PRESS RELEASE August 2, 2012
Contact:
Matt Dempsey Matt_Dempsey@epw.senate.gov
Katie Brown Katie_Brown@epw.senate.gov
Inhofe Exposes Another Epic Fail by Global Warming Alarmists
Photo Posted by KFOR and Think Progress
The dumpster fire that caused the melting lights
Photo Provided by KFOR
Link to Think Progress Blog Post
Link to Watts Up With That: Alarmist fact checking – street lights don’t melt at 115°F
Washington, D.C. – Today the far-left blog Think Progress posted a photo (originally posted on KFOR’s facebook page) of street lights in Oklahoma that had melted, they claimed, because of extreme heat. Global warming alarmist Bill McKibben took to Twitter immediately to publicize what he believed to be proof of global warming, tweeting to Senator James Inhofe (Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, “Senator Inhofe, God may be trying to get your attention. Check out this picture.”
Not long after the picture surfaced, Oklahomans posted comments on Think Progress’ blog saying that these lights had melted due to a fire – which makes sense considering that the two front lights were melted while the two back lights remained unscathed. Once this news came to light, Think Progress immediately removed the post and provided an update that reads: “After we published this piece, we saw reports from people on the ground in Stillwater that the melting streetlights were due to a nearby fire. The person who took the photo, Patrick Hunter, described the scene: ‘Being the person that actually took this photo, I’d say that this was due to a fire semi-close by coupled with the unbelievable heat we are experiencing.’ Still an amazing photo and not fake as many are saying on here. Enjoy!”
This afternoon, KFOR confirmed that the melted lights in the photo were not caused by hot temperatures but a nearby dumpster fire.
“Poor Bill McKibben – he’s been trying to get something to melt for ages but it keeps backfiring,” Senator Inhofe said. “These alarmists never learn their lesson. Remember Bill McKibben was the one who was going to melt a giant ice sculpture in the shape of the word ‘hoax’ on the national mall, but his group had to cancel because there wasn’t enough interest. Now, after proclaiming that street lights in Oklahoma are melting because of global warming, we have confirmation that a fire caused this scene.
“Amid the resurgence of hysteria from my friends on the left, I appreciated climatologist Dr. John Christy who testified this week before the Environment and Public Works committee saying that instead of proclaiming this summer is ‘what global warming looks like’ it is ‘scientifically more accurate to say that this is what Mother Nature looks like, since events even worse than these have happened in the past before greenhouse gases were increasing like they are today.’
“This isn’t the first time alarmists have tried these stunts and it certainly won’t be the last – when will they finally realize they’ve lost this debate?”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Entropic Man;
It makes it difficult for an European observer to distinguish between people who are given funding because they express an opinion and those who express an opinion because of their funding.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Of course this never happens in Europe? How naive are you?
ericgrimsrud says:
August 3, 2012 at 5:08 pm
DavidMHoffer, you rascal,
If you really are a physicists who knows squat about the three factors that affect climate, you also know very well that the minutia you focused on here concerning the “sans greenhouse gas” calculation of the Earth’s temperature is of little importance relative to the large T boost provided by the GHG effect.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Eric, seriously, I skimmed your site and within moments picked off half a dozen things you said that were wrong. I picked a couple of highlights and suggested you research the points I brought to your attention rather than embarras you further. I really don't have the time to get into a comprehensive review right now, but trust me, I've seen enough in your site to suggest you wouldn't come off well in the debate. My suggestion that you research more was sincere.
ericgrimsrud says:
August 3, 2012 at 5:08 pm
DavidMHoffer, you rascal,
If you really are a physicists who knows squat about the three factors that affect climate,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
For the record:
1. I am not a physicist
2. The three factors you list on your site that “affect climate” are actually factors that affect energy balance.
3. Energy balance is a tiny component of climate. There are many, many, many other factors.
4. That you seem to think that only energy balance matters in understanding climate is very telling in terms of how simplisticaly you view the climate system, and how much you have to learn.
I suggest starting with this site and reading through the articles and comments by Robert Brown for starters. That alone ought to tell you that you are a victim of your own personal confirmation bias. For the record, Robert is a real physicist.
