I thought the truly pathetic part was Twatsy trying to explain climate science?
And being such bitch about it as well:"It's fairly evident that either John Cross doesn't understand the issue at hand, or that he's simply pretending that he doesn't."Just when will someone lock this psycho up, already? After he shoots up a MacDonald's?
I'm thinking Twatsy will come to an ugly end when he's arrested hiding in the bushes outside Carrie Prejean's condo.
Splatrick already has the ugly part down pat; the end can't come too soon.
While Brenda has never deleted anything I have posted on her site (as far as I know), I do find it sometimes happens that my posts get lost, held up or just plain deleted. So for the record, I have posted the following over there.JohnPatrick: I appreciate you taking the time to provide such a long reply in response to my posts. Unfortunately I do not know if I can provide an adequate response since there is remarkably little science in it; but I will do what I can. To begin with, radiation physics has everything to do with the greenhouse effect and our knowledge of radiation physics and the greenhouse effect is about 150 years old. I just provided a list of scientific papers on Dawg’s Blawg that are all over 50 year s old and all talk about the physics of the greenhouse effect. In fact, as a note of historical interest, a great deal of our understanding about CO2 in the atmosphere comes from US military studies in the 50’s looking at heat seeking missiles. Of course our knowledge continues today and in fact improves as we are able to measure things like infrared emissions better than ever. If I can recommend another site Skeptical Science provides an excellent look at the scientific issues (disclosure, I do co-author and post occasionally at Skeptical Science so I may be biased).In regards to the current CRU e-mails that have been circulating through the internet. There have been attempts to discredit the scientists involved (and certainly some of the e-mails are not professional) but upon closer examination there is nothing that challenges the science of global warming, there is no evidence that valid contradicting evidence was over looked and there is nothing to say that the peer review process was hijacked. I would appreciate the opportunity to look in more detail at any of the above if you wish and I certainly hope the debate is “on”. However lets keep it civil and based in science. Regards,John
Hey John, I quoted Skeptical Science over there in one of the comments that weren't good enough to publish. I was citing the warming stopped in 1998 canard.While PR continues to claim warming "stopped".
Liberal, I saw that comment by Patrick, but I did not respond since I was not sure that he talk talking about that or Trenberth's comment in the CRU e-mails. As a note, using the GISS data it is not possible to manipulate it to show cooling since 1998. You must now use between 2001 and 2006 if you want to get a cooling trend.Regards,John
John: Just a note. The delightful Brenda is an idiot. When she is on comment moderation, she only posts people that agree with her, ie maryT, Bec and now Twatsy. Not pretty, but that's life. She really does.not.like.leftard.facts!!!!!:)
I have a couple of links that might prove useful:a) Global average temperature graphed daily over a wide variety of altitudes:Here.b) Arctic ice sheet expanse, graphed daily.Here.You can't argue against raw data.
You can't argue against raw data.Sure you can.
"sure you can"No you can't!
I don't think this'll pass moderation there--Nobody tell Patrick that, once again--given the appropriate time--his ass'll be handed to him...Climatic Research Unit update And a discussion on the implications of said publication by someone that has a slightly better "respect for science" than our resident "jump-to-conclusions/damn-the-facts" triangle/no-deficit chaser--Protocols of the elders of climate science [updated]
Post a Comment