Comments on: Erm, Alex?

By: gene berman

gene berman — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:45:31 +0000

If you only have one, Trixie, you be po’ too and better be cleanin’ it yo’sef and someone else’s, too.

By: Trixy

Trixy — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 10:14:26 +0000

It’s all in the cause of ‘keeping people poor so that they can clean our toilet’ Alex….

By: Martin

Martin — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 08:07:41 +0000

Tim,

I know I’ve got some ideas that are out of the mainstream, and can be robust – but as you know, I apologise whenever I go too far.

Dishing out that sort of abuse to a complete stranger is out of order, gives blogging a bad reputation as a pursuit and undermines the credibility of bloggers qua bloggers as providers of analysis and comment. If this individual has any guts, they’ll apologise.

By: JuliaM

JuliaM — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 07:16:39 +0000

“Hint for Alex:
With the wonders on the internet you can now provide “links” to prove you are not just making things up.”

You’ve not read most of Yorkshire Ranter’s ‘work’ then…?

I’d not really worry too much about his opinion on anything. If he said it was Monday, I’d call up ‘Outlook’ just to check.

By: John A

John A — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 05:58:55 +0000

Perhaps Alex would like to explain why this adjustment means that human-caused global warming is proven, when all it shows is that key assumptions made about the collection of data in 1941 were almost certainly false.

It does not mean that the late 30s to early 40s were not very warm or warmer than today. It means that the greenhouse gas hypothesis has to explain 30 year cooling as well as the 30 year warming that bracketed it.

So far, I haven’t seen an explanation other than a hand-waving “sulfate aerosols” argument which means precisely nothing.

Perhaps you should care to censure Mike Hulme for telling us:

“Science is never closed, it’s always open for re-examination and scrutiny and testing, and this is a very good example at what science is good at doing and what it must be allowed to do.”

Oh really? Doesn’t Mike know that the “science is settled?”

By: Ed Snack

Ed Snack — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 22:47:25 +0000

That’s right Alex, keep up the invective, it is the most effectiuve tool at your command since the science you so much want to believe in doesn’t support your claims unless you take a highly selective slice of it.

By: Obnoxio The Clown

Obnoxio The Clown — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 22:18:16 +0000

“Reactionary , ballbag hack” seems to be a recurring theme of Alex’s work.

What a reactionary, ballbag hack he is.

By: Kit

Kit — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 20:33:41 +0000

Hint for Alex:
With the wonders on the internet you can now provide “links” to prove you are not just making things up.

By: Alex

Alex — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 20:21:08 +0000

I agree, that was several iterations ago, but your retreat has maintained formation with the rest of the lobby like the Guards spinning-the-wheel. AFAIK you’re now at “it’s happening, and other people are doing something, so why should I bother”.

Tim adds: Erm, no, even in the early days of writing for TCS I was saying climate change is happening and that we’re causing it….the Lomborg view. I even said so there. As to other people doing something so why should we bother that’s a rather disingenuous reading of an argument I have made. Solar PV is coming down in price as a result of the subsidies that the Germans (amongst others) have poured into it. There’s no point in our pouring further subsidies in solar PV as, as people like Jeremy Leggett tell us, solar PV is on course to become price competitive with coal without our doing so. Why waste subsidy on something that will already happen? We should go and invent/commercialis/subsidise something else instead, something we can trade with those who are making the economical solar.

That’s a rather different argument from we should do nothing.