Blog powered by Typepad

« Dunkirk - another view | Main | Better watch out, Donald, 'the Deval' is coming! »

Tuesday, 01 August 2017

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

It has been well established that in the entire history of temperature measurement no temperature measuring device has ever failed. Right? Alas this is not your most grievous error. That would be in thinking that meteorologists are climate scientists. No. Your weather girl may be a meteorologist but that doesn't make them a climate scientist or even qualify them to hold a a professional opinion on what is a completely different branch of science. Daily caller? Why am I not surprised.

It has been well established that in the entire history of temperature measurement since the advent of the religion of global warming that takes huge amounts of money off the public (suckers), that no measurement of cooling has ever taken place right? 97 % of climatologist scientologists with some dubious study has declared that we must all pay our tithes to the high priests of global warming.
This has turned me into a fervent Druid whereby I worship the sun only as the giver of heat and light and if one of those high priests of global warming would care to lay on the alter stone at Stonehenge I would gladly administer the sacrifice to appease the co2 god.

Hey I have an idea! We have a resident commenter here who has claimed the relevant expertise to actually comment on this subject and can adjudicate. That would be The Big Henry who tells us he was a nuclear scientist at Los Alamos. Since the most compelling and repeatable and precise evidence for the human genesis of global warming is isotope ratios I will let The Big Henry explain why everything we know about the physics in which he claims expertise is wrong.

Don't need to dumb it down The Big Henry, use as many big words as you need to. I can take it.

Seriously, PG. How old are you?

"the most compelling and repeatable and precise evidence for the human genesis of global warming is isotope ratios"

How odd! In all the years, and I do mean years, of following the AGW debate I have never heard a single mention of "isotope ratios". Gosh, we're lucky to have PeterG here!

I Big Henry am over sixty and for 35 of those years I have been doing applied physics for a living, trained as I was in Materials Science. So Big Henry let's get to the meat of this. Our host's ignorance of science notwithstanding a simple search of the relevant scientific articles would demonstrate that a huge amount of the most accurate information we have about historical levels carbon in the atmosphere is determined by isotope ratios. With me so far? And you, as a hypothetical nuclear scientist, must know something about isotopes and nuclear decay. The question is simple enough I dare say. Why are all these isotope studies wrong? Bring your expertise to bear and give us of your wisdom. Do not be afraid to embarrass anyone with your knowledge.

A word to our host, you don't follow the climate change debate by reading a publication that cannot tell the difference between a meteorologist who studies weather and a climate scientist who studies guess what?

And yes David you are lucky to have me here. It's a great learning opportunity.

PG,

Is your real name Fido?

PG,

I retract my above dismissive remark. After careful re-reading of you latest comment directed toward me, I see that you have found me out -- I am, indeed, a hypothetical nuclear scientist (retired).

So I must capitulate. I can not compete at your level of intellect, so please go pick on somebody else.

I know you just quoted somebody else's words but it would be nice if those criticising other people's numbers got their own numbers right.
“The temperature dropped to minus 10 (13 degrees Fahrenheit), stayed there for some time and then it changed to minus 10.4 (14 degrees Fahrenheit) ..."
-10 Celsius is 14 Fahrenheit, -10.4 Celsius is 13 Fahrenheit (actually, 13.28 but close enough)

And yes David you are lucky to have me here. It's a great learning opportunity.

You are obviously not paying attention as you do not seem to have learned much.

And yes Duffers we have heaps of "true believers in the Anthropogenic Gerbil Worming myth" down here in Oz.

So far all their predictions have been wrong.

PG why don't you pop over to Jo Nova's site and give them the benefit of your vast knowledge of everything. I am sure they would appreciate it.

Okay Big Henry. I think I made my point. People can pretend to be whatever they want online. But if you are going for the gusto, Brain Surgeon, Rocket Scientist, Nuclear Physicist, whatever, you have to expect to be put on the spot once in a a while. I kind of wondered when you did not know that every single cent spent to run Los Alamos and pay your salary comes from the Department of Energy. Which is currently led by an idiot who does not know what the DOE even does. But that's beside the point. The fact is if you did know anything about the matter I mentioned, isotope studies in climate science then you could probably offer at least some criticism of such a study. But it is not possible for a nuclear scientist not to have a clue.

I feel my work here is nearly done. I have done my best to model my behavior on your host in those places where he visits and insults. You may soon return to your comfortable circle jerk of ignorance but if you want my advice, which you don't, you could probably find a more informed leader to be a disciple of in a drunk tank.

PG,

I have definitely learned my lesson. The next time I try to masquerade with gusto, I will pretend to be a materials science trainee.

"I feel my work here is nearly done."

"[I]f you want my advice, which you don't, you could probably find a more informed leader to be a disciple of in a drunk tank."

What?!!! So you don't Pompous G, realize that's precisely where we've felt to be since your benighted arrival?

Nearly done?

JK,

Please, take me to your informed leader liter.

..."you could probably find a more informed leader to be a disciple of in a drunk tank" Certainly not. Our host would more likely be found on his patio with a tall dry martini. Polite and accommodating.

Well PompousG I am sure you know a lot about isotopes, and it must help immeasurably with your sex life... but as a true scientist I should have thought you might want to be a little more sceptical about the wilder claims of the AGW or climate chnage or whatever it's called this week; and in particular about the remedies being called for by the so-called global great and good which seem more to do with goody goody lefty greenie political priorities rather than being informed by sound science or economics.

Just sayin'...

The point about this story is that it is yet another example of policy based evidence making, to go with all the rest. Gradually the MSM is waking up and at some point will catch up with public opinion which is already seeing the light. There's hope yet, I'm a natural optimist , for my sins.

Woof woof!

Is our little troll thinking of leaving?

"Our host would more likely be found on his patio with a tall dry martini. Polite and accommodating."

Spot on, Whiters, couldn't have put it better myself. Mind you, I did spill a drop the other day reading some of the contributions from our resident 'humourist'!

And Henry, you are to remain here on this blog where your comments are always welcome - and that's an order!

This "young" lady is well and truly bored with the resident boors and while you gentlemen sort them out, I will remain in the kitchen shaking up our gracious host's martinis.

Missred, very kind of you...maybe some chips as well?

A palpable hit Big H.
Be advised though that to young Pompous 'irony' is what his Mum does to his laundry to get all the creases out!!

David,

Today I am masquerading as a hypothetical psychologist. My conclusion is that PG has a massive inferiority complex.

You are probably right, Richard. But my inclination is to strike while the irony's hot.

Apparently not done. Which of you terribly insightful souls even noticed that a meteorologist is not a climate scientist? Or that temperatures go up and down daily and seasonally and no climate science does not say that it always goes up. That's just stupid. None of you noticed did you?

Hello PompousG.

So you've reeled out AGW defence number 27 - that's weather not climate.

To which I riposte with sceptic argument number 43 - climate's changing all the time, has been throughout history; but whether it's manmade there's no real evidence, and even if it is, whether the destruction of our modern industrial economy is the right way to go about dealing with it.

But anyway, get back to your isotopes, they're missing you already!!

woof woof.

"None of you noticed did you?"

Oh. Jesus. H. Keerist. Pompous G.

The comments to this entry are closed.