1. v.f.p.show.off – ok, the blog is doing great, but how were the check points chosen – randomization or choice of convenience? and what does the jump in popularity correlate with? scientific method/data withheld, no peer reviewed ref’s!?

    How about hurry-and-confess, hmmm? Say if it’s after the Munk Ctr debate post or after the blank verse one… Lest your own denialists start wielding their own Excalibur: e.g., visits by potential applicants to the CSD at this time of year, not to mention the number of new media researchers on blog functionality/interface design, other browsing prowlers…; there’s also the unflattering option of sales-pitching undergrads under duress… It’s hard enough sweating out sci proof that causation, not just correlation obtains between the content of blog texts (esp. your own?) and visits. OR does it matter – sci-value-wise, I mean?

    Seriously now: Steve, love the tone of this post. Could use the other end of the correlation for E3, if not too much of an effort? – here, sequestered spot… tx.

  2. Steve, as always – yr choice – publish neither or either…

    What I’ve been yearning to see Discussed Here, is the (for me) overarching Q:
    What Constructive approaches are being researched/implemented in addition to Reactive Emissions Reduction (in the philosophical sense of the latter opposing a problem and the former transcending it)? After all, GW chg may be irreversible – see here Nov 2007 and here Jan 2009 – don’t know latest official estimate.
    Is e.g. Nikola Tesla’s FREE ENERGY project being revisited – the idea that the earth’s own energy currents can be employed in the service of humanity at no charge, just like wind/water have been co-opted in the past for powering vessels, mills – in a sense ecologically, I’d think, alternative to Martin Heidegger’s “evil” watermill? (u don’t want the ref to his “The Q Concerning Technology”, I promise) There must be scientific and, hopefully, critical practical value, too, to estimating whether we would have on our hands today’s GW if mogul J. P. Morgan had not destroyed Tesla’s facility that he had initially sponsored – obviously for profit-oriented research, which in all evidence Tesla would not have neglected?
    Is there a way to “suck” CO2, GHGs from the atmosphere/oceans and ameliorate them through chemical (de)composition – at minimal heat implementation/harmful emissions?
    Search “free energy” even on a colloquial site like YouTube. Someone obtained energy from H2O while looking for a cure for cancer by implementing radiowaves (I think), others developed low-cost E-production from *structured* H2O. Some of these nuggets just might work, you’d expect?

    Well, we can always plant our feet at the point of staunch non-denialist fully-responsible-awareness, and fend off any Denialist Distraction away from Emissions Reduction, e.g., tempting the righteous to follow a path to Earth’s salvation. Ok ok, just being “lynne”s contrary self – we can do parallel paths:) – and to my knowledge, some good minds are (no time for links re-hunt, but solar power experiments, and the like are common knowledge).

    Shouldn’t Constructive Research (in the sense explicated above) be more vocal and mainstream?

    No objections to me venturing on a children’s books writing expedition?

  3. steve/audience(?), I did it again

    Heidegger reference as it stands is All Wrong. “Watermill” is not in his QreT/y – it’s my PhilOfTech-ically productive good/evil hybrid of his windmill=good and hydroelectric plant on the Rhine=evil. Water mill is just the head of yet another of my supposedly cute hydras – which has survived, not surprisingly, hasty cut&paste’s. well,…

    [link = research data; Simon Cowell et al. reaction precious!!! – plus J & Ed are wearing Xmas colour. Too bad all my links have been getting an extra tailgating ” lately:)]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *