Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > An experimental demo of GHE.

geronimo

BBD give up you're not in rhoda's league and you're making an ass of yourself. Again.

Sayin' it don't make it so ;-)

I don't think we are reading the same thread.

Aug 22, 2012 at 11:37 AM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Here's Mike admitting that he's can't be bothered to understand the GHE while trying to pretend that it's all my fault. It's actually almost funny:

Unfortunately I really cannot be bothered ploughing all the way through the Discussion threads to find the precise quotes where he tried to persuade us that CO2 was the cause of back radiation, just at about the time that MyDog was starting his crusade to convince us it doesn't exist at all.
That's the trouble when you hold yourself out as a fount of all wisdom — sometimes you forget what you said last time round!

Get off you intellectual backside!!

Aug 22, 2012 at 11:39 AM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Here's the inimitable shub at Aug 22, 2012 at 3:19 AM demonstrating that he hasn't understood the point:

What a nutcase.

:-)

Aug 22, 2012 at 11:42 AM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Aug 22, 2012 at 11:42 AM | BBD>>>>Has global warming affected your mental processes? - all you've done lately is produce a stream of incoherent babble.

Aug 22, 2012 at 1:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterRKS

“The deniers claim that it’s some kind of hoax and that the global scientific community is lying to people,” he said. “It’s not a hoax, it’s high school physics.” - Al Gore in an interview with MNN 9/14/2011

BBD - was Al Gore lying to us? Because if not, you have your evidence.

Conversely, if so, why are none of the 97% of the gullible 'scientists' (including yourself) so reluctant to call him out on it?

Aug 22, 2012 at 1:19 PM | Registered Commentermatthu

Commenters, please calm down, eliminate the personal insults and return to the topic.

Aug 22, 2012 at 2:04 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

BBD
I ain't blaming you for nuthin'.
I'm just saying that you were telling us that CO2 caused back radiation and now you seem to be telling us that that's too simple.
If you want to spend all your spare time speed-reading warmist propaganda and then churning it out for the benefit of the masses, fine. Some of us have lives to lead that are too short to get bogged down in Science of Doom more often than once a month.
Anyway there's other fun things around to read:
A 39-Year Survey of Cloud Changes from Land Stations Worldwide 1971-2009: Long-Term Trends, Relation to Aerosols, and Expansion of the Tropical Belt (Eastman & Warren) — less cloud cover and it gets warmer - well, whaddya know?
First air-sea flux mooring measurements in the Southern Ocean (Schulz, Josey, & Verein) — Missing Heat Found!
Nile delta response to Holocene climate variability, (Bernhardt, Horton & Stanley) — We've seen it all before.
Of course they might all be way off beam. But then so might Hansen and your other heroes.

Sorry about the lack of links. You could (I suppose) get off your intellectual backside! :-)

Aug 22, 2012 at 3:05 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

MIke

I'm just saying that you were telling us that CO2 caused back radiation and now you seem to be telling us that that's too simple.

I've already responded to this. If you are going to attempt to build this particular molehill into a mountain, you need to provide quotes. If you are implying that I misled you, you are going to have to demonstrate it.

As for the other stuff - cherry-picked, out of context, misunderstood or just wrong - who cares? I've got a bit past the point where a contrarian waving a handful of (non-linked!) papers gets a reaction (other than weariness).

As I've mentioned before, there is no coherent, evidentially supported and accepted scientific argument that explains why increased CO2 forcing will not cause energy to accumulate in the climate system. It is astonishing that you and your fellow sceptics don't seem to recognise that without this, you have absolutely nothing except emotion and politics. Science ain't in it.

Aug 22, 2012 at 7:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

BBD - you may not have noticed, but this thread is about the presence or absence of evidence to show GHE working.

Not about the theoretical possibility that energy may or may not be accumulating in the climate system. Theory is all good and well - but you simply don't appreciate the importance of evidence, do you?

