Neverending Audit

Willard,

YesButClimategate might very well be the summum of climate hype.

Indeed. It is claimed that overhyped claims about, say, methane release or accelerating arctic sea ice melt, damage the understanding of the issues and the credibility of those who consider these things worthy of attention. Yet somehow when people claim about the overhyping of climategate it is they who are trying to prevent understanding and their credibility at stake.

(Source: collide-a-scape.com)

Saying both that:

(1) We do not know X.

and

(2) X is likely to be Y.

makes no sense to me.

PS: TCO, if you’re looking for some ice time, I’ve got a place for you as a fourth-liner in my fantasy draft. You’d play right wing, of course.

(Source: theidiottracker.blogspot.com)

huxley,

I am not sure how your lukewarm defense of AGW constitutes evidence that your position changed. If you admit that, after your layman research, you still believe that CO2 is a GHG and dumping CO2 is not a good idea, et cetera, then wouldn’t you try to argue with your [skeptik] friends who claim otherwise? I’m not sure your position changed on this matter at all. You must have shifted to a matter unrelated to your lukewarm belief in AGW, a position not agnostic at all.

This endorsement of AGW may be even lukewarmer than what you first portrayed at Gavin’s, since later in the thread you say:

I find skeptics such as Lindzen persuasive as well, so it’s a problem.

I’m not sure what problem this is, but there sure is a problem with being persuaded by Lindzen’s argument. Not that you said you were: you merely stated that they were persuasive. You might mean it as an objective assesment: you observe that they are persuasive, without being persuaded by them yourself.

But then, but then, you also say, again a bit later:

A few years ago I listened to Gavin Schmidt and other AGW advocates defend AGW against Lindzen and other AGW skeptics. (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9082151) The AGW advocates not only lost the debate, they lost when the majority of the audience pre-debate agreed with the AGW position. In other words, the AGW side would have been better off staying at home rather than arguing on their behalf.

We clearly see that your stand on AGW does seem to have been weakened at the time of this debate. In fact, we clearly see that your position becomes lukewarmer and lukewarmer as the exchange with Gavin unfolds. Your choice of themes (red tape, Feynman, Club of Rome, agenda, etc.) makes me doubt that “yes, but RC moderation” made you take this lukewarm position. In all honesty, it looks as if you were seeking confirmation there.

By the way, since you’re interested in Lindzen: does he also believe that dumping CO2 is not a good idea? Doesn’t he believe in AGW? Sometimes, it does seem that Lindzen was the first to embrace lukewarmism. I honestly don’t know.

[Edited for clarity.]

(Source: collide-a-scape.com)

> Ever study Guy Kawasaki?

Yes. I liked it when he said that one of the best way to make money is to sell books about how to [gain] money.

I found it very constructive.

Very visual too.

A man is telling me that he’s making money because I’m reading him.

You’re a good Kawasaki follower, Steven.

You are your own product.

(Source: judithcurry.com)