Guest Post by Ira Glickstein
Seinfeld fans will remember how proud Kramer was when he thought he had slipped one past the goalie. Well, I’ve managed to slip a few comments onto RealClimate’s discusion of the Times Atlas “Greenland Meltdown” fiasco.
Those of us who have followed the story here on WUWT (1, 2, 3, 4) know the basic facts. (1) The 13th edition of the Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World was published this past September, (2) The Atlas includes a misleading map of Greenland ice cover, (3) Publicity for the Atlas hyped a non-existent 15% meltdown in Greenland, (4) The Atlas has withdrawn the bogus claim, and (5) They will create a corrective insert for the Atlas and make it available online.
RC’s 08 November 2011 post on this issue Times Atlas map of Greenland to be corrected, said the original claims were “rather bizarre” but -amazingly to me- they did not not mention that the error was in the direction of excessive warming. Comment #1, by a seemingly misled RC reader, blames the error on the fact that “Harper Collins is owned by Rupert Murdoch.” The RC moderator cautions against personal attacks, and notes that such a claim wouldn’t make any sense, but he does not acknowledge why – because the error was in the Warmist direction!
To be fair, RC did include a link to another posting that, after a bunch of Warmist hype, is pretty clear on the direction of the original error. However, that link was misleadingly titled “Greenland Meltdown” (since changed to “reported earlier”).
So I posted my first-ever comment to RC, and they published it, in an edited manner that partly reverses my point, as follows:
(Comment #7) Ira Glickstein says: 8 Nov 2011 at 4:54 PM
Thanks for reporting “… the first edition was completely in error, and led to some rather bizarre claims about the amount of ice loss in Greenland.”
However, you do not
acknowledgereiterate the direction of the error, which was to report an impossible, way overstated 15% ice loss.An interested reader would have to follow your link to the
misleadinglybrilliantly, amusingly and accurately titled Greenland Meltdown to learn that: “…, the large exaggeration of that loss rate by Harper Collins in the press release for the 2011 edition of the Times Atlas was of course completely wrong. … the confusion came most likely from a confusion in definitions of what is the permanent ice sheet, and what are glaciers, with the ‘glaciers’ being either dropped from the Atlas entirely or colored brown (instead of white) … there is simply no measure — neither thickness nor areal extent — by which Greenland can be said to have lost 15 % of its ice.[Response: edits in italics 😉 –eric]
Well, an attentive RC commenter followed the link from my name to my personal blog, and from there learned I am a “guest contributor to the denialist disinformation blog WUWT”. I thought that might end my new career as a commenter at RC, but the Moderator passed my second comment (# 12), unedited, even though I challenged the use of “denialist” with respect to WUWT, and included five WUWT links to my “Visualizing the ‘Greenhouse’ Effect” series to prove that we skeptics accept the basic science. Perhaps the comment was passed because I also approvingly quoted James Hansen on the Carbon Tax.
My third comment (# 22) was also passed unedited, but the Moderator said my claim that “despite the steady rise in CO2 over the past decade, there has been no statistically significant mean warming” was “simply false”.
My fourth comment (#31) explained what “statistically significant” means (less than a 5% chance it is wrong), and noted that Phil Jones, head of the Climategate Research Unit said as much in his well-publicized BBC interview. The RC Moderator cut my Climategate jibe, but passed the rest unedited. Further discussion has been shunted over to RC’s Open Thread sidelines, where I am attempting to continue it.
The point of this posting is that, whatever the difficulties, it is possible for skeptics to post over at RC, so long as we are not too blatant about it, and if we are not too sensitive about our words being edited.
The WUWT links in my comments have generated some traffic back here, which is evidence some RC readers are open to reasonable discussion. I urge my fellow skeptics to open-handedly accept this opportunity.
RC STATUS UPDATE —– Ray Ladbury, I hope you see this and reply. advTHANKSance
I accepted the invite at RC (from Ray Ladbury who sometimes comments here at WUWT) to move the conversation to RC’s Off Thread sideline. RC published my acceptance comment (#159) on 12 November.
Ray Ladbury then posted a comment asking me some valid, respectful questions (#160) on the same day. I replied the next day with a respectful, substantive answer to Ray’s questions, but my comment has not yet passed RC Moderation.
