but this took the cake

By the way, great interview with solar power world.

Another piece by the same author.

Similarly, you complain there isn’t perfect scientific consensus. But if too much consensus arrives, it is interpreted as conspiracy. Thus there seems to be no acceptable level of consensus that Deniers can tolerate.

Similarly, you complain that scientists are paid to study the climate but ignore the oil company propagandists who are paid to discredit the science. If the propagandists could find any scientific evidence that CO2 doesn’t trap heat, don’t you think they would publish it? Thus there seems to be no acceptable level of rationality that Deniers can tolerate.

Good post, Breath on the Wind…
Ed

Your attention to Climate Change is your preoccupation and not mine nor is reflected in this article that simply reports a study and not once mentions CO2, you did. Neither the original study nor this article comments on the cause of global warming. You suggest it. I did bring in the statistics of the study as that is its very essence along with other information you may find interesting should you take the time to read. But even here you will not find anything that is either copied or pasted. Rather it is read, digested and woven into this case a technical perspective. I will add this, even though it is a small subset of people who doubt the existence of anthropogenic global warming, it is a far smaller subset (read fringe element) that believe the world is not warming at all. You will find that this was a very hot topic of discussion about 3 years ago.

After reviewing many pictures of cooling towers I was inspired by Joe Vega’s comment on a similar picture as “beautiful and grotesque” which suggested an analogy to how we might view thermal power technology.

The last sentence in this piece foreshadows my next article and will have a hyperlink when that article is published. You can rest assured that there is nothing here that is fairly characterized as “lazy,” unconsidered or even just a shortcut.

Consensus means “a general agreement”. It does not mean unanimous agreement.

Within the climate science community there is general agreement that the planet is warming which is changing the climate in multiple ways and that warming comes mainly, if not totally, from human activity. Furthermore if the warming is allowed to continue life, as we live it, will become extremely difficult or impossible.

The remaining discussion is about ‘how much’ and ‘how fast’.

If I were being paid to research climate and could find proof that climate change was not happening or could find an easy way to prevent it I would be incredibly happy. I would take my place with the best known scientists in the history of the world. I would be one of the richest scientists in the world. If I wished to continue research I could name my university and never worry about funding again.

Now, since your questions have been answered shouldn’t you be getting off to your Dicks R Us club meeting? Shame to be dickesh and keep the other dicks waiting….

Hey Good news! I looked up consensus and look what I found:
Every single one of the scientists and organizations has their own unique definition of CO2’s effects ranging from nothing to unstoppable warming, so consensus of climate change killing our kids certainly cannot exist. It is impossible.
And if all the millions in the global scientific community had condemned their own children as well as ours to a CO2 death, wouldn’t they be acting like it was the end of the world right about now?
Would you say climate change isn’t “real” if you were paid to study the effects of it?