DavidM, Starting with the basics, it is actually true that three things determine the global average temperature. It is by that the average global temperature, that we measure the average global. Yes, then, of course, many other things affect and determine those three basic factors – for example the albedo is affected by many things. If you are, in fact, any sort of climate scientist, you know these things that I just said. Therefore, I would agree with you that you are not a physicist and do not even appear to be a scientist. You do, however, appear to be a “word mincer” who is doing his best to discredit science by pretending to be a scientist. Please feel free to prove me wrong via an exposure of credentials that suggest any relationship whatsoever to science. I do suspect, however, that you are like Senator Inhofe who is scientifically “unbiased” because he has no such credentials.
I admire the Senator for the job he is doing. I believe in global warming, just not that it is man-made. Otherwise, if every incident of global warming – 1912, 1936, 2012 would have to be interrupted with a period of man-made global cooling. The alarmists are just arrogant to believe that man can influence nature to this extent. The earth is self-regulating; magnetic fields ward of solar flares, whirlpools in Antartica pulling CO2 to the sea floor, warm times are followed by cool times, including the last Ice Age “scare” of the 1950-60s. Impotent man must adapt just like everything else on earth since it really does not have the ability or power to change nature. If they think they can, why not start with something smaller like dissolving a tornado or quieting a hurricane before tackling the entire earth’s CO2 level?
Olaf Koenders says:
Olaf, when you stated the obvious:
How about leaving them your body? It’s chock-full of your precious carbon which should be released into the air when you’re cremated, or released into the soil if you’re buried, to be released into the air again eventually.
I suspect you thought that you were being cute by pointing out that even I will be emitting CO2 after I die. If so you evidently don’t know that that is OK. Converting one form of biological carbon into another does not lead to CO2 levels above the natural levels. It is only the conversion of geological carbon (fossil fuels) that does that. That is why we go to the trouble of making and using biofuels.
To our self proclaimed “Politeness Man”,
While teaching I seldomly provide references for everything and every argument I make – while I do provide lists of suggested reading. I can always point to specific references when asked to. In the more than 100 peer-reviewed papers I have written, more extensive referencing was often required but only when you were dreading on new ground. What I just said is standard behavior among scientists who teach and do research.
Also in teaching and research I almost always use language that is proper in each of those settings. This blog is very different for either of those settings, however. Have a look at the opening statement of this blog and count the number of times that derogatory comments were leveled at the so called “alarmists” and in particular towards Bill McKibben. This blog is not a legitimate scientific forum. It is a “let’s make fun of the scientific nerds” party from the very beginning – encouraging others to do the same.
So please get real concerning what goes on in blogs like this. If you want to seriously discuss the science of AGW with me, start by studying my short course and I will then be very pleased to answer any questions or be corrected and thereby learn something new as we go. Alternatively, let me know where your course or views on climate science are presented in an organized manner and I will be glad to study it and ask you questions.
The “he said, she said” approach to “scientific discussion” that occurs on a blog like this usually amounts to little more than playground banter. The only point I originally wanted to make here is to state my opinion (derived from studying his book) that Senator Inhofe is scientifically illiterate (while I have no doubt that he is politically astute). And again I would encourage him to learn some real science for the sake of his grandchildren (if he has any). If he does that and then asks honest and sincere questions, I would treat him with respect in subsequent discussions of the science. What goes on on this blog, however, is mainly about political positioning and mindless venting – with just a dash of science emerging here and there. I am human, of course, and often treat people no better than they treat me – I know, I have to work in that problem just as most us do.
ericgrimsrud;
Please feel free to prove me wrong via an exposure of credentials that suggest any relationship whatsoever to science.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Argument from authority. You want to build your credibility, you stop with that nonsense right now.
ericgrimsrud says:
August 3, 2012 at 6:26 pm
DavidM, Starting with the basics, it is actually true that three things determine the global average temperature. It is by that the average global temperature, that we measure the average global.
