Seen elsewhere



Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

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

Powered by Squarespace


Somewhere on one of the multiple threads that make up the BH cloth, EM again tried to mathematically dispose of one of the main arguments that convinces me that cAGW is bollux. Once again he used mathematics to obfuscate and missed the main point.
All accept that potentially dangerous (?) high temperature rises cannot be produced by CO2 increases alone, it requires feedbacks that result from the moderate temperature rise that accompanies CO2 rise. The feedbacks do not respond to the CO2 rise itself, but to the temperature rise. But it is also well established that each incremental CO2 rise produces less temperature rise, and therefore less feedback. Yet cAGW argues that with increasing atmospheric CO2 in the future there will be greater and greater negative effects - one degree temperature rise in the past, but multiple degree rises over this coming century.
EM's response points out that the CO2 effect is almost identical whether the feedbacks change logarithmically or linearly. Who cares? The important fact is that the additional feedback effects will DECREASE in the future, not get more and more extreme.
There could be a logical fallacy in my argument, but I have long searched for it, so far unsuccessfully.
Care to comment EM?

Jan 23, 2017 at 7:37 AM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

Martin A

I deny ever having said that increasing CO2 does not increase surface temperature.

Glad to hear it.
Now, how can we convince radical rodent?
Jan 22, 2017 at 11:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

So why did you say that I had said that increasing CO2 does not increase surface temperature?

You just imagined it and; as is your wont, it became (for you) reality. If you'll make that up, why should anyone pay the slightest attention to anything you say? It becomes a reasonable assumption that anything you say may have been made up.

But also, I have never said that increasing CO2 does increase surface temperature.

Why should I say that? There are plausibility arguments that it does so to an unknown extent but nothing more than that. If there were concrete quantitative evidence that it does, I am sure RR would be interested to learn about it and would no doubt be convinced by it.

The nonexistence of such evidence is the primary failure of the climate science fear machine.

Jan 23, 2017 at 6:13 AM | Registered CommenterMartin A

EM, stewgreen et al

Re: Trident Scaremongering by MSM

See: Reports of Royal Navy Trident firing 'failure'

First reply:

I would reckon at least 90% here see these articles and go "meh" because it is a non story.

Exactly what I thought when I heard BBC & Corbyn dribbling about it.

Jan 23, 2017 at 2:40 AM | Registered CommenterPcar

@Entropic man, Jan 22, 2017 at 12:04 PM

Thank you for your ad hominem attack.

It encourages me for two reasons.

1) My arguments are getting home to you.

2) They are triggering a fear response, as convincing arguments threatening ones world view often do. Hence your aggressive response.


Jan 23, 2017 at 2:36 AM | Registered CommenterPcar

Entropic Man you keep complaining that nobody respects the links you post no matter how many times you keep repeating the same Climate Science bollux, so I repeat this one for your education.

I haven't noticed a hot dry UK summer like 1976, since 1976. You are the Climate Science expert, not me, so why is that?

Jan 23, 2017 at 12:18 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Entropic man: unlikely, unless you can give proper, verifiable evidence. All you give is theories, with no evidence; not the same thing, I’m afraid. So far, this century, humans have burned some 30% of the total fossil fuels so far burned; yet the CO2 rate of rise continues at its sombre rate, and the rate of warming has more or less halted. (Yes… I know that is something you deny with vehemence, but I am afraid that there have been over 60 papers attempting to explain this phenomenon – Mr Trenberth even tried to claim that the heat was being transferred straight into the depths of the deep, deep ocean, neatly circumventing so many physical laws that you would surely have an apoplectic fit. Oh. Yes. Sorry, I forgot – the “records” have now been so “homogenised” that they are virtually unrecognizable as reality.)

Jan 23, 2017 at 12:12 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Jan 22, 2017 at 11:37 PM | Entropic man

So how much Global Warming should we have experienced by now?

What caused the LIA and MWP which you keep DENYING?

Jan 22, 2017 at 11:52 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Martin A

I deny ever having said that increasing CO2 does not increase surface temperature.

Glad to hear it.

Now, how can we convince radical rodent?

Jan 22, 2017 at 11:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

We are now warming out of that blue blob into unknown territory.

Jan 22, 2017 at 10:24 PM | Entropic man

What evidence do you have to support that statement? Just Mann's Hockey Stick? Or do you want other offences against scientific decency to be taken into account? Like Gergis maybe?

As you never commented on the Gergis thread, who tipped you off that Gergis was not worth defending? We know you could not have worked it out for yourself, and that would have meant you trusted McIntyre and Climate Audit, as no other Climate Scientist managed it.

Jan 22, 2017 at 10:49 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie


Note that the whole of human civilization took place in the blue blob that represents the last 10,000 years of the graph. We are now warming out of that blue blob into unknown territory.

What fun we will have. :-)

Jan 22, 2017 at 10:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

PostCreate a New Post

Enter your information below to create a new post.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>