Dad, Why Are You A Global Warming Denier? by Bob Tisdale is only available, and will only be available, from Amazon in Kindle reader format.
Its introduction begins:
I penned the following short-story, set in the year 2017, as a series of conversations between a twentysomething daughter and her mid-50s father. The father is a heretic of the church of catastrophic human-induced global warming/climate change. The daughter, Anna, is a believer.
This work includes quotes from the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and a well-respected politician. It also includes 22 illustrations, most of which are in color. And there are hyperlinks for those of you using Kindle readers where hyperlinks will work.
To put that in perspective, the hyperlinks worked on my Kindle Paperwhite, all but the links to .pdf documents, which were not supported.
Dad, Why Are You A Global Warming Denier? is more than 26,000-words long—way too long for a blog post.
The work also includes a very basic, but extremely important aspect of El Niño events that I don’t believe I’ve ever presented before in a blog post or in my free ebook on ENSO. But I do recall mentioning that aspect in a few passing blog comments over the years.
I’ve also included numerous quotes from Margaret Thatcher’s memoire Statecraft, all from the heading of Hot Air and Global Warming, many of which I have not been able to find readily online, but they are definitely worth reading.
As I wrote in the closing comments of the short story, I also have to thank the very dear friend who edited this short story. She made it much, much easier to read. As in the past, she has asked to remain anonymous due to the political nature of the global warming debate. Any remaining typos and grammatical errors are mine, not hers.
I had a lot of fun writing Dad, Why Are You A Global Warming Denier? I hope you learn something, many things, from it while having fun reading it.
Ciao
Bob
Using Amazon is against my religion r
Just think of all the CO2 you are saving not driving to the mall. For me, it might have saved my marriage, I can finally buy birthday and Christmas gifts for my wife again.
I’m sure Amazon creates far more CO2 than it saves.
“I’m sure Amazon creates far more CO2 than it saves.”
I disagree. Here’s an extreme example that illustrates how Amazon (and other centralized delivery services) create fewer emissions. Suppose there are 100 home in arranged in a square with ten mile edges that is located ten miles from the delivery truck’s home base. Those 100 residents would each drive 20 miles to pick up their order and return; their total milage would be 2000 miles. The delivery truck would drive ten miles out and ten miles back (= 20) plus 40 miles around the perimeter, for a total of 60 miles, or only 3% of the distance driven by individuals. Plus, some delivery truck are powered by natural gas.
Roger, what you said is logical, practical and efficient. So of course that isn’t remotely how the world ends up working. ^¿^
From years of working Appliance Delivery and Installation, I can tell you that what DOES end up happening is that while home A and home B might be right next to each other, home owner A will only be available in the morning while home owner b is only there in the afternoon. Meanwhile home owner R clear across town was also promised a 8 am delivery by a sales person who should know better.
Sometimes we got lucky and all the deliveries lined up in a neat little circle. More often we spent the day zigzaging across town. Alternatively you can let the customer wait until you are scheduled to be in their area, but most seem to think they should get better then that, and unless you have no competition you had better find a way to make them happy.
Of course the real problem is you’re comparing apples to oranges. You’ve assumed that each home owner would be making a special trip in to pick up their item. But most people don’t do that. They pick it up when they are going by the store anyway. In fact, most people I know combine all their shopping into one trip, which would definitely be more efficient then UPS or FedEx making multiple trips out to their house to drop things off as they come in.
Personally I prefer a world where both options exist. Then I can CHOOSE which works best for me.
~¿~
Roger, what you said is logical, practical and efficient. So of course that isn’t remotely how the world ends up working. ^¿^
From years of working Appliance Delivery and Installation, I can tell you that what DOES end up happening is that while home A and home B might be right next to each other, home owner A will only be available in the morning while home owner b is only there in the afternoon. Meanwhile home owner R clear across town was also promised a 8 am delivery by a sales person who should know better.
Sometimes we got lucky and all the deliveries lined up in a neat little circle. More often we spent the day zigzaging across town. Alternatively you can let the customer wait until you are scheduled to be in their area, but most seem to think they should get better then that, and unless you have no competition you had better find a way to make them happy.
