Reply to: More scientists stating the obvious

[EternalOptimist]

Perhaps you should open a chemistry textbook.

Usually it's good form to let things slide, but pj laughing at this guy is execrable considering that only last week he had to be educated about 'dry steam'.

go and plant a tree pj.

[BlasterBates]

he asserts that any gas molecule with more than 2 atoms is a GHG is laughable

Perhaps you should open a chemistry textbook.

[DodgyAgent]

I already gave three examples: He claimed climatology 'ignores' water vapour in GHG calculations, false, I linked to the IPCC FAQ where it is discussed. He said CO2 readings are suspect because they are only taken in one location, a volcano, I gave a link explaining that CO2 is monitored worldwide, and he asserts that any gas molecule with more than 2 atoms is a GHG is laughable to anyone whose opened a chemistry textbook. There are many many more howlers but surely three is enough?

Then there's 'the smell test', anyone who can disprove over a hundred years of physics and chemistry and demonstrate that placing the planet in a radiative imbalance is not going to cause it to heat up will earn a Nobel, minimum, plus the undying gratitude of governments and the fossil fuel industry. This guy posted his essay on LinkedIn where it sank without trace, until you stumbled upon it ....

For a start water vapour is consigned very much to the back of the alarmists debate as are so many other factors. Are you saying that a molecule consisting of more than one molecule does not absorb light/heat?.
I notice that your argument shifts the onus on "disproving" science rather than proving it which is why you people latch onto any extreme of climate behaviour and try to link it to the burning of fossil fuels. This guy may not be the worlds greatest scientist but he is playing you lot at your own game.

[pjclarke]

All well and good so presumably you can explain therefore quite easily why he is wrong instead of smearing him personally. Or do you prefer your ad hominen technique that you so criticise everyone else for using?

I already gave three examples: He claimed climatology 'ignores' water vapour in GHG calculations, false, I linked to the IPCC FAQ where it is discussed. He said CO2 readings are suspect because they are only taken in one location, a volcano, I gave a link explaining that CO2 is monitored worldwide, and he asserts that any gas molecule with more than 2 atoms is a GHG is laughable to anyone whose opened a chemistry textbook. There are many many more howlers but surely three is enough?

Then there's 'the smell test', anyone who can disprove over a hundred years of physics and chemistry and demonstrate that placing the planet in a radiative imbalance is not going to cause it to heat up will earn a Nobel, minimum, plus the undying gratitude of governments and the fossil fuel industry. This guy posted his essay on LinkedIn where it sank without trace, until you stumbled upon it ....

[BrilloPad]

http://http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-weather-britain-must-be-ready-for-worst-droughts-in-modern-times-9746455.html

Look forward to some dry weather predicted by the climate scientists.

I remember 1976. Supposed to be a once in 50 year occurrence.

The solution is o move the population to an area with high rainfall. Starting with parliament. It needs about £10bn worth of work. Just move it to Manchester. It rains there every day....

[BlasterBates]

http://http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-weather-britain-must-be-ready-for-worst-droughts-in-modern-times-9746455.html

Look forward to some dry weather predicted by the climate scientists.

[DodgyAgent]

The EPA, along with a handful of other enquiries found zero evidence of anything in the illegally obtained mails to bring the scientific work into doubt. Unlike the others it is subject to judicial review, so anyone who thinks differently can challenge the review. Nobody has.

I will concede, indeed welcome with open arms any compelling critique that means we do not face a potential crisis. I am afraid though that the musings of an unemployed software engineer who asserts that 'every gas molecule with more than two atoms is a greenhouse gas' doesn't quite make the cut.

What does the willingness to embrace a 9 month old nonsense essay on LinkedIn tell us about your approach to the problem I wonder?

All well and good so presumably you can explain therefore quite easily why he is wrong instead of smearing him personally. Or do you prefer your ad hominen technique that you so criticise everyone else for using?

[EternalOptimist]

Make yourself useful pj. go and plant a tree or something

[pjclarke]

are you sure ?

IPCC TAR and the hockey stick | Climate Etc.



Who is "Deep Climate" ?

Is he a scientist ?

hmm

Has he published anything ?

More ad hom. To address his arguments - do you deny that McIntrye rearranged and edited quotes to misrepresent the contents of the stolen mail? You don't need a doctorate to spot that, (although I see Dr Curry posts Christy's unsceptical reproduction of the 'argument' uncritically). DC's identity is not hard to discover but I'm going to respect his anonymity. He's just a blogger, far as I know, but he did point out, in another blog post, that McIntyre's claim to reproduce the HS by inputting red noise - a common denier meme - was based on some bizarre and unscientific cherry picking.