1. Your original assertion was that only three things govern the climate. This statement is patently false. You’ve now switched gears and stated that only three things govern the global average temperature which is an entirely different matter.
2. How do you define global average temperature? If you define it as the effective black body temperature of earth as seen from space, then doubling CO2 changes that temperature, once equilibrium is re-established by 0 degrees. You can use a different defintiion I suppose, but I will refer you to IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 2 which uses precisely that definition and which is in agreement that the net change in energy balance once equilibrium is established again is 0 w/m2.
3. The debate is about WHERE the effective black body temperature of earth occurs. Presently, the effective black body temperature of earth is roughly 253 K, and this occurrs at an approximate altitude of 14,000 feet. The altitude is lower at higher altitudes and also lower when water vapour concentrations are low (deserts versus oceans at the same latitude for example) but 14,000 as an average is a decent approximation.
4. Doubling of CO2 results, according to the science that underpins AR4 WG1 Ch2, in raising the altitude at which the effective black body temperature of earth occurrs. AR4 WG1 Ch2 is very specific that their sensitivity calculation of CO2 doubling = 3.7 w/m2 = +1 degree C of direct warming does NOT translate into a temperature increase of that amount at earth surface.
5. Stefan-Boltzman Law which is P(w/m2) = 5.67*10^-8*T^4 with T in degrees K yields that +3.7 w/m2 would increase surface temperatures by only 0.7 degrees. It would take 5.5 w/m2 to yield a surface temperature with an average of +15C (their number, not mine) increase of 1 degree. IPCC AR4 Ch2 postulates no less than four different scenarios in terms of WHERE (what altitude) we should expect any given amount of warming to happen, and some of those scenarios are predicated on a surface temperature increase of zero, with ALL the warming happening at high atltidudes.
6. IPCC AR4 WG1 estimates a feedback from increased water vapour that will boost the effects of CO2 by another 1 to 3.5 degrees for a total ranging from 2 to 4.5 degrees. While the theory that increased temperatures increase the water vapour carrying capacity of the atmosphere, it is also true that NOAA’s measurements over the last number of years have shown that atmospheric water vapour has DECLINED rather than increased. Just because the atmosphere CAN hold more water vapour doesn’t necessarily mean that it WILL hold more water vapour, and the actual data from NOAA shows the opposite of what the IPCC predicated their predictions upon.
You really want to keep on going? Or are you ready to shut up and do the research I suggested you do?
The altitude is lower at higher altitudes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Of course I meant “the altitude is lower at higher LATITUDES”
davidmhoffer says:
August 3, 2012 at 10:22 pm
The altitude is lower at higher altitudes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Of course I meant “the altitude is lower at higher LATITUDES”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I was about to add a comment explaining why this is the case, and I though…nah. Let’s have ericgrimsrud explain why this is the case. He’s got a PhD you know. That’s like serious credentials, and once you have credentials, as we all know, you’re opinion is correct, and the opinion of people without credentials is wrong.
So how about it ericgrimsrud? Can you explain why the effective black body temperature of earth occurrs at lower altitudes in the arctic than it does in the tropics? Can you explain why in regions of high water vapour (oceans in the tropics for example) the effects of CO2 increases are very muted at low altitiudes and more pronounced at high altitudes? How about you provide an explanation for these things and I, who have no credentials to speak of, will let you know if you got it right or not.
Alternatively, you could proclaim that my assertion above is false and explain why. Go for it.
To DavidM
Note that when I became curious about your background which might have included a professional experience in the area in which you have been pontificating, you have simply ignored that question. That’s OK. It’s one way of answering the question. I now have a better understanding of why you say the things you say. You appear to be lifting “stuff” from the bloggery without really understanding the more central questions (by the way, are we supposed to know who your mentor, Robert Brown is?).
Your central problem is not understanding the following very elementary point: The most commonly used measurement of “global average climate” over time the ensemble of globally averaged SURFACE TEMPERATURES. And that measurement is indeed typically explained by the Heat Balance that occurs from the three factors I have described: intensity of the Sun, the aldedo, and the greenhouse effect. What I just said is generally considered to be correct in the field of climate science and is relatively simple to understand. Note also that we live on the surface of the Earth- and it is those locations that the most importance to use.