OK, Moderation sometimes take a while. BUT, today (14 November) they just published this disingenuous comment, also dated 14 November, that calls me out for not accepting the invite to the discusion there!
Here is the 14 November comment (#175) in full (no edits or snips :^):
Here is my 13 November comment that seems to have been censored by RC:
SO RAY LADBURY, if you are following our discussion of RC censorship here at WUWT, will you please post to the RC Off Thread sideline and ask them what happened to my 13 November comment. If RC is no longer interested in our cross-discussion, I now invite you to continue it over here by replying to my comment above. I hope to hear from you.
And, by the way, if RC does not publish my 13 Novmber comment (edited or not :^) in a day or two , I will repost it again, and again, and … and of course, report the results here where those of us in the “free world” can see it.
@Fred Berple,
You are precisely on the money and to add further… Liftons criteria for a “thought reform” organization is as follows:
Milieu Control
Mystical Manipulation (Planned Spontaneity)
The Demand For Purity
Confession
Sacred Science
Loading the Language
Doctrine Over Person
Dispensing of Existence
See http://www.kashiashram.com/Liftons8Criteria.htm
RC exerts all of the above including excommunication and ostracism of “sinners” as punishment for resisting the doctrine. Heresy and apostasy are singled out for special attention. To post on RC is to be a willing participant in the process. Avoid such places as they are rigged worse than poker machines.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/13/slipping-some-past-the-goalie-at-rc/#comment-796521
“Why not just shout out “I’m a warmist troll!” It says the same as what you said, but in fewer words.”
Great.
An ad hominem.
Fully expected.
Thanks.
Got any more?
Ad hominems, that is.
barry says:
November 13, 2011 at 6:17 pm
“…
RC have a lower tolerance for poor-quality posts or ignorance than some other blogs, including this one.
…-
I think you’re right. Your comment got through.
Ira;
SO RAY LADBURY, if you are following our discussion of RC censorship >>>
See Ira? Sorry, but you’ve been used. You’ve exposed nothing that anyone with a tough question or two doesn’t already know about RC, and you’ve provided them ammunition by engaging at all because their audience is never going to cross check with WUWT and so will swallow the story that you didn’t respond hook line and sinker.
You lie down with dogs, you get up with flees.
I think part of the problem with sites such as RC and WUWT is quite simple – views are often too polarised ….if you will all excuse the punn!
Warmists are prone to crow every time there’s a tiny shread of evidence pointing to AGW but by the same token, there are a great many skeptics who are guilty of the same practice. Akin to football fans, many on either side of the divide refuse to accept there is even the tiniest merit in the opposition. While the evidence of this practice is well documented on this site as regards the views of warmists, it’s worth remembering that there are many commenters here, who are guilty of crowing well bfore the battle is done. Let me give you all an example – for those who clearly blind themselves to the data.
In Autumn 2008 and again in Spring 2010, the well documented arctic sea ice recovery very briefly converged with “1979-2000 mean sea ice extent” line and stood for a while well inside standard deviation. This was indeed encouraging but in no way should have been regarded as a recovery from the 1979-2000 mean. However, I remember reading the headlines at the time on this very site..”Arctic Sea Ice Normal” for example!!?? Even although these were very brief episodes, it amazed me how so many contributers made statements to the effect that “all is well with arctic sea ice”. Inreality of course, for this to have truly been the case, the time spent above the mean should have at least equalled the time spent under the mean…… OVER THE COURSE OF AT LEAST 1 ENTIRE YEAR. Furthermore the depths of the deficits should have equalled the heights of the excesses over the course of the year. This clearly also did NOT happen and hasn’t been anywhere near happening at any time this decade.
While I accept that we do have a limited satelite record, we must still use what data there is. Even if the 1979-2000 era does represent a particularly abundant period of arctic sea ice (which is questionable at best), we should still at some stage begin to see signs of recovery towards similar values to that of the 1979-2000 mean. Besides which, if we really want to crow about winning this particular battle, it ‘s far better to win the battle on battlefield in question rather than running away to another venue. In other words – beat the opposition on their home ground.
