AJ Strata Takes a Stand Against Robert Stacy McCain

Blogosphere • Views: 3,464

Blogger “AJ Strata” takes a look at the writings of white supremacist blogger Robert Stacy McCain, and is utterly repulsed (as any decent person should be): The Strata-Sphere » I Stand With Charles Johnson, And In Total Opposition To Robert Stacy McCain.

I have seen the blog wars ongoing between Charles Johnson over at LGF and too many top conservative blogs who seem to be backing one Robert Stacy McCain. I am a centrist conservative who tries to be tolerant of differing views. But I have to say I must make a stand here between two camps. One camp promises hope for the conservative movement, the other is a cancer leading to its inevitable death.

I disagree with Johnson on many subjects (e.g, he and I are on opposite sides of the Global Warming debate – but I swear I could demonstrate to him how the science and math are clearly against the alarmists). But we also agree on many other areas (e.g., the mythology of Creationism in its opposition to Evolution and Biology – personally I don’t see why Evolution is anything other than the handwriting of God).

But when I look at what The Other McCain has written over time, I find myself repulsed well beyond my moral limits of tolerance. Anyone who thinks “race” verses “human beings” is off track. Way off track. And anyone who defends slavery is plain insane. LGF noted a detailed analysis of McCain blathering which has pushed me to the point I must make a public stand. Some disturbing excerpts of the thinking of a sick mind…

Read the whole thing.

Jump to bottom

312 comments
1 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 10:44:55am

Watch for AJ Strata to be considered a progressive in 5..4..3..2..1..

2 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 10:45:32am

A cellmate for you in the "prison" of moderation.

3 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 10:45:47am

Another crack in the loony underpinnings?...

4 bosforus  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 10:47:26am

Kudos to you, AJ Strata!

5 Randall Gross  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 10:47:34am

AJ knows reason, sometimes he's on the wrong side of the debate but will come around if you show him the facts.

6 _RememberTonyC  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 10:49:33am

if the far right had liked John McCain as much as they like RS McCain, many of their current complaints would be null and void.

Ain't karma a bitch?

7 jaunte  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 10:49:46am

There's a lot of ruin loony in a nation. Nice to see a few more green shoots of sanity popping up.

8 duck of peace  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 10:50:21am

oh cool, another blog I can read! sweet. I honestly hadn't seen strata before today.

9 Baier  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 10:50:29am

re: #7 jaunte

There's a lot of ruin loony in a nation. Nice to see a few more green shoots of sanity popping up.

Hopefully we can get a nice centrist tree growing.

10 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 10:52:38am

re: #9 Baier

Hopefully we can get a nice centrist tree growing.

It would be nice, and this is a start, but it does have to start somewhere.

11 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 10:53:33am

re: #9 Baier

Hopefully we can get a nice centrist tree growing.

I'm not looking for any centrist. I'm looking to see these idiots to be gone, out of the party, let them go make their own party. I want this one back. You can have centrist, I'll take true conservatives, the kind that has fiscal responsibility and keeps the government out of my private life. Remember that one?

12 Killgore Trout  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 10:55:13am

I wonder if Hot Air is going to eventually dump him as a contributor. Today is the first time in a while that Malkin isn't linking to RSM in her buzzworthy section.

13 PAUL_MACDONALD  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 10:56:14am

I forgot the blog existed until now. I can't remember why I stopped reading it.

Just nice to see another voice saying "enough".

14 Charles Johnson  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 10:56:14am

re: #12 Killgore Trout

I wonder if Hot Air is going to eventually dump him as a contributor. Today is the first time in a while that Malkin isn't linking to RSM in her buzzworthy section.

Since that would require eating a nice lunch of crow, I don't expect it.

15 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 10:56:35am

re: #12 Killgore Trout

I wonder if Hot Air is going to eventually dump him as a contributor. Today is the first time in a while that Malkin isn't linking to RSM in her buzzworthy section.

Day ain't over yet. I'd place bets on Hot Air dumping Allahpundit before they dump Roberteal Stacytupid McCain

16 Ray in TX  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 10:56:53am

One more rational conservative blog and we'll have a bona fide Axis of Reason.

17 DaddyG  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 10:57:59am

Question:

Why is being associated with another blog on a blogroll important...

So blogrolls really garner many hits for other blogs?

(Excuse my 20th century ignorance)

18 PAUL_MACDONALD  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 10:59:05am

re: #15 Honorary Yooper

My personal opinion is that AP sticks around as long as he remains valuable as a non theocon front for the whole thing. Heck, he's why I signed up with the second go round of registration over there.

19 Killgore Trout  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:00:00am

re: #14 Charles

You're probably right. I also think Michelle is working on building a racist support network for Beck, Limbaugh, VDARE, RSM, etc. Throwing one of their own under the bus would defeat the purpose.

20 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:00:28am

re: #14 Charles

Since that would require eating a nice lunch of crow, I don't expect it.

Or they will "quietly" back away from his stuff, in hopes that they don't ever have to answer to anyone, folks just forget and they move on.

21 Killgore Trout  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:00:36am

re: #15 Honorary Yooper

Good point. RSM might even get AP's job.

22 Baier  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:00:47am

re: #11 Walter L. Newton

I'm not looking for any centrist. I'm looking to see these idiots to be gone, out of the party, let them go make their own party. I want this one back. You can have centrist, I'll take true conservatives, the kind that has fiscal responsibility and keeps the government out of my private life. Remember that one?

Agreed, but I'll take a centrist party over the GOP or Dems any day at this point.

23 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:01:10am

re: #17 DaddyG

Question:

Why is being associated with another blog on a blogroll important...

So blogrolls really garner many hits for other blogs?

(Excuse my 20th century ignorance)

Think of it as being akin to de-friending on Facebook, except in a more professional and serious manner.

24 researchok  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:01:15am

It will be interesting to see who ends up apologizing for wrongly excoriating Charles and LGF over the RSM brouhaha.

25 lawhawk  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:01:25am

re: #17 DaddyG

They're somewhat useful in generating traffic.

26 Charles Johnson  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:02:54am

re: #15 Honorary Yooper

Robert Stacy McCain is definitely more popular than AP with the commenters at Hot Air.

27 Charles Johnson  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:03:11am

re: #24 researchok

It will be interesting to see who ends up apologizing for wrongly excoriating Charles and LGF over the RSM brouhaha.

I'm not holding my breath.

