NOTE: This op-ed was rejected by the New York Times. It was submitted as a response by The president of The Heartland Institute in reply to Fred Krupp’s Wall Street Journal essay. I reproduce it here in hopes of it reaching a wide audience. Feel free to reproduce it elsewhere. – Anthony
by Joe Bast
Dear Fred,
I read your August 7 opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal, “A New Climate-Change Consensus,” with great interest. As you know, The Heartland Institute is a leading voice in the international debate over climate change. The Economist recently called us “the world’s most prominent think-tank promoting skepticism about man-made climate change.”
First, I welcome you to the effort to bring skeptics and alarmists together. We need your help. We have been trying to do this for many years.
For example, we ran more than $1 million in ads calling on Al Gore to debate his critics. He repeatedly refused. We hosted seven international conferences on climate change and invited alarmists to speak at every one, the most recent one held in Chicago on May 23-24. Only one ever showed up, and he was treated respectfully.
Regrettably, your colleagues in the liberal environmental movement responded at first by pretending we don’t exist, and when opinion polls and political decisions revealed that strategy wasn’t working, by denouncing us as “deniers” and “shills for the fossil fuel industry.”
Most recently, your colleagues on the left went so far as to break the law in an attempt to silence us. Prominent global warming alarmist Peter Gleick stole corporate documents from us and circulated them with a fake and highly defamatory memo purporting to describe our “climate change strategy.” Gleick confessed to stealing the documents on February 20.
Greenpeace is using the stolen and fake documents to attack climate scientists who affiliate with The Heartland Institute, while the Center for American Progress and 350.org are using them to demonize corporations that fund us. No group on the left, including yours, has condemned these activities.
In your opinion piece, you say “if both sides can now begin to agree on some basic propositions, maybe we can restart the discussion,” and you end by saying “it is time for conservatives to compete with liberals to devise the best, most cost effective climate solutions.”
Reconciliation will be difficult so long as you and others on the left fail to express doubt or remorse over the errors, exaggerations, and unethical tactics that continue to be used against skeptics.
For example, it is impossible for skeptics and alarmists to come together so long as alarmists pretend – as you do, Fred, in this very essay – that recent weather trends in one part of the world lend proof to their theories and predictions. Anyone familiar with the science knows this claim belongs in the kindergarten of the climate science debate.
Another basic error you repeat is that surface-based temperature data validate or prove that human greenhouse gas emissions affect the climate. They cannot, first because they measure temperatures on only a small part of the Earth’s surface, second because they are notoriously unreliable, and third because they tell us nothing about what is causing warming or cooling.
You are asking, in effect, that skeptics simply “shut up and sit down,” that they concede as being true the most flawed and unlikely assumptions of the alarmist movement, and that they endorse policies that are wholly unnecessary and extremely costly.
While I cannot presume to speak for all global warming skeptics, I think I can channel the opinion of most when I say, “hell no!”
Your overture comes at a time when the science backing global warming alarmism is crumbling, as amply demonstrated by the reports of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate change (NIPCC). International negotiations for a new treaty are going nowhere. Public opinion in the U.S. and other countries decisively rejects alarmism. Politicians here and abroad who vote for cap and trade or a carbon tax rightly fear being tossed out of office by voters who know more about the issue than they do.
Your appeal to “restart the discussion” would have skeptics snatch failure from the jaws of victory. I’m sure you understand why we won’t go there.
I have a counter proposal. Let’s restart the discussion by agreeing on these basic propositions:
First, people and organizations that break the law or use hate language such as “denier” should be barred from the global warming debate.
Second, recent weather and temperature anomalies have not been unusual and are not evidence of a human effect on climate.
Third, given the rapid and unstoppable increase in greenhouse gas emissions by Third World countries, it is pointless for the U.S. and other developed countries to invest very much in reducing their own emissions.
Fourth, tax breaks and direct subsidies to solar and wind power and impossible-to-meet renewable power mandates and regulatory burdens on coal-powered electricity generation plants have been disastrous for taxpayers, businesses, and consumers of electricity, and ought to be repealed.
Fifth, the world is entering an era of fossil fuel abundance that could lift billions of people out of poverty and help restart the U.S. economy. We have the technology to use that energy safely and with minimal impact on the environment and human health. Basic human compassion and common sense dictate that fear of global warming ought not be used to block access to this new energy.
