Vote online to help fund Climate Crock videos

Posted on  

"Vote online to help fund Climate Crock videos"

Click here to vote for Peter Sinclair, our favorite Climate De-Crocker.

If you’d like to have Sinclair get some much needed funds to make his videos even more effective, you can vote for him on the Brighter Planet website: http://brighterplanet.com/project_fund_projects/138.

His project is currently neck and neck for first place and you can give him up to three votes (after having registered at the website).  Voting ends Saturday.

Sinclair, of course, is the guy who proved former TV weatherman Anthony Watts knows as much about copyright laws as about climate science.

« »

10 Responses to Vote online to help fund Climate Crock videos

  1. Speaking of denialism:

    Vermont State Climatologist: Why Is That Link Still There?

    The VSC is prominently linking a Fraser Institute document that is filled with errors and misleading/missing information. Although alerted to this over 6 months ago, the link is still there! Story detailed in link above.

  2. Stuart says:

    Done! His videos are excellent and should be distributed far and wide.

  3. Will Koroluk says:

    Done! A high-school physics teacher is going to be among the guests at a dinner I’m going to Saturday evening. I plan to mention Climate Crock to him, and try to convince him to use the videos in his classes.

  4. There is a “Crock” waiting to be found, the link between the Icy Methane found in the leaking oil field in the Gulf of Mexico, that quickly filled the 100 ton structure on top of the oil leak.
    Is this Methane in any way related to the “Last Tipping Point” of Global Warming, you know, the Gigatons of “solid Methane” at the bottom of the ocean bottom, may now be explained by natural, or human made, leak from an oil field that converted the buried matter into oil and the so called “Natural Gas” [you mean gas is Natural but not oil? What crock is that and who is pushing it?], found on the Earth ground surface.

  5. David B. Benson says:

    Michael F. Sarabia (6) — It is called natural gas in opposition to maufactured gas of the 19th century. In fact it is highly refined before the stuff arrives in the pipeline and your house. I’ve taken up calling the product of the refinement natgas since it is no longer “natural”, being almost entirely methane.

    All ocean floors are underlaid by natural gas clathrates and indeed these may form in any confined space, such as BP’s box, provided the temperature is cold enough and the pressure high enough; those two are interrelated. IMHO BP should have known this formation could occur and should have taken preventative measures.

    The tiping point concern is much greater for methane in bogs and other wetlands, but also in and under permaforst.

  6. Mark Shapiro says:

    OT, an excellent article in the New Yorker of 5/17/10: “The Inventor’s Dilemma (Annals of Design); An eco-minded engineer discovers the limits of innovation,” by David Owen.

    Saul Griffith is a young, prolific inventor with a maturing interest in global warming and global energy use. Griffith also thinks widely and deeply, and concludes that while we can’t simply invent our way out, we can (and should) relearn conservation.

    I recommend the article wholeheartedly (though it is print only, not online). Keep a lookout for Mr. Griffith.

  7. Bruce Post says:

    I watched his video on Lord Monckton, evidently one of the gurus of denial. In this regard, folks might find this post very relevant, instructive and alarming:

    http://comment.rsablogs.org.uk/2010/05/10/dangerous-rhetoric/

    Here is an excerpt:

    “In Plato’s time they would regularly hold competitions between a skilled rhetorician and an experienced doctor to see who could convince a crowd who was the better doctor. Apparently the rhetorician would always win and if we consider the implications of that for the climate change debate it raises some serious concerns.

    It is commonly claimed that there are four key rules of successful rhetoric: charm, simple arguments, false dichotomies and cheating. It is clear from this that scientists start off at a significant disadvantage. They are rarely great communicators of their expertise and generally work with a very high level of integrity that would not stoop to use the last two tricks. By contrast the sceptics that oppose them are frequently very effective rhetoricians. I believe this is one of the reasons that the climate change debate has moved so slowly.”

    The author was applying this to the conduct and arguments of Bjorn Lomborg, but the observations could be applied to Monckton, as well.

  8. It would appear that Peter Sinclair’s Climate Denial Crock of the Week has won. He took the lead about 3:00 AM East Coast Standard and by a little before midnight he was roughly 800 votes ahead. Congratulations to everyone that was involved. As far as I am concerned we all won!

    PS

    Now perhaps we can start getting people to add http://climatecrocks.com to their blog lists. The posts may be videos, but the scripts are posted, certainly measure up and they are weekly.