Reply To: Where did my post go?

[Brian H]

Rezwan wrote:
…

As for opportunistically leveraging the Greenie-Scare environment to fund FF, be VERY careful which dogs you lie down with. People like Chu may not just give you fleas, but turn and tear your throat out if you seem to be undercutting their agendas. And FF would in fact render his entire agenda irrelevant. Beware!

Yeah, see, there’s that fear again. You seem like a very fearful person. You scare me more than greenies. With greenies, I nod for a while, acknowledging their fears of warming – but then talk about policies, and use that Bjorn Lomborg approach to get them to relax on the extreme policy responses, and move to more sensible responses. It doesn’t panic me. Didn’t expect COP to pass the scary stuff.

But with you…it’s just all fear. And the need to jail greenies and defund interesting energy saving research? I’d like a world with more research of all kinds, whether it ends up being useful or not. Knowledge increases.

I also like the theoretical questions raised by global warming. More research into climate will eventually lead to advances in terraforming. Add to that GW-panic induced fusion research and who knows – one day, centuries, millenia from now, there will be “Ringworld” engineers.

It doesn’t seem to me you know how to have fun with this. It seems to me that all you want to do is cancel out GW climate research and carry on with things as they are. Is your lifestyle that perfect that you don’t want anything rocking it?

GW folks have one kind of fear, and you have another kind. I just don’t find yours compelling. It doesn’t seem like you want to explore possibilities – more like you just want to shut certain people up.

Nasty and stupid ad hominem comment. (Fritz Perls, in “The Intimate Enemy”, described it as telling someone else what they think and feel. The term he used is “mind ****ing”.) It shows a surprising “lightness of mind”. The imposition of draconian CO2 controls to solve a problem which doesn’t exist does not inspire fear; it inspires outrage. Those who are trying to pull it off have been egregious in their abuse of political and scientific institutions, and need to be stopped. Now.

And you’d better do some checking: their withholding of publicly paid-for data IS specified as a felonious criminal activity both in the UK and here. It is not accidental, nor is it trivial. It is the only thing which has kept the sham alive, because the raw data is completely incompatible with their assertions.

As a small but important e.g., consider that after growing pressure, the IPCC models finally included adjustments to compensate for the engulfing of reporting stations by urban heat islands. But when the details are examined it turns out, incredibly, that the net adjustment made to those stations is to slightly INCREASE their reported temperatures! This kind of blatant distortion and dishonesty is ubiquitous in the modelling and data management. It is symptomatic of scientific gangrene.

Rage, baby. NOT fear!