So what are you doing? You are talking about details concerning what is happening in the upper atmosphere. Those details are very important, for course, for the purpose of understanding additional details of local and regional weather and the details of heat transfer. However, it is the sum of all weather that provides our global average climate – and our determination of that comes from the sum of SURFACE temperatures. Thus what you have been doing is lifting fancy stuff from the work of others in this field – in order to look like you are ahead of the curve – while not even seeming to know the basics – that it is the sum of surface temperatures that is the measure of what we call climate.
No you don’t need to be professional in order to discuss climate science. However, because you at first appeared to be so knowledge about specific details concerning the upper atmosphere – while being so ignorant of the more basic and more important aspects of climate change, I thought I would ask you if you were a knowledgeable professional or just someone who is pretending to be one. I run into that latter type of person frequently, of course, when discussing climate science on blogs like this. And, as is the case here, they can generally lift “stuff” from the bloggery and heap personal abuse on their opponent, but do not even know the basics and cannot hold up the scientific conversation as it expands. Such people typically do not have the background that real professionals almost always does have. Since you have now (not) indicated your professional background, it helps us all know where you are (not) coming from – while you will continue to pontificate on this subject, I have no doubt. Your goal appears to be to confuse the public and I am sure you will continue.
If calling a spade as spade is condescension, so be it.
A perfect example of the cluelessness of the left on the issue of global warming can best be summed up by a statement made by Al Gore in his pathetic documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” (which should be called “An Inconvenient Bunch of Garbage”). In the film he makes a statement that it is hotter now than it has been in over 800 years. I’m surprised that he did not see the inconsistency in that statement since he is so “incredibly smart” (according to those on the left, at any rate). The question he obviously failed to ponder is that if it is hotter now than it has been in over 800 years, why was it so hot back then, since mankind didn’t have cars and factories contributing greenhouse gases that long ago. It also never seems to occur to the left that the largest contributing factor to climate change (whether hotter or colder) is the SUN. Archeologists have uncovered evidence of tropical type plants that grew in the Arctic Circle roughly 80,000 years ago. Obviously, it was way hotter during that time period and no cars or factories that far back either. Contrast that with the last Ice Age, which put glaciers as far south as the Ohio River a mere 10,000 or so years ago and it gives some idea of the naturally occurring fluctuations (due mainly to the sun) of the planet Earth in the short timespan of only a few tens of thousands of years. I can recall that back in the 1970’s, many climatologists were warning of global cooling. I wonder whatever happened to that? The real problem is that human beings (as a general rule) tend to suffer from normalcy bias, wherein they think that what has traditionally been the norm (in their short lifespans at least) actually IS the norm. The planet has been fluctuating from one global temperature extreme to the other for as long as the planet has had a climate. This will NOT change and any effect we as humans have been able to accomplish (for good or bad) is miniscule in comparison to the naturally occurring rhythm of the planet. Our effect on the climate has been more like a fly in a hurricane than anything else, but the left keeps on grabbing at straws nonetheless. Not to worry though since they will eventually tire of the global warming issue and it will be on to something else they can find to gripe about. As an example, when was the last time you heard anything about the “hole” in the ozone layer. That was big a few years back but seems to be a non-issue to the left nowadays (they have global warming for the time being). Ironically, every time I questioned anyone who talked about the “hole” in the ozone layer, I asked each of them a simple question, which not a single one of them could answer. Since they were portraying themselves as experts on the ozone layer, my question was “What IS ozone?”. The fact that not a single person complaining about the subject could correctly identify that ozone is nothing more than O3 (three atoms of oxygen in a covalent bond) as opposed to the 02 we normally breathe, tends to indicate that they were just spouting off what they had heard from others (who were equally uninformed) instead of doing any meaningful research on their own. If they had, they would have discovered that there has always been a “hole” in the ozone layer over the poles due to the Earth’s magnetic field and it fluctuates normally in a cyclic rhythm tied to sunspot activity (see, there’s that nasty old sun doing despicable things to Earth again). Perhaps someone pointed that out to them and that could be the reason that you don’t hear about that subject anymore. Most likely, however, they just got tired of the subject in the same way a child finally tires of a new toy and picked up the next new shiny object they saw (i.e. global warming) and started playing with it instead. But, as I pointed out earlier, they will eventually tire of it as well and move on to the next new thing (whatever that may be). Whatever that “new thing” may be, they most assuredly will be just as misinformed on that topic as they are on all the others.