Of course the real problem is you’re comparing apples to oranges. You’ve assumed that each home owner would be making a special trip in to pick up their item. But most people don’t do that. They pick it up when they are going by the store anyway. In fact, most people I know combine all their shopping into one trip, which would definitely be more efficient then UPS or FedEx making multiple trips out to their house to drop things off as they come in.
Personally I prefer a world where both options exist. Then I can CHOOSE which works best for me.
~¿~
Delivering and installing a few (three or four, say) major appliances all across town is an orange. Delivering many (100, say) small packages to a small, well-defined area is an apple. The latter is what drivers for UPS and FedEx do, when they deliver goods from Amazon, which is what we were talking about. To take an extreme and unrealistic but illustrative example, compare the mileage that would be driven by residents if they had to pick up their mail at a post office vs. the mileage driven by postal service employees—the ratio is something like 1000 to 1.
Combining pickups in one journey does reduce, somewhat, the great mileage advantage that home deliverers have over I’ll-get-it-myself drivers by maybe half, or perhaps more in certain circumstances. But the devil is in the details. The items a shopper needs to pick up are not typically available at a single location, or even at a cluster of nearby locations. He may have to spend much of the day zigzagging across town, increasing his mileage. And there are other negatives (which online shoppers have pointed out), such as:
The store may not have his item in stock, or not have enough of them, resulting in a wasted trip.
The extra time a shopper spends driving around has an opportunity cost (he could be doing other things).
The extra effort he puts into shopping is tiring or “frazzling”—and a bit risky (he might have an accident).
He must have a car—which is a cost, and a CO2-emitter.
One hundred shoppers on the road create more traffic jams and accidents than 100 shoppers at home or at work.
The need to “bundle” his shopping means that a shopper must defer buying some items that he wants now until he has a full list. But Amazon Prime members can get many items delivered the next day, or a day or two after. Even non-Prime members can specify speedy delivery at an extra cost.
Irrelevant.
Talking about religion and Christmas
If any of the contributors or the readers celebrate the orthodox Xmas tomorrow (according to the old Julian calendar) may I wish you a pleasant day with the traditional greeting ‘Christ was born’
S Rozhdestvom Christovim!
Hristos se rodi
I don’t use Amazon either.
Me neither – but that’s because Amazon will only deliver in South Africa via COURIER, which doubles the cost! (This is because of the total unreliability of the SA Post Office, where it’s a gamble whether any given posted item will be delivered or not – for example, at least one issue of my Analog SF magazine disappears each year).
And then, of course, there’s the Amazon idea they THEY own the e-book you’ve bought, and can recall it at any time!
“And then, of course, there’s the Amazon idea they THEY own the e-book you’ve bought, and can recall it at any time!”
They tried a recall once, of a George Orwell book, and got such bad feedback that they promised not to do it again. Book-recall is a hobgoblin.
Now that’s what I call epic level irony, there.
~¿~
(now I just need to organize a mass book burning of copies of Fahrenheit 451)
I find it astounding that the BEHEMOTH of the Internet … has THE single WORST search utility of any .com on the internet. Amazon is so awkward and frustrating to navigate that I go there ONLY as a LAST resort … and/or when I need my Amazon Prime FREE 2-day delivery to save my bacon. Aand MOST of the goods on Amazon are CRAP. 80% CRAP … 20% mainstream, top quality goods.
Kenji … what would you know? You’re only a dog!
I kid.
me too.
same here i dont use amazon and cant afford nor do i want kindle thingy
youre cutting the ability to read n share this by doing so
why not a total pdf download of it as many other sites do?
and get paid direct by paypal or whatever
LOL. I live on an Island with $50 ferryman’s fee, that our ‘businessmen’ abuse. I use Amazon when I must.
Reading is my primary pastime and Milady Wife insists than my P-book shelf will not grow. Most of my academic reading downloads are PDF to KINDLE. I am very happy with my KINDLE but aware of AmaXon’s 1984 fiasco.
I will not use PayPal as they will not allow gun related transactions.