For this to happen, it means in effect, beginning to see the ice extent line not just converging briefly but rising above the 1979-2000 mean on several occasions in any one year. Again, this has not happened for well over a decade and still shows no real sign of happening in the near future. While I’m personally convinced that this will happen at some stage, I must concede for the time being, the warmists are winning this particular battle. Until such time as the conditions I have described above start to emerge, I will do NO crowing on this particular issue. My team is currently well behind the opposition in the race for the sea extent & area title and has lost this war in several consecutive years. Let’s be honest with the facts that we do have and not stoop to the depths of the opposition.
As always, Dave, it is great to hear from you. And, to tell the truth, I have been a bit itchy lately, and it is probably the flea infestation I got from RC.
Yes, I am being used. RC commenter MARodger (who called me out over at RC) and other RC readers think I ran away from the RC discussion after Ray Ladbury asked me a few (seemingly) hard questions. However, MARodger, according to his or her comment at RC that I reproduced above (November 14, 2011 at 9:04 am) has been watching this WUWT thread. So, if MARodger sees my reply here, that will be proof that RC censors respectful, serious postings that have been invited by members of the RC community. Also, Ray Ladbury, who I hope is following this WUWT thread, will see the proof. As will other open-minded RC readers who may come over here for a visit. And some may stay with us and learn something new.
And, the much larger WUWT community, that has heretofore only heard second-hand about bad experiences skeptics have had trying to post at RC, will now also have proof that they can watch in real time at both sites. Yes, this exchange will yield more cross-visits to RC than to WUWT, but, the rich owe some charity to the poor :^)
So perhaps only a few RC guys may come over here, and we can’t be sure they will see this proof, but, as I said above, it is better to light one little candle than to curse the darkness.
When it stops being fun, as you and Willis and others who I respect and who have tried to post over at RC have wisely advised me, I will stop.
Why the hell anybody would want to post anything scientific at RC is beyond me LOL
“RC readers think I ran away”
That is NOT a new stunt by the unethical RC. They’ve been doing that for years.
To block rebutal after their team posts comments made to appear to have cornered the visitor. Then when the visitor is prohibited from following up they declare he ran away in defeat.
And Ray Ladbury could very well be the most caustic and unethical alarmist posting on any blog.
Ira Glickstein, PhD says:
November 14, 2011 at 5:42 am
RJ says: November 13, 2011 at 2:26 pm
…Real sceptics do not accept the basic science. CO2 does not somehow magically create additional energy after it leaves earth as many so called sceptics claim.
You are a warmist but not an alarmist. You accept the basic implausible pseudo science but just challenge the extent of warming.
Thanks for your opinion, RJ, but I get the impression that most “real skeptics” do accept the fact that Atmospheric water vapor, CO2 and other so-called “greenhouse gases” are responsible for the Earth being ~33º C warmer than it would be if the Atmosphere was pure N2 and O2. So you can put yourself down as what I call a “disbeliever”.
Only sceptics who haven’t examined the sleight of hand perpetrated by the AGWSF department’s meme that ‘greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere’…
“Atmospheric water vapor, CO2 and other so-called “greenhouse gases” are responsible for the Earth being ~33º C warmer than it would be if the Atmosphere was pure N2 and O2”
That is a lie.
This is the truth:
Atmospheric water vapor is responsible for the Earth being 52°C cooler than it would be if the Atmosphere was pure N2 and O2.
This is such a very clever meme produced by the AGWScience Fiction meme producing department. It is a subtle sleight of hand to deceive to make it appear that ‘greenhouse gases such as water vapour and carbon dioxide warm the atmosphere.
But, without water vapor, CO2 and these other so-called “greenhouse gases” and with an atmosphere of nitrogen and oxygen the Earth would be 52°C hotter than the present 15°C.
So how is sleight of hand achieved? By subtle misdirecting of context and confusing terms, that 33°C comes from another context, comparing the Earth’s temperature with the temperature of the Earth without any atmosphere at all.
That figure of ’33°C warmer’ comes from a comparison of Earth with all the atmospheric gases including oxygen and nitrogen, and Earth with no atmosphere at all, none of these gases.
Oxygen and nitrogen therefore are included here as “the greenhouse gases” responsible for raising the Earth’s temperature from -18°C without them to 15°C with them – making the Earth warmer by around 33°C.
It is all the atmospheric gases including oxygen and nitrogen which are responsible for the Earth being 33°C warmer than Earth without these greenhouse gases.
This figure of 33°C warmer comes from a comparison of the Earth with all the atmospheric gases including oxygen and nitrogen and Earth without any of them at all, without any atmosphere at all.
It is all the atmospheric gases including oxygen and nitrogen which are responsible for the Earth being 33°C warmer than Earth without these greenhouse gases.
The Earth with an atmosphere of only the greenhouse gases nitrogen and oxygen but minus the greenhouse gas water vapour would be 67%deg;C.
Which means, without water vapor, CO2 and other so-called “greenhouse gases” but still with an atmosphere of the greenhouse gases nitrogen and oxygen, the Earth would be around 52°C hotter.
The greenhouse gas water vapour is responsible for cooling the Earth ~52°C from what it would be without it.
(The other ‘greenhouse gases’ are insignificant and carbon dioxide included anyway in the water vapour because part of the water cycle; water and carbon dioxide have an irresistable attraction for each other, all pure clean rain is carbonic acid, as is dew, fog and so on. That’s why iron stuff outside rusts.)
So let’s go through that again.
The Earth has a heavy volume of fluid gases surrounding it, this is our atmosphere, the atmospheric gases. It is very heavy, this vast volume of gases is pressing down on us around a ton/square foot. You have a ton of it on your shoulders. All these gases comprise the Earth’s greenhouse, they are therefore all greenhouse gases.
Before, note how Ira puts it, the “so-called greenhouse gases” of water vapour, carbon dioxide etc. were stressed as being ‘greenhouse gases’ by the AGW propaganda, all our atmospheric gases were thought of as the earth’s greenhouse gases, because all these gases make up the Earth’s atmosphere so likened to Earth having a greenhouse around it. A real greenhouse, with windows and convection..
Our real greenhouse gases therefore are practically 100% nitrogen and oxygen, without the around 5% water.
Oxygen and nitrogen are the majority greenhouse gases of our greenhouse atmosphere surrounding the Earth.
NB that. No quotes required. Oxygen and nitrogen are the majority greenhouse gases of our greenhouse atmosphere which comprises all the gases.
Without any of our greenhouse, which is the whole atmosphere of gases surrounding the Earth, the temperature would be around -18°C.
With all our greenhouse, all our atmosphere of greenhouse gases surrounding us, but mainly around 95% nitrogen and oxygen and around 5% water vapour, our temperature is around 15°C.
It takes all our greenhouse gases which is our atmosphere and mainly the greenhouse gases oxygen and nitrogen to raise the temperature of the Earth around 33°C from the -18°C it would be without any atmosphere at all.
With the main greenhouse gases oxygen and nitrogen in place, but without the water vapour, the Earth would be 67°C.
Think deserts.
By taking out the around 5% greenhouse gas water vapour but leaving the greenhouse gases nitrogen and oxygen, by taking out the Water Cycle, the Earth would be 52%deg;C hotter
The Water Cycle brings the temperature down to 15°C in our real greenhouse.
Water vapour is the prime cooling greenhouse gas in our atmosphere by the mechanism of the Water Cycle.
By taking out the around 5% greenhouse gas water vapour but leaving the greenhouse gases nitrogen and oxygen, by taking out the Water Cycle, the Earth would be 52%deg;C hotter
The greenhouse gas water vapour cools the Earth by 52°C.
The Earth is cooler by 52°C because of the Water Cycle.
The Water Cycle is excluded from the AGWScience Fiction department’s energy budget which wants to make you believe that ‘greenhouse gases’ warm the Earth.
Myrrh says:
November 14, 2011 at 3:33 pm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Proof positive that at WUWT, all view points, be they warmist or skeptc, well argued or poorly, founded upon fact or fantasy, are allowed through, and unedited.
It is of course a double edged sword to allow flights of fancy to stand equally with well thought out science facts, but if the choices are one or the other, then I choose Anthony’s version. Though if there was just one commenter that I… never mind. I’ve said enough.
Ira, thanks for the note. I admire your persistence. As long as you can laugh about it, it’s likely worth it.
w.
THANKS Willis. Let us laugh together. I wonder how this will play out, and will stop when it is no longer fun. Do you have any documentation on how they treated you unfairly or edited your words? Were you able to get a friendly website to watch the events in real time? Ira
Funding?
… Anyone interested in picking up the skeptics climate wiki I only started but have virtually no time for for another 6 months – email me!
I hope someone does this, and organizes a point/counterpoint document containing rebuttals or at least tonings-down of Skeptical Science’s alleged debunkings. Such a book could have an impact exceeding that of The Delinquent Teenager …; it is badly needed as a handbook by contrarians to rebut the condescending on line comments of Nonsensus-parrots.
Thank you Ira, your response to my earlier comment seems very precise and informative.
My understanding of it all is that you describe quite accurately how scientists are interpreting the science of “Global Warming” and I am therefore not saying that you are wrong. – I am aware of the possibility that I may be the one who is wrong, but my interpretation of some of the “Laws of Thermodynamics” and of a few experiments I have made the past, make me feel that scientists haven’t got it quite right. – Not yet..
However I have written two (quite long) responses to you on my brand you “lap-top” and they have both vanished (on the backs of Gremlins, perhaps?) and I am now writing this short note on my old PC as I have had “no time” to spare for yet another re-write. – I will be in touch again later, to try to explain further – but for now, I must go away as I have got places to go – and people to see.
O H D.
Any familiarity with IR Spectroscopy?
Which involves IR absorption by molecules and re-radiation by those same molecules?
Do you ‘believe’ in electromagnetism and that it may relate to molecular structure and furthermore how that structure dictates how any given molecule possesses various ‘modes of resonance’ (or perhaps none at all) at various wavelengths?
https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=IR+spectroscopy&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
.
davidmhoffer says:
November 14, 2011 at 5:44 pm
Myrrh says:
November 14, 2011 at 3:33 pm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Proof positive that at WUWT, all view points, be they warmist or skeptc, well argued or poorly, founded upon fact or fantasy, are allowed through, and unedited.
It is of course a double edged sword to allow flights of fancy to stand equally with well thought out science facts, but if the choices are one or the other, then I choose Anthony’s version. Though if there was just one commenter that I… never mind. I’ve said enough.
Well yes, but Ira often posts here, but it’s easy enough to point out his fantasies…
I’ve said this particular AGWSF meme is very clever, not that easy to explain because of the way it includes nitrogen and oxygen as greenhouse gases in one scenario and then excludes them in the other. Perhaps trying to explain all of the nuances at once is what has confused you.
Ira said: “but I get the impression that most “real skeptics” do accept the fact that Atmospheric water vapor, CO2 and other so-called “greenhouse gases” are responsible for the Earth being ~33º C warmer than it would be if the Atmosphere was pure N2 and O2.”
First of all, that ~33°C figure is standard for the difference between the Earth with no atmosphere at all and the Earth with our atmosphere:
Earth without any atmosphere: -18°C
Earth with our atmosphere: +15°C
Difference between the two: 33°C
Ira has related that 33°C difference to an atmosphere of oxygen and nitrogen and not to what it is actually calculated on, Earth with no atmosphere at all.
So, no this sceptic certainly doesn’t accept his fantasy physics which is typical of AGW propaganda.
As RJ said: “Real sceptics do not accept the basic science.”
This is but one example of why real sceptics don’t accept the basic science.
Since what Ira has said here is obviously nonsense you’re shown to be not a very good judge of what is fantasy and what real physics.
‘Real Physics’ he says while ignoring the EM environment and contribution to the ‘energy flow’ (think: back radiation) gaseous molecules active in the IR spectrum contribute …
.
LazyTeenager says:
November 14, 2011 at 5:30 am
Myrrh says
While you’re over there, Ira, ask them to explain what happens to the 95% thermal infrared from an incandescent bulb when what you say you feel as heat comes from the 5% visible emitted? Does it get trapped in the bulb or what?
————
What you feel as heat on your hand is the proportion of the lamp’s radiation output absorbed by your hand. It does not matter if the light absorbed is infrared or visible light. So
?? So how does the hand convert this “radiation output” “which does not matter if the light absorbed is infrared or visible light”, to heat?
_Jim says:
November 15, 2011 at 12:07 pm
Myrrh says on November 14, 2011 at 3:33 pm
…
Any familiarity with IR Spectroscopy?
Which involves IR absorption by molecules and re-radiation by those same molecules?
