2011-08-13 00:30:31Joe Bastardi can't add up
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
192.171.166.144

Link.

Worthwhile posting?

 

We've tried graphs and explanations of the carbon cycle, but this is purely maths using purely obvious assumptions. I don't see any room for argument: Bastardi's an idiot.

I wonder if it's a bit too conversational, should I cut it down a bit and treat it as a textbook?

 

'This is what basic addition and chemistry says. This is what Bastardi says.' sort of thing.

2011-08-13 00:56:38
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
139.222.14.107

make sure you email Bstardi to let him know! ;o)

2011-08-13 02:21:58Gish
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Rob P also has a post on the carbon cycle, but I think it's useful to expand on this rather obvious argument.

I'm going to do a post this weekend responding to Bastardi's entire Gish Gallop, so the options are either to publish yours first and link to it, or incorporate it into the Gish Gallop response post, in which case we could be co-authors.  Do you have a preference, Mark?

2011-08-13 02:33:33
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
134.225.187.197

I think I'd prefer to do this first. I think it's something that hammers home in very simple terms how stupid he's being.

Sure, isotope measurements agree with theory. And carbon cycle models also work. But you don't need any of those to be certain that most of the recent CO2 rise is human caused... you just have to not believe in magic pixie dust and know how to add up.

 

I'd like to see your gish-gallop post before it goes up too, I had a few ideas about it :)

2011-08-13 02:37:04okay
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

That works for me.  We can even publish the two on the same day.  I should have a draft of the post up tomorrow sometime for review.

2011-08-13 10:26:36comments
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

CO2 is now rising about 2 ppm per year, not 1.5.  See here

For the 30 billion tons CO2 statement, I'd link here

It's maybe a bit too sarcastic, and probably too conversational at the end.  I'd tone it down a bit.

Also, the title needs some serious trimming!

2011-08-13 11:11:00
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
86.177.51.236

I like it!  Lots!  Thumbs!  :-)

2011-08-13 13:25:26
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
203.173.245.109

When I first saw the post, I thought casual readers might be put off by the math, but it's easy to follow. A pic would be nice. I like it, but maybe it's a tad too sarcastic. I understand, I also have a hard time diallng it back.  

2011-08-13 13:26:56
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
203.173.245.109

Forgot this.

2011-08-13 19:05:30
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
134.225.187.197

I've dialled back the sarcasm but the main point is that Bastardi disagrees with adding up... getting that across without coming across as a complete ass is difficult.

 

Please recheck, if no-one complains about it I'll publish it sometime today.

2011-08-13 21:25:27
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
134.225.187.197

Published it after re-reading it myself. Means I can head off and now Dana can do what he wants :)

2011-08-14 01:19:44
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125
Well, I un-published it because it wasn't on the schedule :-) But will re-publish it soon. Actually I guess it can go now. We'll bump scaddenp's back to tomorrow.