Agree to these five simple propositions, Fred, and we can begin to work together to address some of the real environmental problems facing the U.S. and the world.
richardscourtney, Venter;
Thanks for both your comments. The collective exchange on the previous Inhofe thread and this one are a demonstration (in my mind anyway) of just how difficult it is to have the meaningful debate that Joe Bast is trying to promote.
I only hope that I didn’t spank Grimsrud so hard that he simply withdraws. My sense is that he is capable of making a positive contribution to the discussion if he sets aside his elitism.
davidmhoffer:
In your post at August 17, 2012 at 9:07 am you say
I could not agree more. And this thread makes clear the especial problem in the US where the issue divides on political grounds.
Hence, my disappointment at the lack of response to my post at August 14, 2012 at 7:38 am. Dispute, discussion and/or amendment of that may have indicated a way forward.
Richard
It is unbelievable. Joe Bast thinks he is the winner of the climate war. And now it is time for signing a treaty. Fred Krupp statements led him get excited.
Denier or Skeptic, is Joe Bast’s problem the label? His proposed five items are not even “preconditions”. Hopefully this is not a game of political posturing and propaganda.
richardscourtney;
Hence, my disappointment at the lack of response to my post at August 14, 2012 at 7:38 am. Dispute, discussion and/or amendment of that may have indicated a way forward.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I liked the suggestion. I didn’t comment at the time because I was more focused on other parts of the thread. I think the limitation to your suggestion is that we can’t have the mitigation vs adaptation debate until we first have the order of magnitude debate. Adaptation is a completely different issue if sensitivity is high versus low. We have to have, I think, at least a range both sides can agree on and then predicate the debate on that range. The problem with that is that even the range is rather polarised. We have raging alarmists who think we’re all going to die from spontaneous human combustion and we have skeptics who think it impossible that LW can warm anything at all. The new “consensus estimate” for AR5 sounds like it is going to be in the range of 2.4 to 2.6 degrees per CO2 doubling. I think that the debate would have merit at that range, even though I think it a very high number. Then there’s the likes of Hansen et al who want to have the debate at 6.5 degrees!
Even if we agree to debate at 2.6 degrees, we also need agreement on how that 2.6 degrees manifests itself. That it won’t be uniform is openly discussed in the AR4 science, but by the time it gets to policy maker summaries it implies something else. Debating a uniform 2.6 degree sensitivity would imply a completely different adaptation cost than would very large changes to winter lows and very small changes to summer highs (as an example).
To Greg House,
In looking back at one of your last posts to me, I will acknowledge that I have not yet found the perfect reference for you that would describe an actual experiment specifically designed to prove the point concerning the flow of energy from a cold to warmer body – and I have been thinking about where exactly such a demonstration might be found in the literature.
The phenomenon of “black body” radiation was first noted and characterized, I believe, sometime around 1850 or so and only began to be understood in terms of “photon” emissions in about 1900 by the work of Planck. So once people began to think in those terms and with vacuum technologies coming on strong in the late 1800s, I suspect that there were papers published during that period that directly demonstrated the transfer of radiant energy from cold object to warm. When I have some time, I will try to locate some of that literature. I consider such historical literature to be extremely interesting and I would like to fill in that specific gap in my knowledge of science history for myself.
As you might have noted, DavidMHoffer appears to view our recent interactions as some type of “joke” that we has played on us. As evidenced by my comments to you, I have not considered out interactions to be anything of the sort – because you have repeatedly asked honest questions continuously pressing me for more and better details and answers. It has therefore been a scientific discussion that I have enjoyed. It is always good to reexamine the reasons for your believes.
It is only when I suspect that the other party is just playing “games” and is no longer sincere, or just trying to “save face” for previous humiliations they might have suffered (such as might have occurred near that end of that Inhofe threat DavidMHoffer referred everyone to) that I stop interacting with them. I have not suspected that of you, however, and I hope to get back to you when I find those experiments that both of us would obviously like to see.
Eric
richardscourtney;
Hence, my disappointment at the lack of response to my post at August 14, 2012 at 7:38 am. Dispute, discussion and/or amendment of that may have indicated a way forward.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
davidmhoffer says: @ur momisugly August 17, 2012 at 1:41 pm
….. Adaptation is a completely different issue if sensitivity is high versus low. We have to have, I think, at least a range both sides can agree on and then predicate the debate on that range. The problem with that is that even the range is rather polarised. We have raging alarmists who think we’re all going to die from spontaneous human combustion and we have skeptics who think it impossible that LW can warm anything at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And then there are those of us who are not really worried about a 1 to 2C increase but about the fact a DECREASE in temperature is not even on the table when that is by far more devastating.