28 mrbaracuda  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:03:57am

Lizards! Evening from Germany.
I have a question: Are Democrats usually less religious than Republicans and are there less creationists / intelligent design people among them? This is what I was wondering the other day. Thank you.

29 bratwurst  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:05:38am

re: #28 mrbaracuda

In a word: yes.

30 Killgore Trout  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:07:03am

This rumor is floating around...
Michelle Obama is afraid of SC

U.S. House Majority Whip James Clyburn, a close political ally of President Barack Obama, said a hostile environment is deterring Mrs. Obama from returning to South Carolina.

“A lot of it has to do with the fact that the climate in South Carolina just is not good, and that’s a shame,” Clyburn told the Charleston Post and Courier. “I do believe it is keeping her away from this state.”

The Post and Courier said Clyburn has received more than 100 invitations for the first lady, but when he brought one of those requests to her staff this summer, he was told her security was an issue. The event was to take place at Clyburn’s alma mater, South Carolina State University in Orangeburg.

Clyburn specifically cited concerns arising over former Richland County GOP Chairman Rusty DePass’ comment in June that an escaped zoo gorilla was not harmful because it was probably one of Mrs. Obama’s ancestors.

It's possible but I don't buy it. The Secret Service is pretty good and I'm sure they could have a secure visit if they wanted to.

31 mrbaracuda  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:07:11am

re: #29 bratwurst

Nabend. But, but, but.. you're not American!
Is there a real difference, or are Democrats just generally not as overtly religious

32 sardonic  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:07:29am

I agree with Strata. Charles is doing the right thing here, and deserves a massive amount of kudos.

Stacy McCain is a creep and a true racist. The Right and conservatism as whole needs to dump him, disavow him, disassociate themselves from him, as fast as possible.

33 bratwurst  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:09:15am

re: #31 mrbaracuda

Doch! Being an American and being a Schalker are not mutually exclusive! ;-)

34 gregb  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:09:27am

Wasn't it Moses that said "Let my people go!"??


"Quote: It is only to egalitarian or collectivist social theory, really, that we may turn to find a critique of slavery. It was not subject to criticism by the Constitution of 1860, which recognized it."

35 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:10:05am

re: #28 mrbaracuda

Lizards! Evening from Germany.
I have a question: Are Democrats usually less religious than Republicans and are there less creationists / intelligent design people among them? This is what I was wondering the other day. Thank you.

They are absolute heathens and pagans.
//

36 mrbaracuda  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:12:01am

re: #33 bratwurst

Meh I was going to add "or are you?" :-D
I see. Funny that. You still in Schland or somewhere else?

Ein Paradies mit Bratwurst und Bier
So wohl fühl ich mich nur hier
Wo blau und weiß die Fahnen weh'n
Wo Tausende zusammen steh'n
So wird Schalke niemals untergeh'n
Denn die treuesten Fans
Sind die, die selbst durch Fegefeuer geh'n

:-D Though I bet you're only a Schalker because of the Mohammed part! :-D

37 albusteve  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:12:10am

re: #35 Walter L. Newton

They are absolute heathens and pagans.
//

heathens like myself appreciate the shout out...thanks

38 mrbaracuda  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:12:33am

re: #35 Walter L. Newton

*hiss*, *spit*

39 Locker  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:12:41am

It's nice to see some support. Good looking out AJ.

40 bratwurst  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:13:46am

re: #36 mrbaracuda

Made an enormous mistake and left the beautiful Ruhrgebiet about a year ago. Presently back in the US, but busy plotting my escape.

41 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:13:49am

re: #37 albusteve

heathens like myself appreciate the shout out...thanks

He's a witch! Burn him! /

42 Kragar  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:15:01am

re: #41 thedopefishlives

He's a witch! Burn him! /

But how do you know he is a witch?

43 Neutral President  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:15:25am

re: #42 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

But how do you know he is a witch?

He weighs the same as a duck?

44 Gang of One  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:15:52am

re: #42 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

But how do you know he is a witch?

He turned me into a newt!

45 Boyo  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:16:31am

re: #42 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

But how do you know he is a witch?

he floats instead of drowning...or drowns instead of floating...either way hes a witch!!!

46 MandyManners  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:17:09am

re: #44 Gang of One

He turned me into a newt!

I got better.

47 Kragar  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:17:11am

re: #44 Gang of One

He turned me into a newt!

A newt? Well, at least you can get invited on Hannity any time you like.

48 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:17:11am

re: #45 Boyo

he floats instead of drowning...or drowns instead of floating...either way hes a witch!!!

They all float down there.

49 Boyo  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:17:39am

re: #48 Walter L. Newton

They all float down there.

cool book :)

50 reine.de.tout  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:18:40am

re: #29 bratwurst

In a word: yes.

I'm not sure Democrats are less religious.
They may be less fundamentalist/evangelical.
But not necessarily less religious.

51 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:19:46am

re: #44 Gang of One

He turned me into a newt!

A newt?

52 bratwurst  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:20:04am

re: #50 reine.de.tout

Good point...the "yes" was a better answer to the second question than the first. Arguably, the most Christian president in modern history was Jimmy Carter.

53 Kragar  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:21:13am

BWAHAHA, Karma is a bitch, especially then the court learns from past mistakes.

Swiss court keeps Polanski in jail, rejects bail

Noting his previous escape from U.S. authorities, Switzerland's top criminal court on Tuesday rejected Polanski's appeal to be released from prison because of the "high" risk that the 76-year-old director would try to flee again.

54 DaddyG  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:21:27am

Trenre: #28 mrbaracuda

Lizards! Evening from Germany.
I have a question: Are Democrats usually less religious than Republicans and are there less creationists / intelligent design people among them? This is what I was wondering the other day. Thank you.

Data from the PEW center suggests this is the case:
More Seculars among Democrats and Independents*
1987 1997 2006-07 87-07 Change
Total 8 9 12 +4
Republican 6 5 5 -1
Democrat 7 8 11 +4
Independent 9 14 17 +8

*Percent atheist, agnostic, or no religion.

Page 30 of this .pdf file have the results on Religion.

Most Americans regardless of party show a religious belief but those numbers are declining with each generation.

Republicans are more likely to identify with a religious tradition especially among Southern Evangelicals and Catholics.

55 albusteve  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:21:48am

re: #52 bratwurst

Good point...the "yes" was a better answer to the second question than the first. Arguably, the most Christian president in modern history was Jimmy Carter.

he's a Christian fraud

56 Gang of One  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:22:34am

re: #51 Honorary Yooper

A newt?

You know, a newt, yer honor. New, young people ...
//bad Joe Pesci-My Cousin Vinny reference.

57 KingKenrod  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:22:34am

re: #28 mrbaracuda

Lizards! Evening from Germany.
I have a question: Are Democrats usually less religious than Republicans and are there less creationists / intelligent design people among them? This is what I was wondering the other day. Thank you.

I don't think you can say that Democrats are less religious, but they clearly keep religion and politics more separate.

On the creationism issue, Democrats are more supportive of evolution but a majority are still creationists, and (I think I remember this correctly) 38% of Democrats are young-earth creationists.

58 mrbaracuda  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:23:30am

re: #40 bratwurst

Hehe. Good luck with that. :-)
For the meantime, I give you this.

re: #54 DaddyG

re: #57 KingKenrod

Thanks. :-)

59 Shiplord Kirel  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:24:31am

Know your Congressmen: Gregg Harper (R-MS)

What’s the best advice your pal Haley Barbour ever gave you?

Maintain your old contacts, and stay in touch with your local leaders back home. Continue to work on your grass-roots efforts. No one “gets it” more than Haley.

Trent Lott?

Learn the rules of the House and always stick with your friends. Trent has always been there for me and has been a living example of what loyalty means.

What in the world does the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus do?

We hunt liberal, tree-hugging Democrats, although it does seem like a waste of good ammunition.

They might be better employed hunting the Taliban in Afghanistan, but that could be just a little too sporting for this droll fellow and his colleagues.

60 DaddyG  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:25:01am

re: #54 DaddyG Ugh the table didn't translate right.

Since it is hard to read the current numbers of non-religious identifying with Dems = 11% Repubs = 5% and Independents = 17%

There is also a trend that the younger the generation the less religious they are (which may explain the high number of independents).

61 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:26:38am

re: #57 KingKenrod

I don't think you can say that Democrats are less religious, but they clearly keep religion and politics more separate.

On the creationism issue, Democrats are more supportive of evolution but a majority are still creationists, and (I think I remember this correctly) 38% of Democrats are young-earth creationists.

[Link: www.gallup.com...]

62 Stuart Leviton  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:26:59am

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

Nina Simone: Don't Let Me be Misunderstood

63 Gang of One  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:27:21am

FTW:

But when I look at what The Other McCain has written over time, I find myself repulsed well beyond my moral limits of tolerance. Anyone who thinks “race” verses “human beings” is off track. Way off track. And anyone who defends slavery is plain insane. LGF noted a detailed analysis of McCain blathering which has pushed me to the point I must make a public stand.

I hope others follow AJ's lead. You are beacon of light, Mr. Johnson. Don't stop. Ever.

64 bratwurst  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:27:52am

re: #58 mrbaracuda

Danke! Aber jetzt habe ich tierisch Hunger!

65 wiffersnapper  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:28:10am

A good read, I'll have to read more of his blog!

66 mrbaracuda  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:29:33am

re: #64 bratwurst

Zum Nachspülen! :-D
Hach was bin ich fies. ;-D

But surely they got some nice Bratwurst over there as well?

67 Decatur Deb  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:29:37am

re: #62 Stuart Leviton

Upding for Nina. She'd be so nice to come home to.

68 bratwurst  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:31:02am

re: #66 mrbaracuda

Come on, surely you must realize I prefer a cold Veltins!

We have some fine sausage over here...but it is just not the same, even with some imported Lowensenf.

69 Kragar  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:32:56am

Lost Greek city that may have inspired Atlantis myth gives up secrets

Explored by an Anglo-Greek team of archaeologists and marine geologists and known as Pavlopetri, the sunken settlement dates back some 5,000 years to the time of Homer's heroes and in terms of size and wealth of detail is unprecedented, experts say.

"There is now no doubt that this is the oldest submerged town in the world," said Dr Jon Henderson, associate professor of underwater archaeology at the University of Nottingham. "It has remains dating from 2800 to 1200 BC, long before the glory days of classical Greece. There are older sunken sites in the world but none can be considered to be planned towns such as this, which is why it is unique."

70 celticdragon  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:33:52am

re: #44 Gang of One

He turned me into a newt!

I got better...?

71 mrbaracuda  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:35:01am

re: #61 Walter L. Newton

Thanks. Should have thought of consulting the Pew.

re: #68 bratwurst

Well that is a Pils! It once was my favourite, too. :-)
I know a Texan who says they got nice German-recipe beer there. One close to Austin I think, who also make Hefeweizen. Mmm, Hefeweizen.

72 Buck  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:35:29am

Speaking of Nazis... Did LGF already do this story? Did I miss it?

There are two Marc Garlascos on the Internet. One is a top human rights investigator who, having joined Human Rights Watch after several years with the Pentagon, has become known for his shrill attacks on Israel. The other is a Marc Garlasco who's obsessed with the color and pageantry of Nazism, has published a detailed 430 page book on Nazi war paraphernalia, and participates in forums for Nazi souvenir collectors.

[Link: www.mererhetoric.com...]

They are the same guy! Explosive! Seriously brings every report from HRW into doubt.

73 DaddyG  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:35:37am

re: #69 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Lost Greek city that may have inspired Atlantis myth gives up secrets

If the Mycenaean soccar moms had given up their SUVs and reduced their dependence on fossil fuels they might not be underwater right now.

/ducks and runs...

74 DaddyG  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:37:13am

Preview is my friend - soccer

75 celticdragon  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:37:55am

re: #30 Killgore Trout

Christ in Heaven.

A county GOP chairman said that??

76 The Sanity Inspector  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:39:00am

re: #11 Walter L. Newton

I'm not looking for any centrist. I'm looking to see these idiots to be gone, out of the party, let them go make their own party. I want this one back. You can have centrist, I'll take true conservatives, the kind that has fiscal responsibility and keeps the government out of my private life. Remember that one?

If they're under forty, they may well not remember.

77 ubernerd  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:40:10am

re: #30 Killgore Trout

I agree. Possible, most likely false.

Probably more along the lines of why you don't see a lot of HRC in Arkansas these days.

"Southern Roots" are only brought up if they're good to Democrats while campaigning.

