ornerynorsk
Industrial
- Feb 5, 2002
- 3,198
Take that, Mr. Gore.
It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It’s this categorical rejecting of all things climate science (well except when it’s about cooling temperatures or arctic sea ice “recovery”) that I find incredibly unscientific.
Three of the blogs that you reference (SkS, RC, and Tamino) all have very aggressive moderation approaches, whereby posts that disagree with the blog owner are removed, or in the case of SkS, even changed without the writer's consent. In the end, they are echo chambers without any "good arguments". This intolerance for dissenting opinions is why I would classify all of those blogs as "untrustworthy". I have submitted very reasonable (in my opinion - no claims of fascism or subterfuge, etc) questions (not opinions, just questions) directly pertaining to facts and opinions offered by authors in both SkS and RC. My questions never saw the light of day. Why? Because they were counter-dogma, or at least questioning the dogma.rconnor said:Look through the comments (yes, sometimes they are a cesspool of dogma and childish banter…read the comments of a Monkton article on WUWT for a great example of this). A lot of times, good arguments about the article with appear in the comments. The communities have some very educated people that will detail counter-points to the article and others will provide a rebuttal to those. You can, sometimes, learn a lot more about the articles strengths and weaknesses by reviewing the comments.
Actually, I find this point the most amusing: Cap and trade was the conservative republican, free-market solution to traditional emissions limits. It was a concept created by the hard-core, free-market, Reagan republicans to get the government out of the business of telling each company how much they could emit. Instead, the companies could trade credits amongst themselves (company to company, no involvement by Wall Street) so that the emissions reductions occurred wherever they could be accomplished most efficiently. But, if exactly the same solution is proposed by the current president or by Democrats, they declare it to be government mandated fascism.
TenPenny said:Since they were first conceived, I saw them as a way for Wall St to find yet another vehicle to skim off profits...
JohnRBaker
Quote (TenPenny)
Since they were first conceived, I saw them as a way for Wall St to find yet another vehicle to skim off profits...
Yep, there's no question about it; this had to have been the brainchild of a bunch of free-trade, Right-wing Republicans.
Looks like gasoline consumption is falling since 2005.