Al Gore at least appreciated the importance of evidence because he set about trying to demonstrate GHE in the lab. Pity he had to embelish the results by photoshopping the evidence. Not very clever is it, when you get found out?

But it seems 97% of 'scientists' are still happy to accept that at face value. At least we have a measure of the strength of your/their argument.

Aug 22, 2012 at 7:48 PM | Registered Commentermatthu

matthu

Not about the theoretical possibility that energy may or may not be accumulating in the climate system. Theory is all good and well - but you simply don't appreciate the importance of evidence, do you?

I think you need to read the thread ;-)

Aug 22, 2012 at 7:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

I suppose this needs nailing or you will go on and on:

But it seems 97% of 'scientists' are still happy to accept that at face value. At least we have a measure of the strength of your/their argument.

The '97% of scientists' (ie just about all of them) endorse the scientific consensus that CO2 forcing is warming the climate. Not some demo on Gore's film. That's crude, self-serving false equivalence. You can stop now.

Aug 22, 2012 at 8:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Ah, so when Gore says “It’s not a hoax, it’s high school physics” it's okay, because he was simply lying, is that right? And you are saying there is no connection between what he was demonstrating and what the 'scientists' (none of whom have yet disassociated themselves from Gore's 'science') are claiming.

It's not high school physics - it's not even as clear cut as you may think, is it? Because the evidence does not stack up.

(And you would accept, I imagine, that this is the best experimental evidence you have?)

Aug 22, 2012 at 8:19 PM | Registered Commentermatthu

matthu

I've never seen AIT, so I don't know what Gore's demo involved. Nor would I agree that understanding the GHE is exactly 'high school' physics. It is fundamental physics though, which is perhaps what AG meant.

But I repeat: AG's demo has nothing to do with the evidence from which the scientific consensus on AGW has emerged over the last several decades. AG's demo is at best, an irrelevance. At worst, it serves as a hook on which to hang misleading arguments.

As for the whole 'experimental evidence' meme, I have already suggested that you read the whole thread since there's no point in going over the whole discussion again.

Aug 22, 2012 at 8:40 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Really? You never saw Al Gore's demo? there's a copy of it here. It's called Climate Change 101 so it's pretty basic stuff (he would have you believe).

http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/

AG's demo has nothing to do with the evidence from which the scientific consensus on AGW has emerged over the last several decades. AG's demo is at best, an irrelevance. At worst, it serves as a hook on which to hang misleading arguments.

It has everything to do with it. Al Gore is a figurehead: he won a Nobel Prize, remember?

And he has shown that he is not just mistaken about the fundamental science, he is prepared to brazen it out by falsifying the evidence.

And not one 'scientist' of note calls him out on it. You even would have us believe you have not seen demo. Well now's your chance: have a look.

Aug 22, 2012 at 8:49 PM | Registered Commentermatthu

As for the other stuff - cherry-picked, out of context, misunderstood or just wrong - who cares? I've got a bit past the point where a contrarian BBD waving a handful of (non-linked!) papers, linked or otherwise gets a reaction (other than weariness).
Pot, kettle. As usual.
And, as I've mentioned before, there is no coherent, evidentially supported and accepted scientific argument that explains why increased CO2 forcing will not cause energy to accumulate in the climate system. Assertion, guesswork, handwaving — all those. Empirical evidence? Nah!
If you're so obsessed that you can't even bear to look at papers by reputable scientists (oh, I forgot! Only the ones that you agree with are reputable, right?) that take a contrarian (to use your doubtless deliberately offensive term) view of the causes of global warming then RKS is right. Why do we bother with you?

And can we nail the 97%, please?
97% of 77 scientists said that they believed the earth was warming and that mankind was partly responsible. Wow! Hands up all those sceptics who disagree with that.


Still waiting ........


Gore told a fib. End of. Which "reputable" climate scientist called him on it?


Still waiting ...........

Aug 22, 2012 at 8:50 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

matthu

And not one 'scientist' of note calls him out on it. You even would have us believe you have not seen demo. Well now's your chance: have a look.

Why would they bother? AG isn't a climate scientist. I repeat: AG's demo has nothing to do with the evidence from which the scientific consensus on AGW has emerged over the last several decades. AG's demo is at best, an irrelevance.

Aug 22, 2012 at 9:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Do you now deny that Al Gore is a figurehead for AGW? Nobel Prize recipient?

or that Al Gore's demo goes to the basics of AGW? Climate change 101, remember? His own words.

And not one reputable scientist feels the AGW brand is worth enough to call him on his fakery. Not simply mistaken science. Fakery.

"Sure: fakery is an irrelevance (we all engage)."

Aug 22, 2012 at 9:15 PM | Registered Commentermatthu

Mike

And, as I've mentioned before, there is no coherent, evidentially supported and accepted scientific argument that explains why increased CO2 forcing will not cause energy to accumulate in the climate system. Assertion, guesswork, handwaving — all those. Empirical evidence? Nah!

Of course there's a solid scientific basis for the consensus. I try not to use emotive terms like 'ridiculous' but I'm struggling for what else to say to this.

If you're so obsessed that you can't even bear to look at papers by reputable scientists (oh, I forgot! Only the ones that you agree with are reputable, right?) that take a contrarian (to use your doubtless deliberately offensive term) view of the causes of global warming then RKS is right. Why do we bother with you?

Of course I looked - I was a lukewarmer once, was I not? The problem is that these very few papers don't stand up to scrutiny.

Aug 22, 2012 at 9:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

The whole land-based temperature record does not stand up to scutiny ...

(You watched the demo yet, BBD? Did you spot the lies?)

Aug 22, 2012 at 9:23 PM | Registered Commentermatthu

matthu

Let me simplify:

'Al Gore = climate science' is a *false equivalence*. You cannot build an argument on a logical fallacy. Or at least not one worth engaging with beyond pointing out that it is based on a logical fallacy.

Aug 22, 2012 at 9:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Al Gore = Nobel Prize = IPCC = Michael Mann = Richard Betts and all the rest of them. Their reputations are inextricably linked. Always will be, unless they disassociate themselves publicly and state why.

Really not that difficult to understand.

Aug 22, 2012 at 9:28 PM | Registered Commentermatthu

BBD. I doubt I'm reading a different thread. rhodha, as she has done consistently with you is playing the "i'm only an Oxfordshire housewife" card, and you, as usual, are assuming you've a greater intellect than those who doubt the CAGW prognostications especially housewives and can run rings around them with the superior intellect with which you blessed with. Your not, and nor would I, we're dealing with a true scientific mind, much more forensic than mine, and, certainly much more capable than you in honing the issues to a simple scientific point of understanding. Which you manifestly don't understand.

You should beware of humility, it usually hides sagacity. But then you've probably never met it before, it's a rare commodity.

Aug 22, 2012 at 9:31 PM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

geronimo

If you think rhoda ran rings around me, can you show how that happened on this thread? As for the editorialising, can we stop? It adds nothing substantive and sours the tone of the discussion.

Aug 22, 2012 at 9:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Who said "Al Gore=Climate Science"? No-one here.
Al Gore = advocate for global warming = polemicist = fiddler of experiments.
The sequence in the film (which apropos my 8.50 thread you won't have looked at because WUWT might infect you with ideas and anyway it's a sceptic blog so it must be lying) has been "adjusted" — bit like Hansen's temperature figures — to show a proof that he couldn't get in the real world.
Why? Because it doesn't exist in the real world.
As for the papers I referenced, you haven't read them. How do you know they don't stand up to scrutiny? Oh, it must be because they might offer an alternative opinion, and we can't be having that, can we?

Aug 22, 2012 at 9:45 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

BBD - since when have you ever concerned yourself about not souring the tone of the discussion? Ever?

Aug 22, 2012 at 9:52 PM | Registered Commentermatthu