2011-03-28 05:54:54Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203

My 50th SkS blog post.  As always, feedback would be greatly appreciated.

2011-03-28 06:28:50
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.212.254

Excellent. But this "it just makes no sense to risk the future of human society and life on Earth" could be construed to mean that all life on Earth is at risk. Just pointing it out before some pedant starts trying to steer discussion off-topic.  

2011-03-28 06:41:38typo
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.56.15

"There's a slim possibility that the latter three are correct, that climate sensitivity is low and there is some internal radaitive forcing driving the climate.  But to act on this improbable hypothesis, ignoring the much more compelling case which is suppored"

=>

"There's a slim possibility that the latter three are correct, that climate sensitivity is low and there is some internal radaitive forcing driving the climate.  But to act on this improbable hypothesis, ignoring the much more compelling case which is supported"

2011-03-28 06:43:39
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
93.147.82.106

This really is you own post and you say what you think, as you should.
Two irrelevant points. I'd not list Motl between climate scientists. Link to Lonnie Thompson paper.

2011-03-28 08:36:38Thanks
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203
Thanks guys. Yeah Riccardo, wasn't sure about listing Motl. He's just a "scientist" who I've addressed, but I'll probably take him out.
2011-03-28 08:37:32Great stuff, Dana
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.185.238.238
I cant help thinking more of this personal stuff would be more effective than dry explanations of the facts. It's a compelling article.

On the gratuitous cross linking to ourselves front, I'd link the "republicans regurgitating the same myths" to our list of arguments.

is Judith Curry a skeptic? I haven't read her blog that closely but the impression I got was she was more a concern troll than a skeptic.

Similarly, I think you're bestowing Lubos more prestige than he deserves listing him with the other scientists. I understand why - it's pretty cool linking to all those blog posts. But it just seems a bit off, grouping Motl and Curry with the other three.

2011-03-28 08:41:52Curry
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203
Yeah, I'll take Motl off The list. As for Curry, it just depends how you define "skeptic". She's not the same magnitude as the others I list - I may take her off too and just leave the big three.
2011-03-28 08:56:40BTW, I reckon you should post today
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.185.238.238

Now in fact, if you're still around, I don't have anything planned for this morning

2011-03-28 09:06:02
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.56.15

In my opinion, Curry is worse than a skeptic. She's a slime mold, with two completely different modes of behavior: http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/S/slime_mold.html

I guess she's like a Lindzen wannabe, except she's gone bizarre before getting eminent.

2011-03-28 09:07:29harsh
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203

oooh neal, not mincing words!

2011-03-28 09:14:29
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.56.15

Just trying to be precise.