You don’t need the “Kindle Thingy”, you can just use the free App on any tablet or smartphone.
Amazon has free apps that will let you read ebooks on just about any platform, including your computer, laptop, tablet, or phone.
Congratulations on you latest book Bob, I look forward to reading it!
That’s a common misconception, daughter. It’s Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, as foretold by post-normal scientists and spread by environmentalists. Plant a windmill. Erect a photovoltaic panel. Recycle the blight. Purchase your carbon credits. The end of the world is nigh.
Bob what are your thoughts on recent nature article pointing to mean temperature of oceans rising .1 degrees in last 50 years? Does this make sense to you ?
Steve,
In truth, I am mighty unsure that we can measure the ‘Temperature of the Ocean’ to within 1 degree – let alone measure a change of one tenth of a degree over fifty years.
I used to send Voluntary Observing Ship Met. data to the Met office, and arranged so ‘my’ ships mostly did the same more recently.
And the oceans, remember, are big, BIG places, so ‘knowing’ [within thermometer accuracy and measurement errors (human, and wind chill or impinging radiation, etc.)] the temperature of a bucket of water here may or may not be a very good guide to temperatures fifty or a hundred miles away, N, S, E or W.
Steve, this reflects on the highlighted ‘Nature’ article; have a great weekend!
Auto
A root question of mine in the philosophy of science and mathematics is, how does one measure an continuously varying parameter (and in a multi-dimensional ‘space’) to produce an average?
I recently purchased an infrared ‘laser’ thermometer and having great fun learning the temperatures around my house. I see that the floor covering and exterior walls run about 55°F, the baseboard electric heaters run about 160°F where I measure, and ceramic objects run about 68°F – and still Milady Wife complains.
We can’t measure the surface temperature; pretty sure we can’t measure the oceans either. There are no set rules for measuring the surface air temp – and that probably applies as well to the oceans.
no even a little bit. 0.1 C degrees in 50 years it looks preposterous compared to the errors we can commit on establishing those temperatures.
This is a confusion of precision and accuracy. The precision of the maths can be what you want it to be. The error bounds of a measurement of the temperature of a swimming pool are probably greater than 0.5degC. Claiming that the ‘average temperature of the world oceans’ is known at all should have been grounds for rejection at peer review.
@ SteveK
Which ocean? Where? What depth? Was the sun shining? Was it cloudy? Was there a recent rain? Was this during high or low tide? What was the phase of the moon? At what time of year? Day? Month?
How about the salinity–was that taken alongside with temperature? Again…all the above questions apply.
I myself have experienced changes in a single column of water during a SCUBA dive–they are called thermoclines (also experience haloclines), so tell me if the temperature can vary that much (a few degrees to double digit degrees), how in the heck can anyone stake a claim that the vastness of the entire ocean water has changed up or down by a minuscule amount unless they’ve measure the entire ocean.
We know more about Mars and our own satellite the moon than we do about the oceans (especially the mid water column…that mysterious place where vortexes greater than an F5 on land can occur and dissipate within seconds or months–and like wind tornadoes can change their environment drastically until it recovers)
Thanks for your efforts Bob. I think your graphics of ocean flows and heat movement are the best available. I am happy to hear you are adding more original work.
Welcome back, Bob Tisdale. I look forward to reading it. Ebooks are the only way I roll now, since literally all available space in both homes is already occupied by paper books—almost none novels except the collected Sherlock Holmes works volume.
Being an old construction worker I may have to start using Kindle (a computer) to read books.
Good luck with the new books, Bob. I’ll try to get to them both, and just downloaded the free version of your ENSO book. I suspect I’ve seen some of the content in your WUWT posts on the subject.
