Patching Holes #3: The Manpollo Project (With Explosions)

The third and most explosive follow-up video to the wildly popular "The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See"

** THRILL** to the stunning action!
** SWOON** to the juggernaut of undeniable logic! (Really, this time. . .)
** JUMP ** out of your seat in inspiration as you click and click and click on your mouse, passing this TOUR DE FORCE of explosions (oh, yeah, and argument) on to all your friends.

This collection of chemistry and argument may well be what ended up saving OUR COLLECTIVE A--NECK!

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• global
• climate
• change
• warming
• controversy
• perspective
• carbon
• dioxide
• decision
• matrix
• grid
• scenario
• debate
• terrifying

[wonderingmind42]

I've disabled comments because it turns out that there's a hole in the argument presented in "The Most Terrifying Video" big enough to drive a Hummer through, and the argument has been UPDATED to address that hole.

So instead of rehashing the debate here, go watch the new version titled "HOW IT ALL ENDS" for what has so far turned out to be an IRREFUTABLE argument for action on climate change. Sound impossible?

Go check it out, and see what YOU think.

youtube dot com /watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg

[Lovemyfender14]

People are too stupid to watch 10 minutes of information affects their world. They would rather be watching greys anatomy. Cmon who wants to asses the risk of armegeddon when we could be watching McDreamy? Ps. This guy is eccentric.. and i like it.

[crackedspaceboy]

You have a sexy, sexy brain.

[monkyyy0]

ur logic is sound and i see no flaws; but............. HE'S A WITCH

BURN HIM, BURN HIM

[wordpresswidget]

Kudos for the Mentos fountain :)

Anyway, I can't find a flaw in your argument, just in the narrow conclusion.

So the scientists say:

1. The climate is changing - yup

2. Humans are primarily the ones driving it - could be irrelevant

3. It's gonna be bad - no doubt

4. We should do something about it quick - narrow conclusion

What's missing from the statement is a definitive conclusion that

it can be stopped or reversed.

So the Manpollo project should seek survivability options too.

[sydneydoc]

Tempest,

Beck's survey of 180 studies on CO2 should change your viewpoint. He also investigates in detail Callender's paper of 1935 as used by the IPCC.

Please let me know when you've read it and I'll show you some more ways data has been faked.

I'd recommend reading this paper even for people without scientific backgrounds ... you may have to skim some of the detail.

[TempestStormwind]

...

I was in the process of digging up URLs to the publicly-available papers I cited earlier, but I found out that all of them have all of their data available for free at a single website:

ncdc noaa gov/paleo/recons html

There's even others I missed. Just ignore any one with Mann in it and you'll nicely sidestep your issue.

Hell, plot 'em raw. My point still holds: You'll get a sharp blade for the 20th century.

[TempestStormwind]

I hadn't read Beck's. Thanks for the link, I'll look into it.

However, I'd like to note that 21st Century Science and Technology is published by Lyndon LaRouche, who is guilty of criminal fraud and believes modern science is a conspiracy against human potential. Furthermore, the paper lacks a peer-review process and has simply parroted known skeptic and former tobacco shill Fred Singer more than once without citation. I would not consider it anywhere near as credible as any of these:

[sydneydoc]

Tempest,

Yes, I'm sure the IPCC also wants everyone to stop talking about the embarassing hockey stick fraud too.

Give us your links and I'll look them up. I usually read several papers a day.

Have you read these: ?

21stcenturysciencetech . com / 2006_articles / IceCoreSprg97 . pdf

... and Beck's survey:

biomind . de / nogreenhouse / daten / EE%2018-2_Beck . pdf

[TempestStormwind]

Stop talking about Mann. I'm not supporting him, his work, or his graph.

I'm talking about the others, such as Crowley and Lowery (2000), Briffa et al (2001), Esper, Cook, and Schweingruber (2002), Jones et al (1998), Moberg et al (2005), Pollack, Huang and Shen (1998), and Oerlemans (2005).

They illustrate the same blade, and to my knowledge haven't been attacked by McKitrick/Michaels (Mann's vocal critics).

[sydneydoc]

Tempest,

It's not rocket science you know. You don't need to be a climatologist to know that when the temperature goes down it's cold and when it goes up its hot.

Why do you think the IPCC dropped Mann's hockey stick like a hot potato ? F-R-A-U-D