Paul Revere was an alarmist

“The weight of evidence suggests that it is ‘very likely’ (probability greater than 90%) that the British are coming.  I am not advocating any specific mitigation or adaptation response.”  —Paul Revere, if he had been a climate scientist.

“We should refrain from asserting that the British are (or are not) coming without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon information that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts.”  —Fox News, if cable TV had existed in 1775.

This entry was posted in Climate denialism. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Paul Revere was an alarmist

  1. sailrick says:

    In Sarah Palin’s world, Paul Revere was really warning the oil companies of the coming of climate scientists, and declaring our right to burn coal.

    While today’s Tea Baggers are pawns of corporate masters like the Koch Brothers, the original Boston Tea Party was largely an anti corporate protest against the preferential treatment given to the East India Tea Company.

  2. You are entitled to your opinion. of course. But totally wrong. The looney left has King George Soros who tries to bring down currencies. He is a destroyer for his own profit. The Koch bros. are creators. If the warming science is so settled then why is it that the “solutions” to the warming issue are all just based on carbon fuels? There are other green house gases like water vapor and methane. The reason there is no legislation dealing with those green house gases is that it is about money not warming. The warming alarmists are tools of socialism.

    • puckerclust says:

      I have an idea. Why don’t you take a physics class at your local community college? Once you understand some basic scientific concepts and some of the big words climate scientists use (like forcing, feedback, condensation, infrared radiation, etc.) we can have a conversation. We can also establish who is the tool.

      • I have degrees in Environmental and Electrical engineering So, social tool, what is the conversation you wish to have about the current carbon only solution?

      • puckerclust says:

        Congratulations on your engineering degrees. If you decide to learn something about physics and the scientific method, it’s never to late to take some classes at your local community college to fill in the holes in your understanding. Good luck!

    • Jay Alt says:

      Congratulations on achieving climate science Nirvana through the twin lenses of partisanship and economic cheerleading. The simplest meteorologic texts tell that water vapor drops out of the atmosphere in ~10 days. CO2, not so. Those who say methane control hasn’t been part of international or national discussions aren’t paying enough attention.

  3. Holes? Because I question the partial solution that has been undertaken by the leftists in our Government? I suggest you get an education of the systems approach to a problem where you look at the entire problem and the whole solution rather than picking and only those items that you can squeeze money out of. I do not question that there is global warming. I do not question that a small percentage of that warming is due to human activities. What I do question however is totally screwing up the American economy when the rest of the world is only paying the solutions lip service. China is building 1 coal fired plant a week. Obama’s war on carbon is shutting down coal fired plants in this country by regulating them to non profitability. You are stuck on apparently the only topic you are capable of. Physics. When the problem is much larger than that. you might want to start by expanding your horizons a bit.

    • puckerclust says:

      One apparent hole in your education your lack of understanding of the requirement that scientists must be objective. We scientists don’t base our scientific understanding on what we want to be true. I would be much happier if we could pollute the atmosphere with CO2 and have no risk of negative consequences. I personally enjoy engaging in activities that generate greenhouse pollution. If I were like you, I would put my emotions ahead of logical reasoning, but good scientists don’t do that. I don’t care if you don’t like Obama, and I don’t care about your paranoia over “leftists” in our government. The CO2 infrared opacity doesn’t care about your politics. The Keeling curve is immune to your emotions. The Arctic sea ice just melts, no matter how much you object, because more heat is coming into the planet than is going out, and it’s because of human activities. The laws of physics are true whether or not you believe in them. Until you understand that, real scientists will laugh at you or simply ignore you.

      It is a little ironic that you come to a blog written by a physicist and tell him that “the only topic you are capable of” is physics. The entire point of this blog is that the science must come first, and it must be objective. I’m sorry that you can’t comprehend any acceptable solution the the problem. But denying the fact that there is a problem–just because you don’t like possible mitigation scenarios-is anti-scientific. And anti-science is the subject of this blog.

  4. I, in fact, acknowledged the problem if you bothered to comprehend my post. But for some reason you can’t get around the political part of the problem. You have identified the problem. But what of the solution to the problem??? This is not emotional. Just factual. Tell me if you can what solutions have been applied to the global warming problem other than trying to reduce CO2? What about the solutions for methane and water vapor? The science came first and identified the problem. So are you just about pointing out the problem or are you about the solution as well?

    • puckerclust says:

      The purpose of Puckerclust isn’t policy. It’s science. There are plenty of policy blogs you can comment on. Here’s a link to the “about” statement for this blog, since it appears you are confused about it:

      Nevertheless, I’m willing to comment outside the stated scope. Whatever policy is implemented, it must be one that reduces GHG pollution in the atmosphere. Whether it’s an insurance scheme that requires polluters to buy policies to protect citizens from the damages of global warming, or some other scheme that forces the polluters to cover the risk, I don’t know. As any competent scientist will tell you, reducing GHG pollution will also limit the increase in the strong water vapor feedbacks that are amplifying the greenhouse effect that is accelerating the warming as well as increasing the frequency of severe weather events.

      The first step toward developing a policy is to stop denying the laws of physics.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s