The new book, so far has only 1 review (4 stars). No doubt Greg Laden or Russell Seitz will be along shortly to give it a 1 star review without ever having read the book. 🙂
Drifting off topic, as I was perusing Amazon’s reviews, I somehow ended up reading a review by (in)famous misanthrope and Malthusian, Prof. Paul Erlich of Stanford. He reviewed Mark Steyn’s “A Disgrace to the Profession” giving it (big surprise) only 1 star. The responding comments gave me hope and many belly laughs. Check it out if you have time to waste and you think Erlich is a buffoon. If you think Erlich is an excellent futurist, well, these replies to Erlich’s review might be a little hard to take.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R30J6Q39WVZ153/ref=cm_cr_getr_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0986398330
A very entertaining selection of comments on that Amazon review. Well worth reading, not only funny but educational (I hope). In particular I draw everyone’s attention to the comment from Elizabeth Priddy, Radiation engineer. Do work your way through it bit by bit and hopefully you will come to a useful conclusion.
Specifically I would like to know what Anthony and Willis think of Ms.Priddy’s scientific explanations if they have the time to look.
[Request you duplicate those remarks, they are not copyright restricted as public comments in Amazon. .mod]
Here it is
“Elizabeth Priddy2 years ago
Report abuse
Ehrlich sounds like one of those hillbillies who thinks the atmosphere warms the earth. Ask any Magic Gasser if the atmosphere warms the earth he’ll say Oh, YeS!
Then take the hick down the line from rotating sphere in vacuum, illuminated by nearby glowing object, no atmosphere, full energy arriving on sensors at surface, single mode – glowing – energy removal
add atmosphere which deflects 20% energy from surface to space, never to touch a sensor, that’s cooling,
add subsequent scrubbing effect since atmsophere isn’t up to surface temp, that’s conduction, another mode of cooling,
add subsequent speeding of that through convective storm system evaporative refrigeration by water, another mode of cooling, (convection,)
ask the hillbilly what the name of the mode is of warming by the atmosphere: crickets. This Ehrlich sounds like one of those idiots who doesn’t know,
cold fluid atmospheres with lots of phase change refrigerant, don’t heat the sensors they scrub.
What a dismally challenged intellect. Additionally the ”Michael Mann’ and ”admired?” Michael Mann is the guy whose OWN FRIEND got the algorithms for his Hockey Stick generator and said it was throwing hockey sticks for THEM.
He’s the one who was organizing the ruining of the BBC reporter’s career for revealing scientists knew it stopped warming in the mid 1990s, when the emails were released and he, and Trenberg were crying over why they couldn’t figure out which direction the thermometer would go. In the same email.
As a radiation engineer, when I think ”fraudulent science” I think of those government employees, pretending to be studying climate, getting caught lying through their teeth, when they couldn’t even predict which way a thermometer would go, when put into a jar. Al Gore and some climate scientist did the experiment of the gas and thermometer in the jar online and the one with the CO2 COOLED over time.
There was a big write up on it at the guy’s blog, the Magic Gas Believer who did the experiment himself, (he believes the magic gas story about CO2 and there being something called a GHG effect fervently) and discovered Gore and the climate scientist had SWAPPED THERMOMETERS.
For goodness’ sake the Ideal Gas law is the law written for computation of atmospheric thermodynamics. There is no reference to frequency of diffraction, or spectral resonance IN the gas law when calculating temperature.
Someone needs to tell Ehrlich ”calculate the temperature of a volume of atmospheric air and show me your reference to frequency of diffraction.”
More crickets from the hicks and hacks of Academic incompetency: the ones who thought the Hockey Stick generator is real mathematics. LoLoL !”
Not sure if the a reply posted but here again is Ms.Priddy’s comment
“Elizabeth Priddy2 years ago
Report abuse
Ehrlich sounds like one of those hillbillies who thinks the atmosphere warms the earth. Ask any Magic Gasser if the atmosphere warms the earth he’ll say Oh, YeS!
Then take the hick down the line from rotating sphere in vacuum, illuminated by nearby glowing object, no atmosphere, full energy arriving on sensors at surface, single mode – glowing – energy removal
add atmosphere which deflects 20% energy from surface to space, never to touch a sensor, that’s cooling,
add subsequent scrubbing effect since atmsophere isn’t up to surface temp, that’s conduction, another mode of cooling,
add subsequent speeding of that through convective storm system evaporative refrigeration by water, another mode of cooling, (convection,)
ask the hillbilly what the name of the mode is of warming by the atmosphere: crickets. This Ehrlich sounds like one of those idiots who doesn’t know,
cold fluid atmospheres with lots of phase change refrigerant, don’t heat the sensors they scrub.