That is the elephant in the room that everyone ignores while squabbling over the mouse. It is also an elephant that will happen we just can not say when except it will be soon in geologic terms.
When I am feeling very cynical I sometimes think the movers and shakers are well aware of the problem and are trying to make sure they destroy the first world’s transportation systems so their boltholes do not become over crowded with useless eaters.
David and Gail:
Thankyou for your considered opinions. As all can see, you both make good points.
However, I remind that I pointed out that climate always changes so determinations of adaptation options would be valuable whatever the degree of warming or cooling.
Please note that I make this reminder because neither of you mentioned it and not to diminish your points in any way.
Personally, I think that if genuine dialogue is to be accomplished then consideration of the wide range of possible warming and cooling would be needed at least as a staring point. And this would be the needed ‘common ground’ for any dialogue whatever the initial discussion was to be about. However, it should be noted that this view may be influenced by my trade union background (negotiation has to start by accepting the full range of ‘desires’).
Richard
Again to Gail,
First, sorry I am a bit slow to reply. My “life” sometimes gets in the way of these important discussions – which I truly do enjoy – especially when they provide me with a central point not previously considered – as related below.
While I hope you are not still standing by your comment “CO2 ….. has become dangerously -limited” – in view of the fact that our atmosphere now has 393 ppm of the stuff in it – , I had not before thought of the other point you raised later – that trees and plant could not have grown in an atmosphere containing only 180 ppm.
As you indicated that would suggest that the CO2 levels of the glacial period that have been deduced from the ice core record are incorrect – since we know for sure that plant life existed during the glacial periods.
Thanks for pointing that interesting possibility out to me. I will certainly be looking into it myself – starting with the references you cited.
Since you have studied this point extensively, however, let me ask you straight off. Are you sure that trees die when CO2 is lowered to 180 ppm? While this point has nothing to do with what is going to happen in the foreseeable future, it sure is an important one with respect to the credibility of the ice core record.
Eric
Oh dear. Dr Grimsrud is of the opinion that he has handed me a humiliatinng defeat.
Wow.
Well Dr Grimsrud, allow me to make three points:
1. I predicted you would be unable to convince Greg House with your explanation, and by your own admission, you have failed. FAIL
2. You provided Greg House with an approximation of the greenhouse effect that failed to take into account Holder’s Inequality. As a consequence, you produced a number that is far too LOW. Proper math arrives at a much higher number, and the use of the moon as a proxy adjusted for albedo confirms this. FAIL
3. Your explanation based on layers of atmosphere is for the most part correct. You failed to provide sufficient detail however. The consensus estimate is that doubling of CO2 results in an extra 3.7 w/m2 of downward LW. In your model, this would be manifested by a small downward flux at each layer. The total of all the layers add up to 3.7 w/m2, the important point to understand being that the calculated 3.7 w/m2 doesn’t occur at any given altitude, nor at the surface. It is a downward flux that is spread across the atmospheric column as a whole. At equilibrium, there is an equal upward flux of an additional 3.7 w/m2, also spread across the atmospheric column, a small portion appearing in each of your layers. It is for this reason that the IPCC, based on a large number of peer reviewed papers, goes out of their way to point out that the 3.7 w/m2 value can NOT, repeat can NOT, be used for determining temperature changes at the surface. Further, the upward LW and the downward LW, while exactly equal and opposite across the atmospheric column, are not exactly equal and opposite in any given one of your layers. At any given point in time the combination of the two results in a maximum at some altitude that should be exhibited as a “hot spot” where temperatures are elevated more than the average of the column as a whole. That this hot spot hasn’t evidenced itself to date suggests that there are secondary processes that are minimizing the effect. It is further instructive to understand that since doubling of CO2 makes no change to the energy flux absorbed by the system in the first place, at equilibrium there is also no change to the amounf of energy flux dissiptaed to space. In other words, as seen from space, the earth’s temperature at equilibrium would change by exactly zero. What would change is the altitude from which any given photon would have an average chance of seeing a free path to space, and this altitude is higher than before CO2 doubles. So the primary change is the average altitude from which a photon escapes to space, and the secondary effect is that the temperature gradient from TOA to surface is modified. The IPCC discusses this at length also, and go out of their way to explain that the modification to the temperature gradient cannot be linear, and will be much more pronounced at some altitudes than at the surface. In fact, at low altitudes and low latitudes, the preponderance of water vapour, at 40,000 ppm versus CO2 at just 400, ensures that very little of the 3.7 w/m2 will be measurable in either direction as water vapour’s effects in those regions make any additional absorption and re-emission by CO2 simply a rounding error. FAIL, FAIL, FAIL.
