Friday, December 18, 2009

James Randi On AGW

The great (and amazing) skeptic, James Randi, writes:

"Yes, we produce CO2, by burning "fossil fuels" and by simply breathing. And every fossil fuel produces CO2. Some products produce more than others, varying with their chemical composition. Methane gas produces less CO2, wood produces more. But almost paradoxically, when wood burns it produces CO2, and when a tree dies and rots it produces yet more CO2. Oceans are huge storage tanks for CO2, but as they warm up, they hold less of the dissolved gas. They release it into the atmosphere, then more of it is absorbed back into the oceans. And as far as humans are concerned, ten times more people die each year from the effects of cold than die from the heat. This a hugely complex set of variables we are trying to reduce to an equation..."-AGW, Revisited

I've been a huge fan of Randi going back to his exposing of faith healing fraud Peter Popoff , and now that he's been courageous enough to express doubts about the pronouncements of the climate change fascists who denounce dissenters by calling them "denialists", I'm an even bigger fan.


  1. Unfortunately, Randi repeats the same dubious claims that have been refuted time and time again.

  2. The site you linked to seems to be down.???

  3. It works when I click on it. Here's the url, just in case:

  4. Thanks, Cork. It's working now.

  5. I agree in a very general sense that much of this bruha over AGW (and I've done my share of snark posts just to get shiggles and test people's mettle--yeah, I spelled that right..)and that much of this from the Left's Gaia goofs is ideological/philosophical and has long roots that go deep to the beginnings of an "ecosophy."

    A fantastic book entitled Rational Readings on Envrionmental Concerns goes over this sordid history and why the Left is actually projecting anti-capitalist sentiment into the future and understanding they can't beat it on the merits, have decided to strangle it with regulation and know the upper limits of frowsy socialist economics, etc. The whole AGW has indeed taken on not only some fraud and cover-up and alibi of late, but a religious aire about it as well. And for good reason. In true religious fashion there are no real victors in religious wars. Just those who get fines or jailed vs. those who don't. But there is no victory in some grand metaphysical sense of the word.

    Highly recommended reading if you'be not partaken deeply already, and perhaps you have.

    But be VERY careful of non-climatologists doing the legwork here. Philosophers and skepties are fine so far as that goes, but notice that no one is really taking Randi's advice to heart all that much. Why should they? There's not just dollars and the new globalization of carbon at stake to rip us off with, but rather the force of the very presence of the fact that most climatologists agree generally that some AGW has taken place. What to DO about it is in the hands of some idiot politicians and their bureacratic underlings itching for more work. True. But we need to find out more about this consensus thingy. It cannot all be due for having RealClimate as George Soros' stenographers and sockpuppets. There's some of that, yeah. But not all of it is due that thorn.

    Again. Randi is a clever lad. But is he a climatologist? Though I realize you'll no doubt tell me that those pundits who double as the latter are a chip on the shoulder or an agenda...


If the post you are commenting on is more than 30 days old, your comment will have to await approval before being published. Rest assured, however, that as long as it is not spam, it will be published in due time.

Related Posts with Thumbnails