What a dismally challenged intellect. Additionally the ”Michael Mann’ and ”admired?” Michael Mann is the guy whose OWN FRIEND got the algorithms for his Hockey Stick generator and said it was throwing hockey sticks for THEM.
He’s the one who was organizing the ruining of the BBC reporter’s career for revealing scientists knew it stopped warming in the mid 1990s, when the emails were released and he, and Trenberg were crying over why they couldn’t figure out which direction the thermometer would go. In the same email.
As a radiation engineer, when I think ”fraudulent science” I think of those government employees, pretending to be studying climate, getting caught lying through their teeth, when they couldn’t even predict which way a thermometer would go, when put into a jar. Al Gore and some climate scientist did the experiment of the gas and thermometer in the jar online and the one with the CO2 COOLED over time.
There was a big write up on it at the guy’s blog, the Magic Gas Believer who did the experiment himself, (he believes the magic gas story about CO2 and there being something called a GHG effect fervently) and discovered Gore and the climate scientist had SWAPPED THERMOMETERS.
For goodness’ sake the Ideal Gas law is the law written for computation of atmospheric thermodynamics. There is no reference to frequency of diffraction, or spectral resonance IN the gas law when calculating temperature.
Someone needs to tell Ehrlich ”calculate the temperature of a volume of atmospheric air and show me your reference to frequency of diffraction.”
More crickets from the hicks and hacks of Academic incompetency: the ones who thought the Hockey Stick generator is real mathematics. LoLoL !”
Mod you suggested it should be copied
Mod- I cut and pasted the referenced comment, but it was rejected by the site here,
“For goodness’ sake the Ideal Gas law is the law written for computation of atmospheric thermodynamics. There is no reference to frequency of diffraction, or spectral resonance IN the gas law when calculating temperature.”
For goodness sake …. the Ideal Gas Laws are not applicable to the atmosphere.
I’m tempted to say go away and Google to see why. But you wont, as to believe that you clearly are only motivated by ideology, and to see why it is not the case requires an unbiased enquiring mind.
But a hint…..
The atmospherre is not a closed system.
And radiative thermodynamics was not on the minds of Charles and Boyle and Guy-Lussac in describing the behaviour of gasses in a closed system.
In the atmosphere it is very much applicable.
Any relative newcomers here might like to try some skeptical cli-fi / sci-fi after reading Bob’s story.
First announced here 4 years back.
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/273983
announced here at WUWT, I mean.
Or, since its fiction, try some climate science SF
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Green-Earth-Kim-Stanley-Robinson/dp/0008139547
Apologised yet?
Why is it ONLY available on Amazon and only in Kindle? Surely work like this deserves the widest audience and there are those who have other preferences or indeed necessities.
Kindle books can be read on desktop and laptop computers with the free Kindle app. They just can’t be read on competing tablets.
True, but unless the author has signed some sort of Amazon exclusive deal, it is very easy to publish an ebook on all (or most all) the other ebook retail stores.
Free Kindle apps are available for almost all mobile devices (Android, iOS).
Because the people who use that term to describe me have not yet learned to use the English language properly. They do not have skill in the Arts or Legal disputation, yet try to make up for it by pretending they have skill in Science or Mathematics, or know a friend who claims to do so. They only encounter logical thinking and clarity of argument in their nightmares. Those nightmares probably involve a school teacher getting cross with them.
To quote Ring Lardner: “Shut up, he explained.” I also get into debates with my son on this topic. As an HVAC engineer, I try to explain the accuracy of thermometers, the placement of reporting stations, and the measurement of so called warming being less than the accuracy of the instruments. I am told I am going against proven science belief. “Dad, Why Are You A Global Warming Denier? “
If my CHILD used the term “Denier” about anything … I’d smack em in the mouth. It is the most Marxist, dehumanizing, pejorative term ever devised by the leftists. My children KNOW (by listening and learning) that their father is not a knee-jerk ideologue who follows the herd … they know better. And they know better than to come home and scold their old man with some nonsense their lesbian seagull middle school teacher propagandized to them.