78 goddamnedfrank  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:43:05am
I disagree with Johnson on many subjects (e.g, he and I are on opposite sides of the Global Warming debate – but I swear I could demonstrate to him how the science and math are clearly against the alarmists).

It is more than a little bit patronizing to assume Charles just hasn't received the benefit of AJ's personal "demonstration" on the subject. Especially when LGF is referencing cutting edge peer reviewed science, and the Strata-Sphere is fronting nonsense (google cache). AJ is apparently ok with dishonest selective timeline arguments. He is also okay with ignoring the increased orbital distances of Mars and Jupiter, the documented change in Mars' albedo and the fact that Jupiter produces approximately 1.6 times more energy internally than it absorbs from the Sun. Based on the fact that solar intensity basically falls off by a factor of four for every doubling in distance, Mars orbit of 1.5 AU should yield a difference 2.25 degrees to 1 for any Earth solar variation induced warming to any Martian equivalent. I actually had a denier once claim that Pluto's warming was an indicator of solar variation, ignoring both Pluto's highly eccentric orbit and the fact that being an average of 89 AU out meant that one degree of solar variation for pluto would logically equate to 7921 degrees of warming for Earth. The inverse square law of light is a climate deniers worst enemy.

This is why I always laugh when climate deniers start talking about math and science when by and large they demonstrably have no real scientific knowledge nor any mathematical skills.

79 The Sanity Inspector  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:43:08am

re: #30 Killgore Trout

This rumor is floating around...
Michelle Obama is afraid of SC

It's possible but I don't buy it. The Secret Service is pretty good and I'm sure they could have a secure visit if they wanted to.

South Carolina State U. is a historically black university. Mrs. Obama would likely get a rapturous welcome there.

80 reine.de.tout  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:43:17am

re: #72 Buck

Speaking of Nazis... Did LGF already do this story? Did I miss it?

There are two Marc Garlascos on the Internet. One is a top human rights investigator who, having joined Human Rights Watch after several years with the Pentagon, has become known for his shrill attacks on Israel. The other is a Marc Garlasco who's obsessed with the color and pageantry of Nazism, has published a detailed 430 page book on Nazi war paraphernalia, and participates in forums for Nazi souvenir collectors.

[Link: www.mererhetoric.com...]

They are the same guy! Explosive! Seriously brings every report from HRW into doubt.

Mark Garlasco

81 UberNerd  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:46:09am

re: #78 goddamnedfrank

I'm probably opening another can of worms here, but is it acceptable to be skeptical without being a "Denier?"

82 celticdragon  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:46:39am

re: #30 Killgore Trout

A post from one of the enlightened persons at Palmettoscoop:

Posted by darksied on 10/16/09 at 11:11 am

Suddenly I miss Ben Tillman,Coleman Blease and Cotton Ed Smith!


And for Fred, Jack, James and the rest of the Obama apologists-if you have a problem with either living here or visiting here, does yourselves and the residents of SC a favor and haul your yankee carpet-bagger N*gger loving a$$es back where you came from! Is that hostile enough for you??


Remind me to stay the frack away from this idiot's neighborhood when I drive through South Carolina.

83 The Sanity Inspector  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:46:59am

re: #78 goddamnedfrank

[...]This is why I always laugh when climate deniers start talking about math and science when by and large they demonstrably have no real scientific knowledge nor any mathematical skills.

And that's why I usually stay off the subject, lacking as I am in those same skills. Know what you're stupid at, is my watchword.

84 celticdragon  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:47:12am

re: #82 celticdragon

[Link: www.palmettoscoop.com...]

Link.

85 enoughalready  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:47:41am

Who cares. He's a RADICAL LEFTIST COMMIE anyway.

86 celticdragon  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:49:45am

re: #78 goddamnedfrank

Ouch.

87 mrbaracuda  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:50:07am

re: #85 enoughalready

And you? Who says YOU AREN'T? :-O

88 akarra  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:52:48am

re: #1 Honorary Yooper

Watch for AJ Strata to be considered a progressive in 5..4..3..2..1..

I'm just happy another blogger is standing against RSM and calling out the right-wing blogosphere for their basic indecency in giving him as large an audience as possible.

I think you might actually see some silence as the list of those against RSM and the people who have committed to defending him no matter what he does grows. The extremism of many in the right-wing blogosphere is self-evident, it's just a matter of time before it is fully recognized.

89 The Sanity Inspector  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 12:00:33pm

re: #81 UberNerd

I'm probably opening another can of worms here, but is it acceptable to be skeptical without being a "Denier?"

"Skeptical" means you doubt it, but you'd accept it if given adequate proof. Of course, you have fit yourself for appraising the evidence.

90 Cato the Elder  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 12:00:39pm

re: #14 Charles

Since that would require eating a nice lunch of crow, I don't expect it.

No it wouldn't. Just a big memory hole.

91 avanti  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 12:11:17pm

re: #11 Walter L. Newton

I'm not looking for any centrist. I'm looking to see these idiots to be gone, out of the party, let them go make their own party. I want this one back. You can have centrist, I'll take true conservatives, the kind that has fiscal responsibility and keeps the government out of my private life. Remember that one?

The only down side to your dream of a fiscal conservative that stays out of our private lives is that you and me would not have anything to fight about with such a leader. :)

92 Stuart Leviton  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 12:12:34pm

I had really wanted to find a good version of "Keep Your Eyes on the Prize" so as to cheer Charles on. Found Nina Simone's Civil Rights song "Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood".

Tempted to post Mississippi Goddam, Nina Simone's response to the lynching of Goodman-Chaney-Schwerner.

Here's Billy Holiday - Strange Fruit - Lady Day's response to more lynchings.

93 Stuart Leviton  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 12:13:46pm

Should be Billie rather than Billy. My error.

94 avanti  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 12:13:49pm

re: #28 mrbaracuda

Lizards! Evening from Germany.
I have a question: Are Democrats usually less religious than Republicans and are there less creationists / intelligent design people among them? This is what I was wondering the other day. Thank you.

Yes, and by a fair amount. The more religious you are, the more likely you are to vote Republican, but of course there are exceptions both ways.

95 The Sanity Inspector  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 12:15:36pm

re: #93 Stuart Leviton

Should be Billie rather than Billy. My error.

Blasphemer!

96 Yashmak  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 12:16:26pm

I love how the commentor "WWS" (the only commentor on the topic so far) at that site refers to LGF as a "locus of vicious hatred and insanity".

