I shall have you know, sir, that there is no such unit as a cubic story. The proper term is cubic story squared! Good day, sir!

I think he converted 40 square meters to 47 square yards, which is fairly reasonable. But then he really goofed and called it 47 yards square, which is something completely different altogether -- something that is a square with 47 yards per side!

3 editors, but they spend only 12 editor-seconds per story.

Increasing food production increases the girth of the people in the middle. FTFY

Isn't that a problem with all energy sources? Speaking more realistically, fossil fuels will run out in hundreds of years and solar will last billions. Which would you bet the future on?

There's a limit to the fossil fuels we can burn, and they're only going to get more expensive. There is far more energy available from alternative sources, and switching to them could be economically beneficial soon. If you want energy starvation and poverty, just keep burning fossil fuels.

So you perform the experiment and do not observe whether or not you get the predicted results?

Nope. Antarctic ice is melting, at an accelerating rate no less. You are referring to the temporary sea ice that forms each winter. The ice melting off the land makes the ocean less salty, and fresher water freezes at a higher temperature than saltier water. But even though there is a bit more sea ice in the winter, the overall effect is that the ice is melting at an accelerating rate. Yeah, those pesky facts, huh?

No warming for 18 years? Then how could we have just had the warmest summer ever recorded with continued melting of ice worldwide and rising sea levels? I think this was all predicted by the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming, and is now being observed. If we see the warming stop, and the melting and sea level rise slow significantly, then we can talk about rethinking the hypothesis. Let me know when that happens.

Daniel Dennett actually suggests that you should internally signal an alarm when someone uses the word "surely" in an argument. A statement prefixed by surely is quite often the weakest part of the argument, and if your surely alarm goes off automatically when you hear or read the word, you can know a good place to look for a flawed argument. I think that surely we can say the same for "clearly." Did your alarm go off just now with my use of "surely?"

That's not the reasoning behind the statement that the greenhouse effect warms the Earth. There are calculations and predictions behind it. If you predict the temperature of the Earth without the greenhouse effect, you get far colder temperatures than we observe. When you add in the greenhouse effect, you do get the observed temperatures. That's the scientific method -- hypothesis, prediction, and observation. Arrhenius even used this reasoning to predict in the 1800s that burning fossil fuels would cause warming. Hypothesis, prediction, and observation. You know, actual science.

That's an interesting thought process... "some warming is natural" means "no warming is artificial." It's like claiming at your murder trial that someone's death was natural, so therefore humans can't cause other humans to die. Talk about grasping at straws!

Even if they don't reed the data (they don't need to)

Yeah, who needs a flutist when you're already a whistleblower?

And yet the melting of ice and sea level rise continue to accelerate as predicted by AGW.

Yo mama!