George Orwell's 1984.

Ignorance is strength, comrade.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Every time I use the word comrade, I am reminded of the use of the term tóngzhì ( 同志) in the PRC. It's a little bit dated to call everyone comrade these days. In China, if you call somebody tóngzhì, the worst they think of you is that you're a bit behind the times. However  in Taiwan, it's a totally different ballgame. If somebody calls you tóngzhì in a bar in Taipei city, you're in the wrong kind of bar, and you should get out of there quick-fast being sure not to turn your back on anyone   - unless, that is, you happen to bat for the other team.

So maybe paella is right. It's really not worth 'debating' with climate pseudoskeptics. They even have a totally different language and a whole newly engineered way of thinking. When you say something that's perfectly straightforward, it will get spat out at you in a strangely mangled form.

It is however worth correcting nonsense so that it doesn't go completely unchallenged.

I have just caught up with this on my pod. A fertile discussion, even when it prompts 'yes, but...'


In his new book, Why We Disagree About Climate Change, top British climate scientist Mike Hulme wants to understand climate change as a psychological and cultural force. Anthropologist Jonathan Marshall has just edited a provocative collection of Jungian perspectives on climate change. They join Natasha Mitchell to discuss mythology, mental ecology and a changing climate.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/allinthemind/stories/2009/2746165.htm

Paella wrote on Feb 15^th, 2010 at 3:24pm:



Muso, Mozz,  you have 'im, you keep 'im.

And, er, good luck 

Congratulations soren lorenson, you have managed to cite a more ridiculous authority than Christopher Monckton. Quite an achievement!

Now, any peer reviewed scientific research?

No?

Good.