davidmhoffer:
I am writing to thank you for the amusement you gave me by providing your post at August 3, 2012 at 10:07 pm.
Anybody who looks at the blog by ericgrimsrud can see he his arrogance is so great that he fails to recognise he is ignorant of almost all climate science. It is unfair to rub his nose in it, but I admit that he asked for it.
Nemesis followed Hubris. It seems that you are bothering to be his Nemesis. Please keep it up because I am enjoying the laughs at his expense (and I feel no guilt at this because he deserves it).
Richard
Friends:
ericgrimsrud again demonstrates his ignorance and misunderstanding of climate science at August 4, 2012 at 8:05 am where he writes:
If anybody wants to know why he is plain wrong in every assertion he makes in this quotation then I suggest that they read
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc0102.htm
especially its Appendix B.
Richard
Richardscourtney, You rascal, you.
The reference you referred us to which you say proves I am wrong concerning my definitions of global climate and global averaged temperature is nothing more than a letter you wrote to the British Parliament. It has nothing to do with the accepted scientific definitions of climate. The proposal you made there (to a government agency?) to change the definition of average global temperature has never made it past the peer reviewed literature – to my knowledge. If it had, of course, you would have referred us to that paper, not simply to a personal letter of your own!!
Thanks for that input, however. I might help to explain a few things. In particular, I have wondered who the “ghost writer” for DavidMHoffer might be. It appears that you are a good candidate and, if so, your comment congradulating him for “his” good work would take on new meaning indeed.
As a result of these revolations, I suspect that we will hear once again from DavidM. I am less certain, however, who will be the real author of his next comment.
Nevertheless, good job!! As evidenced by many of comments offered by the readers of this blog, your efforts do go over quite well with a general public that does not know the difference between real professional scientists and those who are very good and pretending to be one.
[Moderator’s Note: The issue of sock puppets is one we take seriously here at WUWT. You have my personal assurance, from first hand-knowledge, that David M. Hoffer is in fact a real person and is not Richard Courtney’s alter ego. I trust this lays your concerns to rest. -REP]
I’ve had plastic stuff melt next to the burners on my STOVE due to global warming. And my daughter once cooked a small cake in an “Easy Bake Oven” with the power of a light bulb, and global warming.
Sigh.
Some people are gluttons for punishment
.
ericgrimsrud;
Note that when I became curious about your background which might have included a professional experience in the area in which you have been pontificating, you have simply ignored that question.
>>>>>>>>>
REPLY: No, you asserted that I was not a credentialed scientist and dismissed my opinion out of hand on that basis. Unable to respond to the valid issues I brought to your attention, you reduced your argument to “I have a PhD and you don’t so shut up”. Your arrogance is astounding.
ericgrimsrud;
(by the way, are we supposed to know who your mentor, Robert Brown is?).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
REPLY: Had you taken my advice and read the articles on this site by Robert Brown you would know that a) he is not my mentor and b) he is a PhD physicist at Duke. You’d also have read detailed explanations that speak to the major flaws in the material on your web site.
Ericgrimsrud;
And that measurement is indeed typically explained by the Heat Balance that occurs from the three factors I have described:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
REPLY: Oh. My. God. We have someone claiming to hold a PhD in chemistry who doesn’t understand the difference between heat balance and energy balance. Who granted you your degree and can it be recalled?
Ericrimsrud;
What I just said is generally considered to be correct in the field of climate science and is relatively simple to understand.
>>>>>>>>>>>
REPLY: Well you best jump on the phone quick then with the climatologists who wrote the IPCC reports because they disagree with you.
