“CARMA’s model generates illogical results….It shows that natural gas plants are three times more carbon intensive than coal–UNLIKELY”

Yeah? And why?

“UNLIKELY because natural gas doesn’t have as much carbon as coal that can be released during combustion!!!”

OK, Now I know this guy’s a fucking moron: natural gas is often transported in liquified form, and liquifying it consumes a lot of energy, which in many cases derives mostly from fossile fuel sources.

CARMA’s numbers might be bad, but how does that hurt us if they aren’t official? In any case, this guy doesn’t know his energy models from his ass.

And he claims “peer review”? Unless his peers are teenagers in malls in San Fernando valley malls, one of more of them would have asked to have the triple exclamation points removed.

Nice try, Woody. But you still don’t know how to do a sniff test.

Here’s a good site for agw debate and for you to understand skeptics: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/

This is a Marxist take:
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4196/

What I do see is that many of the global warming alarmists have the goal of killing capitalism, and they use global warming claims as that tool. Their motivations aren’t to save the world but to implement their own Marxist plans. Shouldn’t economic theory be debated on the merits of options rather than made-up issues?

I stumbled upon this write-up the other day. It isn’t famous, but it is an example of what I see coming from the left.

,a href=”http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2008/05/375571.shtml”>Limits of Private Property
“Global capitalism in its current form is increasingly losing legitimacy. Uneasiness grows over the economic model that produces gigantic riches for a minority and social exclusion for more and more people and leads directly to climate catastrophe. …Social justice and protection of the atmosphere are increasingly serious themes in the debates over minimum wage and in the pleas of the SPD (Social-Democratic party in Germany) and the Greens for credible initiatives in social policy. The chance of taking a further step in delegitimating the present economic order lies in these changes. Who owns what and what can he do with his possession? “

(Yes yes, I’m a heretic, burn me)

That said, you are taking the opposite point of view - that if “greens” (not Earth First or real green groups by the way, those who prefer, say, to ensure that coal mines aren’t built, for example) say something, then you have to say the opposite.

If I were to say that yes, climate change is real, and most likely caued by humans, but the big deals are being made about it partially out of alarmism and partially to empower land-owning forces like the British Royal Family, old pre-captialist artistocrats that want to limit industrial development, would that square the circle?

The root here is capitalism. “Green capitalism” is heavily invested in by Gore etc. He wants his investments to work. At the same time, other secctors of capital prefer not to do a thing. Truth is, both sides won’t take the real leap of faith and realize it is the institution itself.

We humans have come to a pretty pass when the end of the world is more easy to imagine then the end of capitalism.

Blessed are the sceptics
In 1633 Galileo Galilei was hauled before the religious authorities of his day, the Inquisition, for daring to concur with Copernicus that the Earth was not the centre of the universe and also that it orbited the sun rather than the other way around. For his pains, he was placed under house arrest and forced to recant. Giordano Bruno failed to recant and suffered a crueller fate.

Today we are faced with a newer religion known as environmental activism which has insinuated itself into some aspects of science. It shares some of the intolerance to new or challenging ideas with the old. Immolation at the stake is no longer fashionable but it has been replaced by pillory in the media.

Give it up. Look at the true science rather than tweaked models and articles from Newsweek.

BLACK DAYS FOR BRITISH GREENS: NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE ANYMORE
An amusing cry of woe from an ecofascist below. The Fascists versus the people and the people look like having the last say

You’re wrong.

The Clintons aren’t taking this to the convention.

In fact, there is one undeniably world-renowned scientist profiled in that book: Freeman Dyson. Trouble is, even Dyson admits that human-released CO2 is at least a major factor in global warming.

But consistency doesn’t matter to these people. Lawrence Solomon, the book’s author, claims the support of an undeniably major statistician (but not even a scientist, much less climatologist) in revealing “The Case of the Missing Hockey Stick” (i.e., a general trend of ever-increasing global warming.) However, in the same article for Canada’s National post, he quotes that same statistician implicitly admitting that the statistical errors he found made no difference in the results. And they don’t — you still get Hockey Stick out of every significant climate model running.

People reading this stuff don’t notice the contradiction? That should give you a handle on the mentality of the people who like to read this stuff.

The only world-renowned climatologists I know of are Dr. Albert Gore and Dr. Leonardo DiCaprio.

More influential than Peter Singer?

Oh, but what about all the World Renowned Scientists in The Deniers. We have to call them world renowned. Otherwise, there’s no chance anybody will ever hear about most of them, and the global economy will be destroyed by the estimated 1% global GDP outlay required to combat global warming and its effects. Utterly destroyed. Shattered, I tell you.

(This message brought to you by the World Renowned Michael Turner.)

Of course, I’ll admit it, Woody. As soon as you come up with that history of bloodletting describing how it was tested in double-blind controlled studies before it was used on George Washington. And since you’re an expert on what science is, I’m sure you went and fact-checked your statements on this point before letting fly with them. So give it up, Woody. Give me that evidence.

What then should we call 90% of hard working black folk voting much higher along racial lines? Oh, Mr. “My major area of research is jibing historical materialism with genetic discoveries of non-contingent aspects of human objectivity” proclaims reverse racism is not possible. Thanks for the jibing jibberish.

And btw, Obama was doing very well with white folks before his stupid bitter statement, and his kooky 20 year Raving Racist Rev surfaced.

Sure Hil would have been better off leaving it at just ‘hard working people’ in this highly sensitive, highly racist, highly f—ked up party. You just can’t be spontaneous and speak clearly. It has to be run through a pc ’sensitivity’ machine, else your plain speak common sense ass is going to get run through, one way or the other. Pathetic.