But no need to argue with me Dr Grimsrud, I’m just passing on what the IPCC says Go argue with them.. I provided you the links to the IPCC documentation in the Inhofe thread, clearly you didn’t read it or you wouldn’t continue to be gettinng your explanations wrong. I’d post the links again, but what is the point if you are determined to ignore them? I also pointed you at the specific work by the specific author whose peer reviewed papers were the basis of the caveats expressed by the IPCC, and I expect you didn’t read that either. I expect there’s no value in point out that Ramaswamy has since published additional research that updates his findings and further reinforces what I’ve just tried to explain to you. Work that in part serves as the basis for AR5 reducing, for the second time in a row, the IPCC estimate of sensitivity, to 2.6 degrees or less, and completeley tossing out Hansen’s 6.5 degrees as unsupportable.
FAIL Dr Grimsrud. Abject and total FAIL.
ericgrimsrud says:
August 17, 2012 at 2:48 pm:
“…such as might have occurred near that end of that Inhofe threat…”
=================================================
Eric, I am just curious, what exactly is the “Inhofe thread”?
To All,
I request here the right to defend my reputation against some remarks davidmhoffer made in his post of Aug 16, 9:01 pm.
He wrote:
“You compounded your arrogance by continuing to call myself and richardscourtney quacks and charlatans, and so focused were you on denigrating us in that fashion that you even attempted to do so in the thread dedicated to the remembrance of Robert E Phelan. You ought to be ashamed of yourself, and it is a tribute to Anthony’s patience and diplomacy that he simply snipped the the offensive remarks and left the balance of your remarks intact.”
For the record, the snipped comments provided the highest praise for REP. They mentioned how fair he was in protecting even the likes of me (a “warmer”, perhaps, to most of you) from the repeated humiliations and trickery of a couple of apparently “in house” “regulars” at WUWT. His professional level of moderation both surprised and truly impressed me (I am new to WUWT and had never posted until recently). As a result, I had looked forward to future interactions with the man and the web site he represented so well. He will certainly be missed – and certianly by the likes of me who happen to believe that AGW is our most serious problem today and must be addressed forcefully and immediately. He did his best to give me a fair hearing in the tread concerning Senator Inhofe and I appreciated that very much.
Now concerning the first line in davidmhoffer’s statement, I plead guilty and, in fact, I am pleased that he knows what I think of him and his partner. They operate on a much lower level of fairness and respect for others participants. Note if you look back and read the entire statement referred to above how davidmhoffer admits how he has been “playing games” with others – and even appears to be proud of it. As his little story points out, it is impressive, indeed, how clever a person can be even with only an 8th grade education – and especially so when one also has no class or character. For DH to openly admit what he has doing and has not been reprimended for it, provides a sad indication of REP’s loss at WUWT. As I also said in my praise of him – he will be missed and, perhaps, hard to replace.
.
While what I think if the two jolly regulars I have referred to here is entirely my own business, of course, if any of you need to know why I came to this assessment, please do go back and read the recent Inhofe thread, as davidmhoffer has suggested, in its entirety.
davidmhoffer says:
August 17, 2012 at 3:58 pm:
” The consensus estimate is that doubling of CO2 results in an extra 3.7 w/m2 of downward LW”
==================================================
Yeah, “consensus”, of course. Your “consensus” is just another fiction: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/30/consensus-argument-proves-climate-science-is-political/#comment-972119
Greg House
I never endorsed the estimate, I only referenced it.
Hi again Greg House,
I am glad to be able to provide you with a precise reference in this case.
The “Inhofe threat” can be found at:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/02/inhofe-exposes-another-epic-fail-by-global-warming-alarmists-thursday/
Eric
To All:
There is someone on this blog who is posting “stuff” that is generally incomprehensible and when comprehensible, is either inaccurate or misleading. For example when he recently said:
“the IPCC estimate of sensitivity, to 2.6 degrees or less, and completeley tossing out Hansen’s 6.5 degrees as unsupportable.”
He does not seem to realize that the IPCC number includes fast feedback effects, only, while that of Hansen included both fast and slow feedbacks. This point is very important, of course, because the first applies to the short term (the next couple decades) while the latter applies to the longer term (next couple centuries).