Ericgrimsrud;
Note also that we live on the surface of the Earth- and it is those locations that the most importance to use.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
REPLY; Note that I explained to you that the sensitivity calculations of the IPCC are based on the effective black body temperature of earth and that the IPCC has stated unequivocally that these calculations are NOT representative of what will happen at earth surface and that they DON’T KNOW how to extrapolate them to earth surface. Again, you had best jump on the phone and explain to the IPCC that you have the answer to this. Let me further observe that both NASA/GISS and HadCrut show DECLINING surface temperatures since the late 1990’s.
Eric the Grim;
So what are you doing? You are talking about details concerning what is happening in the upper atmosphere.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
REPLY: Oh. My. God. One more time eric, the effects of CO2 are very muted close to earth surface and much more pronounced at higher altitudes and higher latitudes. I challenged you to explain why, clearly you can’t. That’s not just my opinion btw, it is the opinion of the IPCC and most of the climate scientists that you purport to understand. How is it that you claim to understand their work and yet propose the opposite of what they say?
Grim Eric;
of course, when discussing climate science on blogs like this. And, as is the case here, they can generally lift “stuff” from the bloggery and heap personal abuse on their opponent
>>>>>>>>>>>>
REPLY: I’ve read AR4 WG1. You clearly haven’t or you wouldn’t be making claims in direct opposition to their’s. I’ve reviewed their physics and independently arrived at the constant for their sensitivity calculation to 3 significant digits. I’ve reviewed the physics and can explain what is meant by the “tropospheric hot spot”, why it should in theory exist, the math that results in that conclusion, and how that translates to an extrapolation to earth surface temperatures. Can you? Clearly not since you’ve taken the position that what happens in the troposphere is immaterial. If you understood these issues, you’d not make such ridiculous statements.
Eric the astounding;
Such people typically do not have the background that real professionals almost always does have.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
REPLY: I am astounded that someone with a PhD in chemistry can be so hopelessly lost when it comes to the physics he is (incorrectly) trying to explain, and cannot bother to read an article or two by an actual physicist discussing the matters at hand when pointed at it. Your determination to wallow in your own ignorance is…. Astounding.
Eric the inexplicable;
Your goal appears to be to confuse the public and I am sure you will continue. If calling a spade as spade is condescension, so be it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
REPLY: OK, you are a spade.
Eric the lost;
Check out the comment by richardscourtney regarding our debate. You may want to check HIS credentials and then think carefully about what he said. You may want to actually read AR4 WG1 and get an understanding of what they are actually saying versus what you are saying. You may actually want to read the papers referenced in those studies so that you understand how completely off base you are. You may want to understand the work of Stefan-Boltzmann, Wien, Planck and Maxwell before further making a fool of yourself. You may want to consider the overlap in absorption spectra between water vapour and CO2 and then try and understand the implications of that in the context of water vapour ranging from 40,000 ppm over the ocean in the tropics to nearly zero at higher altitudes and compare that to the more uniform distribution of CO2 at conentrations of just 400 ppm.
Or, you can continue to be a spade.
eric the obfuscationist:
As a result of these revolations, I suspect that we will hear once again from DavidM. I am less certain, however, who will be the real author of his next comment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There comes a point where I simply put people on “ignore” and you are swiftly earning that award. Your last several responses have carefully ignored the issues of physics that I raised. Instead you’ve attempted to distract attention from those issues by complaining about my credentials, and now you’ve reduced yourself to accusing me of being a sock puppet. The fact of the matter is that you cannot converse intelligently on the matters of science you purport to understand so you retreat into condescension, argument from authority, and false accusations. You then accuse me of your own behaviour. You may want to study a bit of psychology as well and learn what projection is.
If you want to discuss the science, then discuss it. If not, STFU.
ericgrimsrud:
I take severe offence at your post at August 4, 2012 at 9:02 am.
The item I linked at
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc0102.htm
is a Submission by me to a Parliamentary Select Committee that was investigating ‘climategate’, and the link is to the Parliamentary Record. If the Submission were false then it would be perjury.