Who knew that standing up against vicious hatred and insanity was, itself, vicious hatred and insanity.

97 Stuart Leviton  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 12:19:22pm

re: #95 The Sanity Inspector
I wish I could down ding myself for misspelling Billie's name.

At least I didn't spell her last name Halliday as in Halliday and Resnick authors of a classic physics text.

98 Charles Johnson  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 12:31:58pm

AJ: This is a really good step and I appreciate it enormously.

But you really need to take a closer look at what some of the blogs in your blogroll are promoting.

99 Chekote  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 12:32:54pm

Going forward I believe you will see more and more right wing leaning blogs join the effort of LFG. Following the current path of indulging certain elements in conservative circles just because they are loud will only spell doom for the conservative movement. As Strata aptly said, "the other is a cancer leading to its inevitable death."

100 SeaMonkey  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 12:51:40pm

re: #73 DaddyG

Explored by an Anglo-Greek team of archaeologists and marine geologists and known as Pavlopetri, the sunken settlement dates back some 5,000 years to the time of Homer's heroes and in terms of size and wealth of detail is unprecedented, experts say.

More like 3,000 years.

101 wrenchwench  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:03:17pm

re: #14 Charles

Since that would require eating a nice lunch of crow, I don't expect it.

Crow on Toast:

6 crows
3 bacon slices
stuffing of your choice
1 diced carrot
1 diced onion
chopped parsley
hot water or stock
1/4 cup shortening
1/4 cup flour
buttered toast

Clean and dress crows; stuff and place them upright in stew-pan on the slices of bacon. Add the carrot, onion and a little parsley, and cover with boiling water or stock.
Cover the pot and let simmer for 2-3 hours, or until tender, adding boiling water or stock when necessary.
Make a sauce of the shortening and flour and 2 cups of the stock remaining in the pan.

Serve each crow on a thin slice of moistened toast, and pour gravy over all.

Forgive me, I was helping with the cookbook and got stuck in a rut.

102 Sharmuta  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:03:35pm

So much for being pro-life, eh Rush?

103 Sharmuta  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:03:57pm

oops- wrong thread

104 AJStrata  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:36:14pm

Re: #78

Nice to finally arrived here at LGF. goddamnedfrank, I am not a denier, I have yet to see an ounce of proof CO2 is driving the global climate, for a myriad of reasons I would be happy to debate. First off, let me explain where your simple reasoning is wrong:

He is also okay with ignoring the increased orbital distances of Mars and Jupiter

Dude, I work for NASA. What makes you think I did not factor that in? OK, some planetary science lessons are in order. Yes, Mars and Jupiter are farther out (duh!). But distance is not the only (or the major) factor here. First off, as shown by HST the Mars polar ice caps disappeared in a matter of months. That is self evident.

But the difference is how solar radiation plays on the Martian and Earth surfaces. First off, Earth's atmosphere is thicker and contains more water. This tends to minimize the effect of solar irradiance, unlike Mars which has a thin dry atmosphere. We also have ozone which filters out some of the radiation (UV). All in all, there is a massive difference in what reach our planet's surface compared top Mars. So while the radiation drops by r-squared, what is important is the the radiation reaching the surface and and any resulting atmospheric temperature increases.

2nd, Mars has no liquid core, therefore no magnetic field. The Earth's magnetic field acts as a huge shield diverting a lot of solar energy. The Martian surface is completely exposed to this additional onslaught of the solar wind. With less energy hitting our atmosphere or surface you get an attenuated increase in temperature.

Finally, we have massive oceans. Water is an excellent heat sink and stabilizer of the global heat balance. Much of the atmosphere's temperature is cooled by the water and also by the rains which dump the heat back into the oceans (75% of the Earth's surface). This means we can absorb a lot more energy without seeing very much atmospheric change.

This is why (and I hinted to it in the post) Mars experienced a much more dramatic response than Earth did. It is no surprise at all when you factor in all the parameters. It is actually a stronger indicator this is a solar system wide phenomena, because the Earth and Mars reacted in a manner that reflects their core differences.

If you like we can through Jovian planetary science as well.

As one of the other responder noted - ouch!

105 AJStrata  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:39:13pm

Re: #98,

CJ, Yeah I know. I tend to wait to see if the fevers will pass. You may not know it but Malkin, Redstate and many others I don't even remember now are off the list. Rheil is on the edge at times. Hope springs eternal

We shall see. I don't need or seek their concurrence. And I hope I can influence them to broaden their horizons a bit.

106 wrenchwench  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:45:45pm

re: #104 AJStrata

Welcome, hatchling!

107 AJStrata  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:49:22pm

Thank you wrenchwench - good to be here.

108 pdc_lgf  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 3:30:03pm

re: #104 AJStrata

Someone on another thread with in the last couple of days was asking for a climatology reading list. Something which would make the Earth's thermal processes more comprehensible.

I have some scientific background. In any event, I've been around the block enough times, to know how a little knowledge can engender false confidence. Reading the very most recent scientific papers probably is pointless, unless one has some background.

I don't. And the questions are too far beyond my competence for me to be anything but a semi-interested bystander. But there are lots of folks here who would be grateful, I think, for a reading list.

109 Quilly Mammoth  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 3:44:01pm

I'm pretty much in agreeance with Dr. Strata on much of his article. And his comments here: Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice Age anyone?

I usually don't get involved in Blog Wars (who cares anyway...I'm tiny) but The Other McCain and his supporters are, indeed, introducing a toxic element into the debate. Last night I posted a denunciation of The Other McCain.

Fighting restriction of Freedom and Liberty is a sound enough principle that the extra crap thrown in (nirthers and McCarthyites) becomes a distraction. Indeed it becomes a means to refute the arguments to statism. It's way more entertaining to the masses to fixate on the crap then on the substance. And McCain and his fellow travellers are certainly providing enough crap to fixate on.

So in this I am 100% behind Charles.

110 Yashmak  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 3:52:45pm

re: #105 AJStrata

Re: #98,

CJ, Yeah I know. I tend to wait to see if the fevers will pass. You may not know it but Malkin, Redstate and many others I don't even remember now are off the list. Rheil is on the edge at times. Hope springs eternal

We shall see. I don't need or seek their concurrence. And I hope I can influence them to broaden their horizons a bit.

I hope you can as well. Good luck, and keep up the good fight.

