William Connolley lists another ten global warming myths.
PZ Myers delivers a righteous smackdown to Paul from Wizbang for Paul's profoundly ignorant attacks on evolution. (Paul's responds by calling evolution a cult.) As well as having totally demolished\* the theory of evolution, Paul has also done for global warming:
Which is more plausible:
The established theory: CFC's (et al) don't destroy ozone at seal level, (or we would not have smog) they magically hold there electron stripping potential till they get to a higher altitude where they strip electrons off ozone and blah blah blah blah blah (there are tons of holes in the theory but I won't even bother poke holes in it now)
OR
Paul's Theory: You know, if we are getting hotter for the last 200 years, it might have something to do with this little thing called "heaters." You know, those things we use to warm us up. Those of you in the Boston area might be familiar with them. To see the effects of man made heat generation, just watch the evening news during the winter. They give one temp in the city and one for the surrounding area which is generally 4 or 5 degrees cooler. Where do you think all that heat goes?
Hundreds of years of us producing heat to keep ourselves warm and produce steam for electricity is far more likely to be the cause of any warming that the nonsense the environmentalists are touting. If we can change the temperature locally by as many of 5 degrees, it is too much to believe that over hundreds of years we can move the average 0.8 degrees? (assuming man is moving the climate which is doubtful)
The environmentalist love to point out that sparsely populated nations have not had as large a temperature increase. DUH! They don't have as many heaters, hot engines, electric generating plants etc etc.
Yes, Paul really did claim that the established theory of global warming involved CFCs destroying ozone. And he really seems to beleive that waste heat accumulates at the surface instead of being radiated into space. In the comments, various people tried to teach Paul something about physics and chemistry, but to no avail.
\*Note for Andrew Bolt: this is sarcasm.
Maybe Paul has stumbled onto something. After all, isn't most of the "heat for keeping ourselves warm" generated by burning stuff? You know, stuff like fossil fuels, whose combustion releases CO2 into the atmosphere? And if all these "many heaters, hot engines, electric generating plants etc etc" are burning up fuel, raising atmospheric CO2 levels...
My favourite moment, in comments, rebutting a very well argued criticism of his original post:
<q>"If you disagree with the fact that more UV radiation will warm what it hits you are a loon.
Thank you playing."</q>
Where do you start?
Thankyou playing indeed.
I thought Paul did some great work on Memogate, but the evolution and global warming stuff has been a little silly.
He is a moron. His work on "Memogate" (what is it with the 'gate thing? Watergate it ain't), wasn't very good, his arguments were weak (and mostly wrong), but he reached the right conclusiong - that they couldn't be proven to be real.
His knowledge about evolution, the ozone layer, global warming, and science in general would make a first-grader blush in shame, yet he insists on showing it to the world. Yet, when people who are on his side tells him that he doesn't udnerstand the issue he ends up stopping the commenting.
If I was ever tempted to read Wizbang, Paul has cured me of that temptation.