(PS. Making the success of the firewalled Wall Street Journal your business empire's paradigm seems a terrible mistake. Once you get past the crazies on WSJ's editorial page, there's actually some useful information in there. Not so Fox on-line.)
Thursday, August 06, 2009
A Blow To The Denialist Movement
Rupert Murdoch will attempt to charge for News Corp on-line content. Since a good 25% or so of the posts out of the AGW denio-sphere are just links to the crap peddled by The Australian and other Murdoch publications, we will presumably see a content drought within the next year or so as people decide it just ain't worth paying for that shit. They're self silencing, in other words.
(PS. Making the success of the firewalled Wall Street Journal your business empire's paradigm seems a terrible mistake. Once you get past the crazies on WSJ's editorial page, there's actually some useful information in there. Not so Fox on-line.)
(PS. Making the success of the firewalled Wall Street Journal your business empire's paradigm seems a terrible mistake. Once you get past the crazies on WSJ's editorial page, there's actually some useful information in there. Not so Fox on-line.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
It's not only Rupert. A number of outlets are considering this approach. The Globe and Mail seems to be heading in the same direction.
I dispute the premise of this post. Everything is always good news for the deniers.
I don't know what to make about this specific move back to pay sites. Rupert Murdoch seems to be attempting to organise a movement to have every news site charge for access, which (if at all possible) could potentially change how news circulates on the Internet. Except we all know:
1. That's not possible. Technical barriers are just challenges to be defeated;
2. We all know the content of most corporate mainstream journalism is not worth paying for.
3. People who will pay for news are already paying for it. None of this is going to force your average Joe and Mary Know Nothing to pay for something they already consider tangential.
And all that doesn't take into account the fact that we already pay for this stuff every time we go shopping. That won't change until all news products compete on the basis of quality alone and are divorced completely from this defunct business model.
BigCityLib,
Just curious…
Do you consider peer reviewed science to be “crap”?
I am trained scientist. Are you?
Read the facts as revealed by peer reviewed science.
(I know you won’t.)
That's premium content on your site sbvor. You should charge for it.
SBVOR:
So, after a quick read of your site, are you claiming that:
1. currently, the longwave portion of the spectrum is saturated?
2. if not, how much would we need to add to reach saturation.
3. after we reach saturation, adding more CO2 will not have any effect?
Regards,
John
I am trained scientist.
What does this mean, exactly? Do you conduct scientific research? And if so, in what field?
John Cross,
1) A logarithmic curve such as this one technically requires essentially an infinite amount of CO2 to reach 100% saturation. But, we are close enough to saturation that additional CO2 does not have enough warming effect to worry about.
According to a letter recently penned by 60 German scientists:
“CO2's capability to absorb radiation is almost exhausted by today's atmospheric concentrations”
Click here both to verify that quote and to review the names and credentials of those 60 scientists.
I would further quote award winning Princeton University physicist Dr. Will Happer:
“Many people don’t realize that over geological time, we’re really in a CO2 famine now.”
Click here for the source on that quote as well as the peer reviewed Yale University science substantiating the assertion.
2) Click here for recent peer reviewed science which -- if we accept the theoretically possible (but far from proven) assertion that man made CO2 has warmed the planet by 0.7C -- leaves only 0.4C of warming to come in by 2100 (assuming that is the point at which we double pre-industrial levels of CO2).
Again, readers can click here for my entire (ever expanding) presentation.
Within that larger presentation, I find this post particularly compelling. Within that post, this chart is good ammo against Mann’s infamous Hockey Stick chart (or any other assertion that recent temperatures and trends are -- in any way -- out of the ordinary).
Note to readers...
The color scheme on this blog makes it almost impossible to detect a hyperlink which has not yet been clicked on.
I embedded numerous substantiating links in my previous comment. I suggest passing your mouse cursor over the entire comment to locate them.
Ti-Guy
I live in a very small town in deepest, darkest blue America (click here) where the savages are particularly intolerant and are prone to acting out in criminal fashion.
If I reveal too much personal information, it will blow my anonymity and I will have to waste my time dealing with the consequences of illiberal intolerance. I prefer not to waste my time in that manner.
However, my cited sources obviate any need to further reveal my personal credentials. Suffice to say that I am very well qualified to evaluate the science.
Nutz.
Typical
I don't believe you're a trained scientist. You're either nutz or a liar. Take your pick.
Nutz or Liars. Tis my fate to attract them.
"I don't believe you're a trained scientist. You're either nutz or a liar. Take your pick."
Of course you don't. Without that Saul Alinsky tactic (click here for that), how else could you (and your sort) so cavalierly deny the objective, quantitative, empirical, peer reviewed scientific facts?
But, if it is verifiable credentials you’re looking for, try the 60 scientists in the news just this week (click here for that). Then, step back and examine the tens of thousands of audited, verified credentials of other so-called “deniers” (click here for that).
Quoting SBVOR: I would further quote award winning Princeton University physicist Dr. Will Happer:
“Many people don’t realize that over geological time, we’re really in a CO2 famine now.”.....
Undoubtedly true, but the point is that our entire civilization has developed within this drought and by inadvertent planetary geo-engineering (dumping vast quantities of fossil carbon into the biosphere, etc etc) we risk reverting to a 'normal' atmosphere very different to what we are adapted to.
Carry on 'business as usual' if you wish but don't moan that you weren't warned of the consequences.
Post a Comment