111 goddamnedfrank  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 3:59:15pm

re: #104 AJStrata

Re: #78

Dude, I work for NASA.

Your about page identifies you as a freelance software systems engineer, not a NASA climatologist, not a research scientist. So why exactly would you attempt argumentum ad authoritatum by weak association?

What makes you think I did not factor that in?

The fact that nowhere on your website do you factor it in, or discuss it at all.

OK, some planetary science lessons are in order. Yes, Mars and Jupiter are farther out (duh!). But distance is not the only (or the major) factor here.

Yes.it.is. The inverse square law is hands down the dominant factor when discussing relative solar intensity. If you are attributing the observed delta T of any planet to a proposed variance in solar output, then you have to assume a concurrent delta T on earth in exponential relation to the difference in the two planets' distance from the Sun.

First off, as shown by HST the Mars polar ice caps disappeared in a matter of months. That is self evident.

And that is a non-thought, self evident of what?

But the difference is how solar radiation plays on the Martian and Earth surfaces. First off, Earth's atmosphere is thicker and contains more water. This tends to minimize the effect of solar irradiance, unlike Mars which has a thin dry atmosphere. We also have ozone which filters out some of the radiation (UV). All in all, there is a massive difference in what reach our planet's surface compared top Mars. So while the radiation drops by r-squared, what is important is the the radiation reaching the surface and and any resulting atmospheric temperature increases. 2nd, Mars has no liquid core, therefore no magnetic field. The Earth's magnetic field acts as a huge shield diverting a lot of solar energy. The Martian surface is completely exposed to this additional onslaught of the solar wind. With less energy hitting our atmosphere or surface you get an attenuated increase in temperature.

You are grasping at straws. There is no way for the differences between Earth and Mars to scale up the way you are proposing, such that they can negate the inherent exponential difference inherent in the intensity of radiation they will receive under any solar variance scenario. No matter how much you turn up the Sun, the amount of radiant energy we see will be 2.25 times greater than Mars, that means that the increase itself will ALWAYS hit us 2.25 times stronger.

Finally, we have massive oceans. Water is an excellent heat sink and stabilizer of the global heat balance. Much of the atmosphere's temperature is cooled by the water and also by the rains which dump the heat back into the oceans (75% of the Earth's surface). This means we can absorb a lot more energy without seeing very much atmospheric change.

Heat sinks work both ways, and ocean temperatures do not reflect the amount of missing energy that you are proposing.

This is why (and I hinted to it in the post) Mars experienced a much more dramatic response than Earth did. It is no surprise at all when you factor in all the parameters. It is actually a stronger indicator this is a solar system wide phenomena, because the Earth and Mars reacted in a manner that reflects their core differences.

No, you have done nothing but grotesquely misrepresent basic high-school level physics. Good day.

112 AJStrata  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 4:32:42pm

pdc_lgf re: #108

I cannot think of a good reading list. The problem, as you note, is having a minimal background in science so as to determine whether something is solid or shaky. In my mind the best blog out there right is Watts Up With That - closest I have come to putting things in common language.

Sadly, you need a serious background in a lot of fields to delve into global climate - something even the so called experts lack. In addition, there is a serious quality control issue as I have been discussing over at Climate Audit. The current journal peer review process seriously broken. It's OK for a scientific debating society on the latest theorems and papers. But if you looked at the peer review processes required in a place like NASA for engineering space flight, the process is a joke.

When the climate scientists went from debating theory to applying theories to human systems, effecting human lives, they needed to upgrade their review process so knowledgeable people can challenge and refine or reject the theories. In an real world system, there is no hiding behind journalistic self licking ice cream cones.

I wish I could be of more help, but it takes a lot of experience to sniff out the shady theories verses the hard data. And with so many people pushing untested, unverified claims as proven fact it has become a large garbage collection exercise to find the wheat for the chaf

113 AJStrata  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 4:50:04pm

goddamnedfrank Re: #111

My, my a little testy I see:

Your about page identifies you as a freelance software systems engineer, not a NASA climatologist, not a research scientist. So why exactly would you attempt argumentum ad authoritatum by weak association?

Free lance? I have designed and implemented some modern and complex control systems, but that is not the limits of my skills. I have done some research in biology as an undergrad before switching to engineering. But trust me, I have been invited to review scientific proposals to NASA for new missions because I am well versed in the physics and the engineering to make it happen. I do not discuss much of my skills on the website.

And your expertise is ...? Freelance curmudgeon?

Yes.it.is. The inverse square law is hands down the dominant factor when discussing relative solar intensity. If you are attributing the observed delta T of any planet to a proposed variance in s

Wrong. The inverse square law only dictates the solar flux reaching a distance from the sun. It does NOT account for the solar radiation reaching the surface. Care top guess which planet gets more radiation to its surface - Venus or Mars?

And that is a non-thought, self evident of what?

Er, self evident by the pictures showing the ice cap retreating. Are you one of those who is going to jump into wild conspiracy theories about the faked moon landing or something? The pictures are clear - the ice cap disappeared. Is there something you want to challenge here? Do you deny it? Jump in here with something concrete Frank.

here is no way for the differences between Earth and Mars to scale up the way you are proposing, such that they can negate the inherent exponential difference inherent in the intensity of radiation they will receive under any solar variance scenario.

LOL! Way dude. You did grasp the points right? You did know Mars has a sold core therefore no magnetic field? You did know that if not for our magnetic field our atmosphere (and oceans) would have been long ago gone? You do know about water being a heat sink?

You seem unwilling to debate the points with facts. Do you have more than denial Frankie?

Heat sinks work both ways, and ocean temperatures do not reflect the amount of missing energy that you are proposing.

What missing energy did I propose Frank? Please explain what went 'missing'. I explained to you how a fraction of the energy from the Sun reaches the Earth's surface, and how the ocean acts as a huge thermal stabilizer. It doesn't 'go missing'.

Let's try and exemplify with something you can grasp. Did you ever notice that along the ocean it can be many degrees warmer at night than inland less than 100 miles away? Every notice how it can be cooler near the ocean on hot days just a few miles in shore? That is the effect of the massive amount of water has because it stays more stable than the atmosphere. That's pretty much how it works Frank. Mars has no such heat sink reservoir, thus it is prone to greater swings in atmospheric temperature under much smaller swing in solar radiance. That is planetary physics my friend.

And you called me a denier! That's rich. But since you came armed with HS Physics and I have many more years of physics, science and earth sciences I guess we could see where this would end.