Wonderful retort. Some of my leftist hockey teammates used the term the other day, thinking the term is just a general term used by EVERYONE (see they are leftists and listen to mainstream crapola and don’t critically think about anything like this) so I had to put them in their place. They couldn’t believe me, a 30yr in the field operational meteorologist could have such thoughts but I think I woke them up a bit when I threw just a few basic observed facts to shut them down.
why are leftists allowed to play hockey?
The marginal cost of “printing” a Kindle ebook is zero. Consider giving the book away for free or charging only $0.99 for it. Increase its audience. It is a message book. (I have done this myself. )
It’s only $3.78 now in the Kindle version.
I saw a comment in another thread a couple of days ago where the poster said his child asked him pretty much the same question about being a skeptic of CAGW.
When I saw the title of this post, I thought it might be connected to that post.
I wonder how many people here have had this experience of your child questioning your position on human-caused Global Warming/Climate Change?
My 14yr old is a righty (already…I didn’t even think of politics much until in college when I was young, but everything is political these days so kids are getting in on the action now too) and she is certainly a skeptic ++ so we have great conversations. My 16yr boy is more a-political and doesn’t give a rats ass.
“Dad, why are you a global warming denier?”, “Can I borrow the car?”, “Can I have some money for gas?”, “Don’t wait up, I’m picking up my friends and we’re going cruising”.
+10
That is the right context for it. Only a decade earlier it was “we prefer pepsi over coke, join the pepsi generation or be square?
I can’t wait to stir up some shoot on the Amazon reviews. To their credit, amazon has not yet censored any comments, even though many of mine were definitely not good spin for sales of the Carbon missionary books reviewed. Many folks engaged were dumbfounded that there were well founded skeptical arguments.
I’m in the same situation with one of my kids (as is the President). I look forward to the pleasure of defending rather than critiquing a book on amazon.
My youngest was taught the usual alarmism at school so I went to straighten him out, he was skeptical at first but swing over easily when presented with some simple physics. So that’s good, but as part of it you need to explain why the thundering herds of sheeple buy into the BS — an unfortunate part of the overall lesson.
Really, you were allowed to “re-educate” NZ educators? I find that a tall story knowing how the system works in the UK and NZ (One of my friends is a “teacher”, from the UK now in NZ, on 12 months salary for 9 months “work”). Simply impossible here in Australia. What my daughter repeats at home after school is really shocking. I am hoping she sees both sides and makes her own mind up.
Um, I “re-educated” my son the student, not any teachers.
I wish you would give a little teaser as to some of your daughter’s questions, and some of your best answers, maybe then I would buy the book. I would like to see some of your answers so I can use them on my liberal friends. (seems almost all of my friends are ultra liberal) (I guess because I am an artist)…I had Kindle, but my last laptop crashed, and I no longer have it…is Kindle a free download for laptops??
Go to Amazon and search for the book.
You will see a link that says “Look Inside” and an arrow pointing to the book, on the top left side of the page.
There are quite a few pages available for a free look.
“Go to Amazon and search for the book.”
Or just click here (or in the 2 links in Bob’s head post):
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B078VBBPHD/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1515271053&sr=8-1&keywords=%22Dad%2C+Why+Are+You+A+Global+Warming+Denier%3F%22
You have to pay just the same if downloaded to a laptop or desktop. (You can read it with the free Kindle app.)
Bob is back! Nice! I am in on the new book.
Where is the Blob Bob? 😉
*1
@ Bob Tisdale,
You and your editor have a gift.
I am a dennier because I suffer from an affliction most in the modern world have been cured of. I think!
It says something about our times when an editor of a book asks “to remain anonymous due to the political nature of the global warming debate,” doesn’t it? Unless we resist with tenfold force, freedoma and civilization will be gone in no time (if they are not gone already).
I come just to wish everyone a great New Year.
