Report this

00

Anecdotes, newspapers and bloggers are not peer reviewed. Don’t be silly.

Report this

00

I don’t trust scientists that
ARE Political activists for a leftist (or rightist) agenda.
ARE constantly using fear and propaganda to further their cause.
ARE unwilling to allow other scientists to openly discuss, review, test or argue a differing view.
ARE constantly mouthing “peer review” as though Peer is a God.

And it’s an “ethical community” (as Lee Smolin described it), so there is a demand for a high level of integrity.

Scientists are humans and cannot be more ethical than any other large group of humans. That was a particularly STUPID thing to say…….Show me the Peer reviewed study on that would you?

Arrogant, elitist, blog troll.

Report this

00

It is quite clear there are a Hell of a lot of scientists who don’t trust the ‘peer’ reviewed newspapers, anecdotes of hikers and leftist bloggers of the IPCC papers.

Report this

00

No scientist accepts something because it is asserted by “someone I trust”.

Wrong. All scientists trust other scientists results (if peer reviewed and not refuted through other peer reviewed results). They have to, they don’t have time or resources to repeat all the work done by others.

And it’s an “ethical community” (as Lee Smolin described it), so there is a demand for a high level of integrity.

Report this

01

Report this

01

Apologise. Then, having done that, GO AWAY.

Richard

Report this

10

And your paper analogy is wrong (although I’ll concede it’s a clever sleight of hand – if you actually do know what you’re doing, rather than simply being mistaken.)

Report this

01

I insert my responses to your points within your text from #150:

Para. 1 of your #150.

Richard, I assure you that I do know this topic.

Then why at #147 did you say:

“I haven’t done the calculation myself but I was talking to someone who I trust a couple of weeks ago who has, and he suggested the mean path length (which I think you are calling MFP) is somewhere between 2 and 5 meters.”?

No scientist accepts something because it is asserted by “someone I trust”. If you had any understanding of science and if you had the capability then you would have checked it yourself because you trust him/her. Anybody can make a mistake and he/she would have been grateful for your having checked (unless, of course, it was Phil Jones).

Para. 2 of your #150.

If you are so sure that I am wrong, then you’ll be able to do better than Look it up.

Say what!!?? You insulting and offensive little jerk.
I have explained the matter to you repeatedly in as many ways as I can think of, and I have referred you to the IPCC Reports.
When all of that has flowed over you like water from a duck’s back I told you to “Look It Up” (which anybody with more than two brain cells to rub together would have done without having to be told to do it).

Para. 3 of your #150.

Since you can’t, or won’t, I can only assume that your knowledge is pretty poor and you can’t refute (or, I suspect, even understand) what I’ve said.

Withdraw and apologise for that in abject terms!
I can explain it, I have explained it to you in several different ways, and I have cited explanations of it by the IPCC. I have repeatedly explained that you are plain wrong and why you are wrong.
Assume whatever you like. The clear fact that anybody who reads this exchange can see is that you are too thick to understand the issue.

Para. 4 of your #150.

The rest of your comment which consists entirely of abusing me about my level of knowledge (in your opinion) isn’t worth dealing with

.
Bollocks! You offensive little twit.
I told you that you need to learn some physics and when you have an elementary grasp of this subject then you can say whatever you like. For now, your ignorance causes you to assert obvious nonsense as fact that you expect others to agree.
For example, in #147 you “dispute” my factually accurate statement saying;
“Almost all the IR photons that can be absorbed by CO2 and H2O molecules are absorbed by CO2 and H2O molecules in the lowest 100 m of the atmosphere.”
But in that same post you say;
“the mean path length (which I think you are calling MFP) is somewhere between 2 and 5 meters.”

OK. If the average distance a photon travels before absorbtion is – as you say – “somewhere between 2 and 5 meters” why is it so hard for you to understand that – as I tell you – “almost all” of the photons are absorbed in 100m?

It should be easy for you to answer this question when you proclaim you are such a genius that your opinion is sufficient to overthrow all atmospheric radiative physics.

I am done with you. You are silly, abusive and insulting. I have wasted to much time “casting pearls before swine” and will let you post whatever nonsense you want without wasting my time to rebut it. Reality remains what it is regardless of how you want to pretend it is.

Richard

Report this

10

If you are so sure that I am wrong, then you’ll be able to do better than Look it up.

Since you can’t, or won’t, I can only assume that your knowledge is pretty poor and you can’t refute (or, I suspect, even understand) what I’ve said.

The rest of your comment which consists entirely of abusing me about my level of knowledge (in your opinion) isn’t worth dealing with.

Report this

01