Nice try.

114 Charles Johnson  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 5:05:22pm

re: #105 AJStrata

Re: #98,

CJ, Yeah I know. I tend to wait to see if the fevers will pass. You may not know it but Malkin, Redstate and many others I don't even remember now are off the list. Rheil is on the edge at times. Hope springs eternal

We shall see. I don't need or seek their concurrence. And I hope I can influence them to broaden their horizons a bit.

The worst one by far is Gates of Vienna -- who are now openly promoting European far right fascist groups on a daily basis. I was frankly a little surprised to see that link at your site.

115 goddamnedfrank  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 5:09:41pm

You know AJ, we have over 30 years of instrument data on solar irradiance, and over this entire period it has been consistent to a range of 0.1%

Care top guess which planet gets more radiation to its surface - Venus or Mars?

The answer is Venus via heat conduction, and coincidently a runaway greenhouse effect.

116 AJStrata  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 5:16:38pm

CJ,

Well I will take a look. Some of my readers felt you were being hard on GOV. Sadly I think we are all trying to get our bearings and figure out who we can trust in a pinch.

I have felt the flame throwers from the right many times. I tend to throw back for a bit and then just get onto analyzing and pondering. Seems to cool the heat. But the fact is the far right has repulsed so many centrist and independents it is unfortunate. The McCain's of the world cannot take over and the movement survive.

I am open to anything happening, as it always does.

117 Charles Johnson  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 5:23:28pm

re: #116 AJStrata

CJ,

Well I will take a look. Some of my readers felt you were being hard on GOV.

I know very well this is the talking point going around. But they are openly promoting the Vlaams Belang and many other extremist fascist groups. This isn't even debatable. They are every bit as bigoted as Robert Stacy McCain.

118 AJStrata  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 5:25:12pm

goddamnedfrank, thanks for proving me right frankie:

The answer is Venus via heat conduction

I was clear when I said 'radiation' dude. Because of Venus' thick atmosphere very little 'radiation' makes it the surface. And I was clear when I said the nature of Mars means it will react more to smaller changes in radiation than Earth will (and Venus). And who is this 'we'? Are we wikipedia? Are you a GSFC/JPL/ESA scientist?

OK, let's get more into it my friend. You do understand poles get much lower solar flux than equators due to the angle to the Sun, so that polar regions will be more sensitive to flux changes than equators. This is why a martian ice cap can be greatly impacted by slight changes. Combine your distance with the low flux and you get a highly sensitive indicator to small changes in radiation. Small drop increase in solar output is then diffused by distance and further diffused by incident angle - therefore small change big drop in the energy input to the Martian poles.

Doh!

119 AJStrata  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 5:27:47pm

CJ, I have been watching. And they also are on the cusp. I wonder if it is frustration or fear driving them (something I could accept for a short time) verses the down to the core racism of McCain. Making a mistake is not the same thing as hate.

Have you thought of trying to build some bridges back to a select few, maybe Morrissey?

120 Sharmuta  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 5:30:14pm

re: #119 AJStrata

Have you thought of trying to build some bridges back to a select few, maybe Morrissey?

Excuse me for interjecting, but why is it Charles' job to rebuild these bridges?

121 Charles Johnson  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 5:30:42pm

re: #119 AJStrata

CJ, I have been watching. And they also are on the cusp. I wonder if it is frustration or fear driving them (something I could accept for a short time) verses the down to the core racism of McCain. Making a mistake is not the same thing as hate.

Have you thought of trying to build some bridges back to a select few, maybe Morrissey?

It's not me who needs to build bridges at this point, sorry.

122 Charles Johnson  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 5:32:09pm

re: #120 Sharmuta

Excuse me for interjecting, but why is it Charles' job to rebuild these bridges?

I get this a lot. People spew all kinds of hateful stuff at me, they let comments stand at Hot Air (for example) calling me a pedophile, they put the link to LGF under "Left Wingers," they let Robert Stacy McCain post vicious attacks in the Green Room -- but somehow it gets turned into my fault.

123 Quilly Mammoth  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 5:37:48pm

Dr. Strata,
When you read early testimony of Ethiopian Christians they speak of mountains covered with snow. Not today.

When you read the Icelandic Sagas they speak of a growing cold which they attributed to the spread of...well...evil. Or the Maunder Minimum.

History and Science have led a divergent path, which is a shame and an an indictment of today's higher eduction system. You can't look at Ice Core samples and not relate them to human observance and come up with a good answer. Mind you, Icelandic observations of grape production is also suspect, but it is the viewing of both that is important.

124 Quilly Mammoth  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 5:43:42pm

re: #122 Charles

Because someone has to stand up for sanity?

There are good bloggers out there promoting Freedom on it's own merits without the b.s. You have a high profile. It's not your job but then who? If no one leads, no one follows. And you get the same old shit.

Which gives us plenty to talk about but little to do.

125 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 5:45:46pm

re: #112 AJStrata

Wow this is going to take hours to deal with it is a cornucopia of stupid.


I cannot think of a good reading list. The problem, as you note, is having a minimal background in science so as to determine whether something is solid or shaky.

Well here is something good written by actual scientists as opposed to weathermen who work for Fox news.

[Link: earthguide.ucsd.edu...]

[Link: www.ncdc.noaa.gov...]

In my mind the best blog out there right is Watts Up With That - closest I have come to putting things in common language.

If by that you mean debunked politically motivated propaganda designed to mislead the foolish and gullible sure.

Sadly, you need a serious background in a lot of fields to delve into global climate - something even the so called experts lack. In addition, there is a serious quality control issue as I have been discussing over at Climate Audit.

This now completely places you at the propagandist end of the spectrum. The current journal peer review process seriously broken. The experts, are not so called. Don't insult people who have dedicated years of their loves actually learning science as opposed to you.

It's OK for a scientific debating society on the latest theorems and papers. But if you looked at the peer review processes required in a place like NASA for engineering space flight, the process is a joke.

Sure... all of science and peer review is a joke. So let me ask, if the peer review process, which has published pretty much every scientific advance you can speak of, is so flawed as to be dismissed, what does that do fro crank places that are not reviewed and can say anything they want, like the frauds you link to? And they are frauds, because actual peer reviewed papers have data and analysis, not just snarky lies.