Yes, as in an near infrared camera which collects the near infrared reflected back from bodies. Yes, as in thermal infrared cameras which measure the HEAT ENERGY, i.e. thermal infrared, radiating out from a hot body.
Do you ‘believe’ in electromagnetism
? 🙂
and that it may relate to molecular structure and furthermore how that structure dictates how any given molecule possesses various ‘modes of resonance’ (or perhaps none at all) at various wavelengths?
As I posted before in trying to explain this. Shortwaves work on the electron transition level when meeting molecules; like blue visible light from the Sun in our atmosphere which is absorbed by the electrons of the molecules of nitrogen and oxygen which then bounce it back out, this is called reflection/scattering. It is well understood in the real science field of optics. Thermal infrared however, works on the atom/molecular level of resonance when it meets molecules, being a more powerful energy than the piddling tiny blue light thermal infrared moves the whole molecule into vibration – this is how stuff gets heated up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translucency
Scroll down to:
See, these are the two basic different levels electromagnetic wave lengths operate on, this is the basic difference between Light and Heat electomagnetic waves. Heat, thermal infrared electromagnetic waves, moves the whole molecule into vibration and this is what it takes to heat something up. It really is that simple the difference between the two.
Continue reading: “UV-Vis: Electronic transitions”, this is what these solar shortwaves do when meeting molecules, read through the four possible things. Note, that the second is a description of the mechanism as I gave above example of blue light reflecting/scattering in the sky. The third is a description of how visible light does not get absorbed by water, but is transmitted through. This is basic real world physics, water is a transparent medium for visible light. Visible light doesn’t even get in to play with the water molecule’s electrons as it does with oxygen and nitrogen in our atmosphere, it gets transmitted through without being absorbed. Visible light electromagnetic waves do not have the power to move water molecules into vibrational states which is what it takes to heat water.
Therefore, basic, well-understood, real world, physics says that the AGWSF claim that ‘shortwave solar heat land and oceans in their ‘energy budget’ is physical nonsense.
As for your next post, don’t know what you mean, but I really don’t see any possibility of anything you say on the subject about ‘backradiating’ making real world physical sense if you don’t understand the above basic real world physics.
AGWScience Fiction has created a science fiction world and all its ‘physics’ relates back to this science fiction world, and not the real physical world around us.
If you can’t see how utterly ludicrous the physics claims in this following post then it shows you haven’t appreciated that what Ira is pushing is a fantasy physics created out of mixing up properties and processes and taking laws out of context from real world physics.
It only takes one such example as above to show how nonsensical the claim that AGW pushers are ‘describing the real world’, but in every area we look, we keep finding more examples of this twisting of real basic physics.
In the real world an incandescent light bulb radiates out 95% thermal infrared and 5% visible. So, what has happened to the 95% thermal infrared heat being radiated out by the light bulb if what Ira says is true and what I feel as heat comes from the 5% visible?
Oh, of course, it must be trapped inside the glass bulb backradiating creating runaway global lightbulb warming.. 🙂
If you can’t see how ludicrous the claim that what we feel as heat comes from the visible, keep reading real world physics basics until you can. And then you’ll find other examples of how AGWSF twists real physics basics much easier to spot.
I’m not saying it’s going to be easy to find this out… As you work through looking at these basic AGWSF claims, the memes, you’ll find that they have been very successfully incorporated into the majority education system, so difficult now to disentangle. Here is one example of how traditional physics still teaches about the difference between thermal infrared and near infrared:
http://science.hq.nasa.gov/kids/imagers/ems/infrared.html
Note, near infrared is not hot, we cannot feel it. We cannot feel visible light, we cannot feel UV light. We do not feel these shortwaves as heat because a) they are not hot, b) they do not have the power to warm us up. Ira’s claim is fantasy, it is impossible for me to feel heat from the visible light of an incandescent light bulb. IMPOSSIBLE. What I feel as heat from an incandescent light is the INVISIBLE thermal infrared. When I switch off the light bulb I can still feel this.
The AGWSF energy budget which claims that these shortwave solar electromagnetic waves heat land and oceans is gobbledegook.
You can take it seriously if you want. Real sceptics don’t.
The heat we feel from the Sun directly radiating to the Earth is the invisible thermal infrared. This is what warms us up inside.