And to say I have bought the book, and begun reading it, and am enjoying it enormously.
Thank You Bob Tisdale !
Thank you WUWT !
Bob, thanks. Now that I am on Kindle I will make a point of purchasing your work.
You have worked so hard and done so much.
Bob,
Nice to hear from you again. Welcome back. I already purchased the book and will read it today while I try to keep from freezing in Durham, NC – current temp 4F.
I find your words, “….is more than 26,000-words long—way too long for a blog post”, to be quite disingenuous. You had never the intent to blog this work, how could you, since profit was always the goal, and to use this site as an avenue to click and bait people into a profit scheme. As a scientist myself, I find this highly disreputable along with much of your poor work. It is exactly this kind of duplicitous under-handedness why so much of science is coming into question these days, when even people like yourself Mr. Tisdale, take other people’s work, especially work that is paid for and supported by the tax payer, and turn it into a cash grab all because you think you can put some cosmetic words and ribbons that have absolute no scientific added value.
Kindle indeed. You ought to be ashamed of yourself Mr. Tisdale. By the way, I fully understand why your editor wishes to stay unknown, I would too, gathering by your past laughable accomplishments.
And for the record, your book which has what, about 80 pages of content, and most of it as you have admitted is not even your own work, amounting to what, 8 or 10 pages of fluff added by you, illustrates the typical poor content and poor opinionated science, and third rate scientific discussion that goes on at this site.
WUWT is turning into every bit what the AGW morons have become: moronic science nonsense statistical sycophants with NO real hard physics/science ability. The amount of rubbish you people institute from data is amazing!
Once upon a time this site had a little bit – I do mean a very little bit – of merit, but now, this site is now no better than that lying, cheating, idiot Nye. At least Nye doesn’t hide the fact that he has Hollywood supporting him, while this site is just Hollywood Science and doesn’t even know it. Its one thing to deceive knowingly, like Nye does, but the real danger is not people like Nye whom knowingly deceive, but people like Tisdale and WUWT, that deceive people because they are too absorbed in their own self value. It is the later that the presents the greatest danger to Society.
This site is becoming more and more ridiculous and detached with each and passing year.
I fully expect these words to never see the light of day, but if they do, remember dear readers, it may only cost $3.76 for Tisdale’s book, but ask Mr. Tisdale, how much of that $3.76 will he give back to all the taxpayers that paid for all the REAL work that went into that book? Or are all those elegant words and ribbons you added so important and require to be copyrighted! I think, people, you’re starting to get the real purpose of the book now.
Absolutely disgraceful Tisdale. Absolutely!
2018, another year we all head deeper into The Science Dark Ages, that’s to the likes of WUWT and the Tisdale’s of the world. The shame of it all, the shame.
It sounds like a personal problem to me.
Seems to be a number of unfounded, speculative, and insulting comments on this thread.
And a few thank yous, welcome backs, and the like. To those with positive comments, thank you.
To the rest of you…
Adios
Dorian, impeached by the self-assigned epithet scientist.
Time for your meds., Dorian.
You are correct Dorian, this site has become very detached as of late.
What a brain dead ugly leftist you must be. Ick.
Dorian
Bob Tisdale has done as much to educate people on this subject as anyone anywhere.
He has always done so as a gentleman and never pushes an agenda, you are totally out of line with your comments.
Dorian
Bob Tisdale has done as much to educate people on this subject as anyone anywhere.
He has always done so as a gentleman and never pushes an agenda, you are totally out of line with your comments.
Hey Dorian, this science research link is for you bud.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110405174833.htm
or this one….
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161005160733.htm
Dorian:
Just out of curiousity, what was the ticket price to see Gore’s latest climate porn movie Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power? I can’t tell because it isn’t playing anywhere but I don’t think it was ever free. Must have been charging too much since it did poorly compared to the original. How much original content did Gore actually contributed to his movie? Or did he just take a bunch of taxpayer-funded work and use it as a cash grab to promote carbon tax schemes that would make him billions?
And I don’t see that those “hard working” climate scientists are doing too badly, considering the case of Jagadish Shukla.