For this person to imply that there is a serious contradiction in these two sensitivity estimates tells us something only the person who said it. Either he does not know anything about this very basic and important aspect of climate science or (to use a word he suggested describes my view of him – even though I never used that word myself – I am not even sure I could have even spelled it correctly) he is a charlatan.
For very good reasons (concerning universally appreciated human characteristics such a trust and credibility), I will no longer communicate directly with the person who posts this “stuff”. Nevertheless, I am inclined to help clean up the air occasionally after I see that he has polluted it.
ericgrimsrud;
He does not seem to realize that the IPCC number includes fast feedback effects, only, while that of Hansen included both fast and slow feedbacks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
cite?
Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim?
J. Hansen (1 and 2), M. Sato (1 and 2), P. Kharecha (1 and 2), D. Beerling (3), R. Berner (4), V. Masson-Delmotte (5), M. Pagani (4), M. Raymo (6), D. L. Royer (7), J. C. Zachos (8) ((1) NASA GISS, (2) Columbia Univ. Earth Institute, (3) Univ. Sheffield, (4) Yale Univ., (5) LSCE/IPSL, (6) Boston Univ., (7) Wesleyan Univ., (8) Univ. California Santa Cruz)
(Submitted on 7 Apr 2008 (v1), last revised 15 Oct 2008 (this version, v3))
Paleoclimate data show that climate sensitivity is ~3 deg-C for doubled CO2, including only fast feedback processes. Equilibrium sensitivity, including slower surface albedo feedbacks, is ~6 deg-C for doubled CO2 for the range of climate states between glacial conditions and ice-free Antarctica.
What’s this fast feedbacks and slow feedbacks stuff? Sounds like made up excuses.
ericgrimsrud;
I repeat:
cite?
I’ve already read the Hansen paper. I’m asking you to provide a link to the relevant documentation from the IPCC showing what they do and do not include in their sensitivity calculations. I have provided you with many links directly to the IPCC reports to substantiate that claims I have made in regard to their position on various matters. I’m asking you to do the same.
So why did I discuss a terrestrial greenhouse, Ericgrimsrud. Because the mathematics of the (demonstrably false) radiative arguments are the same as the “back-radiation” argument which you apply to the atmosphere. Let me try again without the glass.
Take a bare rock earth, with and without a single slab, isothermal, model of the atmosphere. For the bare rock, if the incoming radiation from the sun is W, the outgoing radiation will also be W. Now add an absorbing atmosphere, which will pass incoming and absorb outgoing radiation. Half of the absorbed radiation will be returned to the surface. So, the outgoing radiation will be reduced to W/2, and the surface will receive the original W plus W/2. The additional back-radiation will heat the interior until it radiates 2W, when the original balance will have been restored. (W in, 2W radiated from surface, W back from the atmosphere, W out.
The Stefan-Bolzmann equation relates radiative energy to temperature (back radiation, incidentally, is its negative term). Radiation is proportional to the fourth power of temperature. So, if surface radiation doubles, the temperature will increase by the fourth root of 2, or 1.19, or 19%, from 255K to 303K.
Plausible, at first sight, but nonsensical. Why? Because, as you say, the atmosphere absorbs radiation rapidly over a short distance. Introduce a second layer, balance the flows, and the surface radiation becomes 3W. The temperature ratio to a bare rock becomes the fourth root of 3, and the temperature 335K. Three layers, equally plausible, produce a surface temperature of 360K.
If n is the number of layers into which you divide the atmosphere, the ratio of Tsurface to Ttop is the fourth root of (n+1). It is easy to prove, and is set as a problem in Grant Petty’s book on Atmospheric Radiation, Page 144.
So how does the atmosphere warm the surface? Principally via the lapse rate, the increase of temperature with pressure, which is a function of gravity and specific heat.
Gravity compresses the atmosphere, and so increases its temperature, (which is why Venus is so hot ). You can observe the effect on a car temperature indicator by driving up a hill, at about 6 degrees per kilometre of altitude. It has nothing to do with radiation.
So why does any scientist think that additional CO2 will increase surface temperatures? Because of the “higher is colder” theory, as follows.
If we add CO2 to the top of the atmosphere, it will act as a kind of radiative insulation, impeding the escape of energy to space. The effective emission level – the average level at which the earth’s energy is radiated to space – will rise. The effective emission temperature, because of the lapse rate, will fall.