The Submission includes – as its Appendix A – an email from me which was leaked from CRU as part of the ‘climategate’ leak.
And I specifically advised people to read its Appendix B which is signed by 18 other scientists from around the world because it is a paper that provides a complete explanation of why and how what you wrote is plain wrong. Of course, I could have ‘cut & pasted’ from it, but provision of the link enables anybody to assess the entire analysis. And anybody only interested in an out-line of the matter could read the Submission (and not its appendices) which is written in language intended for politicians to comprehend.
Its Appendix B does completely explain why everything you said is plain WRONG.
And the submission to the Select Committee explains the nefarious method used to prevent its publication. The leaked email and the Submission are about the nefarious method and excuses for it.
But you are claiming that your ignorant and untrue assertions should be accepted and my linked document should be ignored because you have posted your wrong-headed assertions on your own blog.
Apologise then crawl back under whichever bridge you inhabit.
Richard
Unfortunately, man-made global warming is the last thing one need worry about when facing a mindset that has gone completely non-linear. Man-made climate change may have been the primary motivator of well-intentioned followers a few years back, but that motivator has morphed into something more familiar with Stalin, than it has with the climate.
When a fervor like this takes hold, You had better ‘take hold’ – of your freedom and perhaps even your Life. These people play for keeps and nothing in the form of reasoned and rational debate is going to wedge them from their positions. If you are not a ‘believer’, you are a ‘denier’. You are an ‘enemy’ of the planet, and the only thing that stands between you/your family, and a modern-day Gulag, is a few threads of Constitutional barrier…
Speaking of sock puppets, Foxy Grandpa’s lint is showing….
http://ericgrimsrud.com/authors-resume_276.html
Don’t tell your colleagues on the UCS you don’t know who Robert G. Brown is, Eric…
richardscourtney says:
August 4, 2012 at 9:35 am
Thanks for that. I didn’t think there was a peer reviewed reference in support of your opinion. If you ever find one let us know. In the meantime, sure anyone interested should read you opinion as related in your letter to Parliament. Since it has apparently not made it through any sort of peer review proscess, they’ll just have to decide for themselve what it’s worth.
Concerning the offense you have taken, Why is it that those who don’t even recognize how offensive they have been in an initial encounter with someone are then so very sensitive to perceived offenses against them. If one can “give” in a blog like this, should one not be able to “take”as well?. Perhaps, the moderator can help explain some of this to you. Just have a look at all of the potentail offenses that routinely pass mustard on this site. I personally did not like to be told to STFU, for example, but the comment went through.
Looking forward to knowing you better via the resume that DavidM has suggested I read.
Have a nice day, Eric Grimsrud
To Bill Tuttle, Oh that Robert Brown (I happen to know about 4 of them). Thanks for the tip and please don’t squeal on me at the UCS. Eric
eric the avoider;
I personally did not like to be told to STFU, for example, but the comment went through.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I’ve challenged you repeatedly to discuss the science, and I suggested that you do so or STFU. You’ve responded (yet again) with a diatribe that addresses not a single point of science that I or Richard have raised. All you need do to earn some respect is to discuss the science. Your unwillingness to do so tells the readers of this thread all they need to know about you.
set/ericgrimsrude=ignore
ericgrimsrud,
I refer you to the 31,400+ co-signers of the following statement:
Who should we believe? Tens of thousands of professional scientists and engineers, all with degrees in the hard sciences [including more than 9,000 PhD’s], or a handful of lunatics who are unable to show any global harm due to the rise in a very tiny, beneficial trace gas?
Put up or shut up: provide scientific evidence of global harm or damage directly due to the rise in CO2 [per the scientific method], or admit that you suffer from incurable confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance.
ericgrimsrud says:
August 4, 2012 at 11:04 am
To Bill Tuttle, Oh that Robert Brown (I happen to know about 4 of them). Thanks for the tip and please don’t squeal on me at the UCS. Eric
Now that you’re aware of who he is, follow David’s advice and read some of his commentary.
The majority of atmospheric science deals with physics rather than chemistry…