Linked by snydeq on Thu 15th Dec 2011 21:17 UTC
In the News A new study from UCSB finds significant increases in businesses hiring organized shills to push products online. These 'malicious crowd-sourcing systems' enlist dozens or hundreds of professional shills to orchestrate mass account creation, generate bogus ratings, and post canned cut-and-paste positive reviews -- with each 'task' costing between 13 and 70 cents. 'Unscrupulous crowd-sourcing sites, coupled with international payment systems, have enabled a burgeoning crowdturfing market that targets U.S. websites, but is fueled by a global workforce.'
Thread beginning with comment 500491
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: shilling
by transputer_guy on Sun 18th Dec 2011 20:26 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: shilling"
transputer_guy
Member since:
2005-07-08

I don't have the time or interest to spend on ClimateProgress or WattsUp or a gazillion others sites arguing over the AGW nuances.

Water vapor, methane and CO2 are most certainly heat trapping and have been keeping the climate warm in one way or another since the atmosphere evolved. Each works in different ways. The recent upswing in CO2 from 280 to 390 ppm most definitely introduces a slight tipping force. It could be offset by significant increases in tree planting or burying of vast amounts of biomass equiv to the carbon in the fuels burned, C-bury for C-burn. All the credible science says this, only the fringe science says otherwise.

I would wonder what Arrhenius, Angstrom, Bohr would say today given new information.

Why does BP benefit from the CRU science attacking coal, all fossil fuels combust to CO2, and gas is as likely bad as coal when you include methane leaks. Coal also has the mercury, uranium traces in its CO2 stream.

When you rearrange the earth plates over millions of years or tilt the earths axis in different ways Milankovich cycles, that obviously can change the relationship of CO2 to mean temp, but over very short time ranges of 100s of years CO2 changes most definitely correlates with temps when you factor out volcanoes and other fast inputs. Water, methane and CO2 both drive the cycle short term and are driven by the long term cycle.

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to know this. Every time a massive volcano blows like Krakatoa, Vesuvius, Pinatubo, it tips the climate for a decade or so breaking the correlation, but it recovers. The human forcing of CO2/methane is accumulating. Even changes in energy usage changes insolation patterns as in the switch for home coal burning to cleaner gas in the 60s. China is just repeating the 60s smog cycle.

My agenda is to support energy sources that are millions times more energy denser than solar, wind or fossils, what is yours?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: shilling
by zima on Thu 22nd Dec 2011 23:58 in reply to "RE[4]: shilling"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

energy sources that are millions times more energy denser than solar, wind or fossils

No they are not, certainly not millions; you have to factor "size" (if you talk about density per se) of whole infrastructure, also of its externalities, distribution, or how nuclear plants actually have very strict requirements for locations (and compete in that with people - the places are usually rather nice for habitation but nobody wants to live next to serious industrial installations, industrial noise)

Or... by your methodology, one can count the energy density of solar as that of a single photon.
(and generally, really, don't go overboard with your, for some reason, the one darling wundersolution & everything else can go to hell)

BTW, IIRC the self-wonder about wasteful practices of the (it seems) anti-AGW crank (judging by his hilarious distortions even of the most elementary data) & conspiracy theorist to which you replied above, his agenda is "I like burning ~'dinosaurs'"

Reply Parent Score: 2