At the lower emission temperature, outgoing radiation will be reduced, and the whole system, including the surface, must warm (via the sun) to compensate.
This idea is plausible, and allows all the energy transfers involved to increase entropy, in accordance with the second law. However, as far as I know, there is no evidence whatever to confirm the theory or quantify its effect. There is much to the contrary in radio-sonde and satellite data (UAH mid-troposphere, for example).
ericgrimsrud:
I freely admit that I would not have been so gracious as to provide you with the opportunity which David is giving you, and I write to offer you some sincere kindly advice.
At August 17, 2012 at 4:29 pm you write:
Do not “defend” your reputation: recover it by behaving properly.
On the Inhofe thread you completely trashed any good reputation you may have had and proved to all that you are an arrogant, ignorant bigot.
David is giving you the opportunity to replace your existing reputation for arrogance, self-imposed ignorance and bigotry. If you are wise then you will thank him for this and you will use this opportunity which he has given you.
Richard
Fred Staples:
At August 18, 2012 at 3:45 am you rightly say:
As you say;
“there is no evidence whatever to confirm the theory or quantify its effect”
but there is a possible method to confirm and quantify the effect.
Simply, the experiment consists of taking measurements during the onset and cessation of solar eclipse totality using sensors at surface level and at elevations up the tether of a balloon to determine (a) the air temperature and (b) the upward and downward fluxes of IR in the 15 micron band.
I have twice attempted the experiment and failed; once in Cornwall (weather prevented the measurements) and once in Africa (mongoose damaged power cable at critical moment which many people find to be funny but causes me despair). Both attempts were at my own expense because empirical data which may refute the AGW-scare is not wanted, and I cannot afford another expedition like that to Zambia.
The measurements would enable direct comparison of the fluxes at the same time (within seconds) and the same place through a range of altitudes both with and without solar input and as temperature changes rapidly. The effect of dircet solar input would also be indicated. Thus the enhancement of backradiation and its change with altitude and temperatures could be doconvoluted from input of solar variation.
Several people have argued that night-time and day-time measurements could be compared to obtain the similar determinations, but so many changes occur at any locality over very short times that valid comparisons are not possible by this method. An eclipse ‘switches the Sun off’ and ‘switches it back on’ in seconds.
I hope this aside has been of interest.
Richard
To All:
Why all this hang up concerning the primary authority of the IPCC? The IPCC is merely an international organization that does it’s best to take info from the literature and turn it into recommended policy. The IPCC puts out a document once every several years and its info always lags far behind that put out by the scientists every day. Thus it is not considered an up to date source of info by scientists who are capable of reading the primary and recent literature all by themselves.
And why would I even care in the least about receiving the good graces of the likes of Richardscourtney and Davidmhoffer. My experiences – including those I acquired on this and the Inhofe threat – repeatedly have shown me that if one plays with feces, the only likely outcome is that one is likely to get feces on one.
These guys are definitely not worth associating with and are now clearly just in the “saving face” mode in all of their references to me. In other words my advice to them is simply “get lost”. They have neither the knowledge or ethical standards required for honest discussions of this critically important subject.
ericgrimsrud;
Why all this hang up concerning the primary authority of the IPCC?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Can you provide a cite for the claim you made about what the IPCC includes in their sensitiivity calculations or not? THIRD REQUEST.
Eric Grimsrud:
I offered you kind advice at August 18, 2012 at 3:57 am. You have rejected that advice in your post at August 18, 2012 at 6:56 am which includes, for example, this:
I am incredulous that you are sufficiently stupid as to post something which again says more about you than anything or anyone else.
Us “Saving face”?! Are you insane?
In the Inhofe thread I discovered that dealing with you was like removing something nasty found on the instep of my shoe. Despite that, I freely offered to help you with your much-needed education in radiative physics. You ignored that offer even when I repeated it in case you had missed it.
In this thread, David has tried to give you a chance to repair your reputation which you trashed in the Inhofe thread. He has given you that chance despite your disgraceful comments in the Robert Phelan memorial thread (and in this thread you lied when you claimed David misquoted you because I read what you wrote before it was snipped: indeed, I drew attention to it in another thread). You have rejected that chance which David so very kindly offered you.
Instead, you make the ridiculous claim that David and I are trying to “save face”. Save it from what? Surely, you cannot be so deluded as to think anything you have said or done has affected our ‘faces’.
Go away. You are a waste of space.
Richard