There is no consensus evidence that Hurricane Gustav’s power is being increased by global warming. I crash Ludd Joe Romm on his blog which argues that once again, evil industrial emissions which have warmed the earth will kill innocent New Orleans denizens.
Joe,
There’s enough valid skepticism about whether global warming increases hurricane power that makes your public case for CO2 abortion nothing more than propaganda disguised as science.
Refutations or counter-evidence to your theory is on http://cei.org/pdf/5817.pdf
and
http://www.agu.org/ pubs/ crossref/ 2007/ 2006GL028836.shtmlThe first is from CEI, admittedly an anti-AGW alarmism org, but with science cited nevertheless, and the second is from Geophysical Research Letters, not a partisan tank as far as I know.
Your snake oil won’t replace real oil, Joe. You’ve lost credibility because you just couldn’t stick to science, and compete on that field, you had to go ahead and enter the policy arena without consensus from your peers. Who’s to believe your science posts are not biased by your mystical chanting about choking current technologies before new ones are market-competitive economically viable substitutes?
You’re a Ludd, Joe, you are already killing growth by creating fear of investment in industry which is on it’s way to being overregulated and de facto nationalized. Ludds hurt our chances to survive as a species. Please do not breed anymore, Joe, we can’t afford more Ludds in the genepool.
Curious, what underlies your Luddism? I’m guessing Technophobia (Turdeating), or Socialism (Statesucking).
Joey Panto
The Luddhunter
www.joeypanto.com
August 31, 2008 at 1:16 pm |
Looks like a spike job…I’m giving Joe one more day to post my comment. Here’s my offer:
Joe,
I’ll give you another day to post my comment, and I’ll even invite you on my podcast (equal time promised) to make your case that there is consensus on AGW causing hurricane power to increase.
Don’t be a pussy, post my neanderthal comments and respond with class and don’t waste your time tell me how much science you know (wrong tack, i’m not arguing science, i’m arguing consensus), since YOU decided to come in the policy mudpen without consensus, not me.
To not respond is to admit you’re dogmatic and overtaken by Pope Gore’s shaman spell and don’t listen to credible dissent form you peers (not me, the science I cited).