Our traffic statistics from October 25, when the poll went live, to November 1 (the latest for which we have data on referrals) indicate that 30.5 percent of page views (about 4,000) of the poll came from Watts Up. The next highest referrer at 16 percent was a Canadian blog site smalldeadanimals.com; it consists of an eclectic mix of posts and comments, and if I had to guess, I would say its users leaned toward the climate denier side based on a few comments I saw. Meanwhile, on the other side of the climate debate, Joe Romm’s Climate Progress drove just 2.9 percent and was the third highest referrer.
Beauty.
Wikipedia is begging for money. Good. Another bunch of AGW worshippers, nanny statists and politically correct shills running out of other peoples’ [OUR] money.
Um, I’m loath to overstay my welcome here, GreenNeck, so let me just note that I don’t know very much about the thermodynamics of the atmosphere of Venus. Off the top of my head, I’d note that it’s closer to the heat-lamp sun, it has the densest atmosphere of the terrestrial planets in our solar system (resulting in a surface atmospheric pressure of ca. 1350 psia), it has different cloud mechanics and notably doesn’t have a convective atmospheric escalator transporting the quite high latent heats of water ice, water liquid, and water vapour phases to space, it’s isothermal at the surface, it has some other interesting sulfuric gasses in its atmosphere, and, of course, women are from Venus, so one would expect it to be a little hotter there !-)
I’ve yet to hear any convinced Warmists agree to my idea of a voluntary tax on Carbon emissions for those who feel the world is at risk.
Albertans want an elected Senate, so they get the ball rolling and start electing Senators in waiting. Put your money where your mouth is Warmists! I wonder how much money they’ll raise??????? $0
And Alex, putting the science aside, regardless of AGW, we don’t want a $$ on Carbon. PERIOD! Perhaps it’s the Progressives and YOU that need a little education. In economics! Us sending money to corrupt communists and totalitarian regimes WILL NOT CHANGE THE CLIMATE!
Also, your understanding of the word “ad-hominem” is clearly a little muddled. If you think the word “denier” is an insult, I’d suggest you take your purse and go home.
Posted by: Alex at November 21, 2010 2:15 PM
Sir, if you cannot see, with the post WW2 connotations, that ‘denier’ IS an insult, then we have no common ground for a civilized discussion. Good day.
Colin
I hold in contempt anyone that describes someone as a ‘denier’ or a ‘Teabagger’, and I let them know it. The terms are a sign of blatant disrespect and are meant to defame you.
Right Dizzy.
George Gilder’s book Wealth and Poverty was an interesting read.
He didn’t like the ‘over-credentialization’ of jobs in the US.
He thought that having a masters or phd to teach elementary school, just for example, was job overkill.
And that it extended into too many places where it wasn’t needed, therefore shutting people out of jobs that they could actually be doing.
As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be educated to president, but you need a MS/PHD to vice-president.
Well said, Indiana, and we’re in agreement on that point. That both terms you mention have gained widespread, and accepted use in ‘mainstream’ circles does not negate their intended derogatory purpose.
Both clearly fall under the ad hominem category and are a sign the user is not confident in the merits of their argument and/or beliefs. As such, they belittle their adversary with childish name calling and insults.
“And Alex, putting the science aside, regardless of AGW, we don’t want a $$ on Carbon. PERIOD!”
And, of course, you assume that I do, because anyone who actually understands science must be a commie leftard greenie with long hair, sandals, a tie-died t-shirt, and a marijuana flag, wanting to take away your hard-urnd-mooonies for socialist wealth redistribution.
Honestly, what’s the point of having a comments section if you’re going to turn it into a group-think enclave where independent thought is met with hostility and any disagreement is met with blind stereotyping?
Honestly, what’s the point of having a comments section if you’re going to turn it into a group-think enclave where independent thought is met with hostility and any disagreement is met with blind stereotyping?
We’re all still waiting for you to display some “independent thought”, Alex. All you’ve done so far is parrot the increasingly disdained AGW party line. So far, I haven’t seen you even attempt to refute our concerns about, in no particular order, temperature averages based on i) temperature stations sited near A/C exhausts or hot tarmac, ii) a single station north of 60 degrees in Canada (dozens were closed in the last decade; gee, I wonder why?), or iii) without any correction for, or even acknowledgement of, the urban heat island effect, or the fact that sea levels have not shown any evidence of a systematic rise in the last 50 years, or the fact that sea ice, which does fluctuate over time, is not showing a steady and irreversible decrease in extent, or the fact that the 2010 hurricane season, despite predictions of an “much more active 2010 season with above-normal threats” from amusingly named Accu-Weather meterologist Joe Bastardi and others, was in fact one of the mildest on record.
See, Alex, I’m an engineer like Vίtruvius, though I acknowledge he’s more accomplished than I; when someone presents me with a theory AND EVERY FREAKIN’ PREDICTION IS WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, I have this tendency to believe there’s something seriously wrong with the theory. Since the rate at which CO2 enters the atmosphere is increasing every year, thanks to unfettered China and India, one would think that the predicted effects would be showing up ahead of schedule. Since they’re not showing up at all, and in fact, many indicators show the earth is cooling slightly, the only logical conclusion to draw is the AGW hypothesis is deeply flawed, and that many of its proponents are no longer interested in the science, but care more about the politics (in case you haven’t been paying attention, this has been documented here and elsewhere repeatedly).
You’re the one indulging in name calling and blind stereotypes. Why don’t you get back to us with some facts?
How amusing that liar Alex accuses others of lying.
Good times.