Replication and due diligence, Wegman style | Deep Climate

[BlasterBates]

That blog post from Steve McIntyre, master of the mountain from a molehill, contains no evidence of deliberate misleading.

So, six years ago the internal mail archive of the CRU was illegally plundered, published and subjected to endless hostile scrutiny, and as a consequence you want to discuss a dubious blog analysis of emails discussing a fairly arcane graph back in 1999 for a report that has long since been superseded. Seems a pretty small crumb, but let's give it a go. McIntrye artfully weaves together a few quotes to give the appearance of scientists conspiring to present a certain impression. But what's this?



Looks like even the little crumb just melted.

Full details of McIntyre's chicanery: McIntyre provides fodder for skeptics | Deep Climate

See also : Steve McIntyre, down in the quote mine – Deltoid

are you sure ?

IPCC TAR and the hockey stick | Climate Etc.

The IPCC process is clearly broken, and I don’t see anything in their recent policies that addresses the problems that Christy raises. The policy makers clearly wrought havoc in context of the AR5 WG3 report; however there is a more insidious problem particularly with the WG1 scientists in terms of conflict of interest and the IPCC Bureau in terms of stacking the deck to produce the results that they want.

Who is "Deep Climate" ?

Is he a scientist ?

For private and professional reasons, I prefer to remain anonymous to the general public, at least for now.

hmm

Has he published anything ?

[pjclarke]

Happy to oblige and I'm pleased you asked as I think this can't be discussed enough:

IPCC and the “Trick” « Climate Audit

Deliberate misleading in all it's glory.

Fraud it may not be, but sloppy it certainly is, and worthy of an investigation.

That blog post from Steve McIntyre, master of the mountain from a molehill, contains no evidence of deliberate misleading.

So, six years ago the internal mail archive of the CRU was illegally plundered, published and subjected to endless hostile scrutiny, and as a consequence you want to discuss a dubious blog analysis of emails discussing a fairly arcane graph back in 1999 for a report that has long since been superseded. Seems a pretty small crumb, but let's give it a go. McIntrye artfully weaves together a few quotes to give the appearance of scientists conspiring to present a certain impression. But what's this?

even a cursory examination of the emails in question shows that the discussion was really about other aspects of the reconstruction, specifically obvious discrepancies between Briffa’s reconstruction and the other two under consideration over the major part of the reconstruction’s length. Thus, once again, McIntyre’s speculations are shown to be utterly without foundation.

Even worse, McIntyre left out intervening sentences within the actual proffered quotes in what appears to be an unsophisticated attempt to mislead.

Looks like even the little crumb just melted.

Full details of McIntyre's chicanery: McIntyre provides fodder for skeptics | Deep Climate

See also : Steve McIntyre, down in the quote mine – Deltoid

[BlasterBates]

Well, I think perhaps you should, unless 'no smoke without fire' nod nod wink wink is the full extent of your argument?

Happy to oblige and I'm pleased you asked as I think this can't be discussed enough:

IPCC and the “Trick” « Climate Audit

Deliberate misleading in all it's glory.

Fraud it may not be, but sloppy it certainly is, and worthy of an investigation.

[pjclarke]

. (Usual paranoid blether and personal attack

The EPA, along with a handful of other enquiries found zero evidence of anything in the illegally obtained mails to bring the scientific work into doubt. Unlike the others it is subject to judicial review, so anyone who thinks differently can challenge the review. Nobody has.

I will concede, indeed welcome with open arms any compelling critique that means we do not face a potential crisis. I am afraid though that the musings of an unemployed software engineer who asserts that 'every gas molecule with more than two atoms is a greenhouse gas' doesn't quite make the cut.

What does the willingness to embrace a 9 month old nonsense essay on LinkedIn tell us about your approach to the problem I wonder?

[DodgyAgent]

Myths vs. Facts: Denial of Petitions for Reconsideration of the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act | Climate Change | US EPA

It also says this yet omits to mention that the climate always has changed and always will. The EPA is "spinning" facts and taking them out of context Climate change is real and it is happening now.

Your fanatical obsession to control and defend every facet of the argument about climate change reveals that you have an agenda that is nothing to do with the so called "problem" If it was then you would concede many of the contradictions to the argument. You do not which tells us more about you than it does about the "problem"

[pjclarke]

At least he wasn't a target of an investigation.

Climategate, need we say more?

http://epa.gov/climatechange/endange...ths-facts.html