This has been excluded from the AGWSF energy budget Ira and ilk keep pushing as if real world physics and in its place they have put Solar shortwave, visible, heating land and oceans.
I do hope now you can see how this AGW claim is fantasy, science fiction. They have been very successful at introducing it into general education, which means that those now so educated, who have not been taught traditional physics basics, do not have any understanding of how the real physical world around us functions. They have successfully dumbed down science teaching for the masses.
Well said Dave. In W.S. Gilbert’s “Mikado” there is a song that goes “I’ve got a little list … of society offenders … who never would be missed …” Well, you can put him or her on that list, Dave. Like you, I prefer Anthony’s version where flights of fancy and odd scientific views are published along with the stuff I respect and find educational and interesting, even when they differ with my views.
As I’m not paid to blog my only “reward” is seeing high numbers of page views and comments on my topics, so flights of fancy comments are rewarding in that respect. You know, there are all kinds of nuts. Some, like peanuts are easy to open and enjoy, and others like walnuts and coconuts are more difficult, but worth the trouble. And then there are some nuts that are so bitter and hard to crack that they are not worth the trouble to bother with, so I simply ignore them. They are welcome to enter my world, and live in peace, but I simply do not respond to them in any way. Perhaps if others did the same, they might go away and it would be a more pleasant place.
RC STATUS UPDATE #2 —– Ray Ladbury, MARodger, I hope you see this and reply. advTHANKSance
Well, many THANKS to RC commenter MARodger, who has been following this thread here at WUWT and who saw the previous RC STATUS UPDATE (above at November 14, 2011 at 9:04 am)! My rather lengthy and substantive comment (reposted to RC on 15 November) has been published in full on RC with no snips or edits, within a rather short time of my posting it. My latest is a version of what I submitted a couple days ago, with some softening of the points.
Here is MARodger’s comment to the RC Open Thread sidelines that seems to have unblocked the RC Moderation process for me:
Here is my comment as posted at RC with no snips or edits:
Now, one sparrow doesn’t make a summer and this minor success took a lot of effort and some help from MARodger, but I hope it is a start to more open discussion over at RC. I plan to continue the cross-discussion over there, assuming that my future postings will pass Moderation (and I will be Moderate in my skeptic claims :^)
Ira;
You know, there are all kinds of nuts.>>>
True, but as you point out, there are many kinds of nuts. You’ve provided several examples of different kinds of nuts, but I’d like to point out that you are limiting your use of the word to nouns. “Nuts” can be used to describe things too. For example the saying “he is nuts”. This does not mean that he actually is a bag of nuts, or even that he has nuts at all. It is just a quick way to describe an individual who is squirrley. I’m not certain that is a fair descriptor as it is well known that squirrels collect nuts. In this modern age of 100% literacy, even the squirrels can read, and they might accidently collect the nutter because they don’t understand the nuance of the term. Where the squirrels store their nuts is beyond me. I was merely making a point.
Ira said: “Well said Dave. In W.S. Gilbert’s “Mikado” there is a song that goes “I’ve got a little list … of society offenders … who never would be missed …”
Ah yes, the 10/10 video solution to those who can see through the scam.
Ira said: “That is why I (along with James Hansen :^) have long favored a revenue-neutral carbon tax, charged at the mine, well or port of entry, where it will be efficient to collect and hard to cheat on, with the proceeds returned, on an equal basis, to every legal citizen.”
Yeah, yeah, for the good of all meme… if there’s anything left after the collectors take out their expenses..
A solution for a non-existent problem concocted out of fictional physics and defended by physical threats against those who see your peace as the offer it is, given and perpetrated for centuries by other bullies, submit or go on your little list.. Hm.
And like those you’d like us to link to, you too never, ever, deal with the real physics which shows up the fiction of your ‘science’ claims. You just keep repeating the memes and when you can’t censor the logical debunking of them, refuse to answer the questions.
A non-existent problem:
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Scientific/Segalstad.htm#9
How sad.
“The point of this posting is that, whatever the difficulties, it is possible for skeptics to post over at RC, so long as we are not too blatant about it, and if we are not too sensitive about our words being edited.”
Unlike this blog, which simply bans people who can point out factual errors in claims made here.
[Not sure about that, but I am under no such instruction. I will however snip personal abuse ~ac]