Denier comment of the day July 22, 2012

A new twist on the “CO2 is plant food” canard, courtesy a commentator at WUWT.

About these ads


Filed under Classic denier comments

14 responses to “Denier comment of the day July 22, 2012

  1. Clearly this was sarcastic – “CO2 starved atmosphere” is making the point that CO2 is only 0.4% volume (and ignoring that we are well on the way to doubling it from relatively stable pre-Industrial level)… and is not seriously suggesting life on Earth would be possible without photosynthesis… However, even allowing for that, (with my thanks to Canadian comedian Stewart Francis) this comment is like “farting in an elevator – it is wrong on so many levels…”

      • Yes. Thanks for spotting that. I guess it’s too late to correct the original and delete these comments? Please be assured that this was not me hedging my bets – what with CO2 now being 0.04% volume and 40% up on pre-Industrial levels – even though such an “averaging process” would probably not bother the scientifically-illiterate majority of people…

  2. It’s the sarcasm that qualifies it. Two of my favourite sayings are “Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit and only the uneducated use it,” and “Sarcasm is the weapon of the witless.” The other thing, often in sarcasm as in rumour, there’s always a sceric of truth in it and this comment was a little window into the commentator’s world. I need to thank Stewart Francis now because I intend to use that saying now…alot.

  3. I just meant in general conversation. I often say “wrong on so many levels” Now I can preface it.

  4. john byatt

    My computer crashed, literally, it fell off the shelf, just got it back today,

    do not think that it was sarcasm , more like taking the piss out of them, bait to see what the sceptics would say, think he may be an advocate.

    pjssjr – YouTube energy is not a future resource, it is here now. There is no question that it will be a primary part of our energy mix in the future. The only… greenman3610 …

  5. wtf - indeed

    Any response from IWP about the that that ttheir website has blatantly misstated that David Archibald ever testified before the Australian Senate about carbon tax? You would think they would want to correct that sort of thing, unless the IWP masked lots of intentional mistakes of fact.

    • No reply as yet. I’ll send them another email today.

    • The IWP also describe Archibald as a “climate scientist” which is yet another assertion having no credible evidence to justify it.

    • Yes but, No but …..

      In 2009 Archibald submitted a written testimony, in a document titled “The Future of Energy in Western Australia”, to the Australian Senate, where he stated that “The carbon tax needs to be abandoned” among a plethora of other ideas, and suggestions about Power Generation.

      So he may not have “appeared”, but nevertheless he did “testify”, albeit in a written submission which was acknowledged by the Austrailian Senate. This is a fact. Don’t get so hung-up on the trivia, of “did he – didn’t he”.

      • With all due respect Lt colombo, I think it is extremely important to be truthful. A written submission to a senate committee is NOT testifying to the Australian Senate. Anyone can write a submission to the Senate and yes, you get a nice little letter saying thankyou for your submission. But you can make submissions about anything. It is not uncommon for a Senate committee to receive tens of thousands of written submissions on a single Bill and believe me, when you read some of them you can find yourself entering a whole world of crazy.
        Now as for your example of Mr Archibald’s 2009 submission to the Senate climate committee. First to the issue of content. On the IWP website it was claimed that Archibald had addressed the Senate on the issue of the carbon tax. The link you have provided mentions the word ‘tax’ only 4 times and of those, only the very last slide (a summary) mentions the carbon tax specifically. That is hardly a testimony on the issue of the carbon tax. Second, a PowerPoint slideshow? That is an awefully strange way to present a submission. Most people, from the average Joe on the street right up to the CEO’s of the largest companies present their submissions in the form of a letter. However, if I wanted to give the impression that I had addressed a Senate committee in person…….
        But finally, about being hung up on what you call “trivia” and I call honesty, are you prepared to go by that motto whenever you think a climate scientist is lying?

  6. john byatt

    “when you read some of them you can find yourself entering a whole world of crazy”

    spot on

    .Dr Wes Allen submission joint select committee