The way it works Dorian is if Bob Tisdale makes a pile of money selling E-books on Amazon, that is called “income” under the US tax code and the Federal government, and perhaps the state where Bob resides will assess what is called “income tax”, wherein they invite Bob to write them a check. Those same governments will then take that tax revenue and use it to pay for more things than all of us together could possible enumerate, but including some research by “real scientists”.
For my part, I heartily second Ristvan’s “welcome back” to Bob Tisdale.
Dorian is the source of a vicious and unmeritable attack on Bob Tisdale. The global warming advocates with whom I am acquainted are fundamentalist de-industrialisers. They really do want to destroy civilisation. Bob Tisdale upholds and defends civilisation.
I imagine Dorian will be writing a nasty letter to Michael Mann about now.
Hardly, he probably bought 20 books from Michael Mann to give out to his friends.
The shorter Dorian: How dare you peer review science on the public drip unless you’re on the public teat yourself.
The essence of pal review and they have the gall to accuse anyone outside the inner circle of being in the pay of Big Oil of working for profit. Welcome to this taxpayer free site Dorian.
Bob Tisdale: I have begun reading your book, and thank you for it. I almost didn’t get it because I felt there was an implication that a brilliant MALE is needed to tell us silly females. But, maybe that is just my life experience bleeding over. — Nonetheless, I was trying to collect all the reasons/logic/arguments, and this adds. I had never thought about the precipitation angle. — Still reading.
There are no silly females over here. Unless they are Leftists. 🙂
If you want a female’s take on climate change, try Judith Curry. She recently testified before Congress on the subject.
Other notable dissenting females with websites or blogs to read are Crockford (forgot her first name—Susan?, Donna Laframboise, JoNova, and Lucia. Probably more that I’ll remember after I hit Reply.
TA, Thank you for that remark about women. My Dad felt the same way. I do read Judith Curry, following her blog and facebook presence.
Just got it. I too have a 20 something daughter. Thank you. The political climate science messaging harassment problem through Facebook, HuffPo, and many others is greater than Weinstein and Company in the current wave of awareness.
Now I just need to find out how to share the ebook with her.
Thank You Bob Tisdale. I have purchased the book and started reading it. I am hoping I can use it to communicate on this with my grown grandchildren and children. I plan on gifting a bunch of copies as well.
Your work is much appreciated. I am in awe of the quality and volume.
When my son asked why I didn’t understand things the way he does, I apologized for not subjecting him to religion more.
His next book should be: “Dad, why do scientists laugh at you ? “
I’m 2/3 through. It’s very Heinlein-like, especially in its main character.
Bought from Amazon UK and look forward to reading it.
It sounds like a great book, with a catchy title that may incite young people to read it, and possibly become global warming skeptics.
He could follow it up with further books addressing other aspects of the issue with titles like, Bro, Why Are You a Global Warming Denier?, Cuz, Why Are You a Global Warming Denier?, Unk, Why Are You a Global Warming Denier?, etc.
Speaking of catchy titles, here’s one that popped into my head last night for a UFO book: Not Swamp Gas:
Roger Knights – My favorite is a possible book cover by Alistair Riddoch. “Climate Change, a Virgin’s Nightmare” and then “It’s so hard these days to find a virgin to sacrifice herself to prevent climate change.” I found it on Facebook in the comments under his Dec 13 post about Michael Crichton. I do not know how to post a picture here, otherwise I would treat you to that. I think this link will get you to the post, and it is the 3rd comment up from the bottom. https://www.facebook.com/alistair.riddoch/posts/10215247685329946?comment_id=10215448814518050¬if_id=1515194955362665¬if_t=feedback_reaction_generic&ref=notif
Only twentysomething daughters miseducated in alt-left universities would be asking such question. If we teach children science instead of “climate change” even Jadyn Rylee would be asking “dad, why do they believe in global warming catastrophe?”
Well Bob, I have submitted your book to my daughter, who is finishing HS, and looking to an Environmental Science degree in college. I am hoping this book will help enlighten, as it does play into her and my future post haste.
Thanks for all you have done, regardless!