When the climate scientists went from debating theory to applying theories to human systems, effecting human lives, they needed to upgrade their review process so knowledgeable people can challenge and refine or reject the theories. In an real world system, there is no hiding behind journalistic self licking ice cream cones.

Uhhh huh... So you really think that all of the scientific journals are like that... OK, so when Einstein's relativity was peer-reviewd and published, was it false, or was the process, self licking and broken? What about Salk's work on polio vaccination?

I suppose you really mean that you just hate journals because you can no longer find a credible scientist who publishes you denier fantasies.


I wish I could be of more help, but it takes a lot of experience to sniff out the shady theories verses the hard data. And with so many people pushing untested, unverified claims as proven fact it has become a large garbage collection exercise to find the wheat for the chaf

Now that is true. Only you are one of the one's putting up chaff.
You see the real science speaks for itself.

126 AJStrata  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 5:48:33pm

Sharmuta,

He does not have to. But it would be interesting to see who wants to go over the far right edge and who is willing to pull back from it. There are too many extremists pulling too many good people to the fringe. There is a chance to stop it.

But given what CJ has gone through I can understand why he might decline. It was purely a curiosity question - not a demand.

127 goddamnedfrank  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 5:49:20pm

re: #118 AJStrata

I was clear when I said 'radiation' dude.

I see, in your world reradiated heat is not radiation, and has no impact on a planetary system. Also you think the Martian ice cap exists as a canary in the coal mine of the solar variation, in spite of 30 years of consistent instrument data to the contrary. All I see from you are appeals to your own authority with nothing to back it up. Disclosing my own advanced degrees and employers shouldn't be necessary to get you to accept an established instrument data record kept by the very agency that you just claimed employed you as an authoritative crutch.

128 Big Steve  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 5:49:49pm

re: #125 LudwigVanQuixote

In my mind the best blog out there right is Watts Up With That - closest I have come to putting things in common language.

If by that you mean debunked politically motivated propaganda designed to mislead the foolish and gullible sure.

Was that an argument against "Watts Up With That"? Because it just looked like an attack with no facts to back it up?

129 AJStrata  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 5:49:57pm

CJ,

Sorry, never meant to imply it was your fault!

Just wondering about the value of salvage operations on a few worthy souls. It is DEFINITELY NOT your fault.

130 AJStrata  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 5:51:57pm

Re: 121,

It's not me who needs to build bridges at this point, sorry.

Understood and no need to apologize to me. Was plumbing how bad it had gotten. Sorry if I intruded.

131 Quilly Mammoth  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 5:52:37pm

re: #127 goddamnedfrank

JPL seems to be saying what Strata is saying. Recent changes are because of solar activity. That doesn't mean they, earth and mars, are effected equally, but it is a good indicator.

132 Charles Johnson  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 5:57:38pm

re: #129 AJStrata

CJ,

Sorry, never meant to imply it was your fault!

Just wondering about the value of salvage operations on a few worthy souls. It is DEFINITELY NOT your fault.

Thanks for that. But honestly, I'm completely done with those people. Life's too short. I'm already gone.

133 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 5:59:00pm

re: #113 AJStrata


What missing energy did I propose Frank? Please explain what went 'missing'. I explained to you how a fraction of the energy from the Sun reaches the Earth's surface, and how the ocean acts as a huge thermal stabilizer. It doesn't 'go missing'.

No it does not, if the ocean absorbs the energy, the ocean warms up. Indeed it is warming up on the earth. As someone at nasa you should be able to see the data yourself in real time.

[Link: climate.nasa.gov...]

Funny you didn't know that...

Let's try and exemplify with something you can grasp. Did you ever notice that along the ocean it can be many degrees warmer at night than inland less than 100 miles away? Every notice how it can be cooler near the ocean on hot days just a few miles in shore? That is the effect of the massive amount of water has because it stays more stable than the atmosphere.

Except that you completely fail to take currents into account and the fact that the system will reach a new equilibrium if perturbed enough. So you were claiming to have physics expertise? I don't see that so much...

That's pretty much how it works Frank.

Ummm no it is not. You are neglecting that loss of the caps and the shutting down of the thermohaline pump. You know these are major research items at NASA... Are you sure you work there?

Mars has no such heat sink reservoir, thus it is prone to greater swings in atmospheric temperature under much smaller swing in solar radiance. That is planetary physics my friend.

Well this part is true.. However, Solar irradiance variation is not driving the current warming on Earth so it doesn't matter. That is a red herring. Someone who actually worked for NASA would know that.

And you called me a denier!

No I'm calling you a denier and more, a fraud and a hack who is a computer programmer and didn't even get a physics degree.

BTW, I do have one...

Now maybe you do work at NASA in some support capacity that has nothing to do with actual science. The reason I know you are not an actual scientist is you claim that peer review is garbage. You see, an actual scientist knows that peer review is the backbone of science. And yes, it sometimes has flaws, but in the end, it works, and it is the only system that does work.

You should know that. If you had any expertise at all you would know that.

Yet you do not. Hence I am calling you a hack.

134 Quilly Mammoth  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:00:12pm

here's one link to NASA.

ASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Mars Odyssey missions have provided evidence of a recent ice age on Mars. In contrast to Earth's ice ages, a martian ice age waxes when the poles warm up and water vapor is transported toward lower latitudes. Martian ice ages wane when the poles cool and lock water into polar icecaps.

Driven by solar effects?

Maybe there is Human created global warming but every adherent refuses, as you have, to address the counter argument.

Personally I think the right idea is to put a pocket nuke plant 'in every one's back yard and that removes teh entire argument.

135 Bagua  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:01:37pm

re: #130 AJStrata

AJStrata,

Thank you for your blob post I stand with Charles Johnson, And in total opposition to Robert Stacy McCain, it is an honourable and courageous act.

136 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:01:44pm

re: #128 Big Steve

Was that an argument against "Watts Up With That"? Because it just looked like an attack with no facts to back it up?

Watt is a Fox weather man. He has been debunked many times. Here is a Sinclair video about him and his bullshit.

Youtube Video
137 Bagua  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:02:06pm

re: #135 Bagua

pimf: blob blog

138 AJStrata  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:03:20pm

LudwigVanQuixote,

RE: #125:

You must be the Glenn Beck of LGF. Anyone who starts with name calling is usually compensating for another weakness. WUWT is not a propaganda. They ask probing and challenging questions and note the reams of data which counter the AGW theories (which after a decade of cooling are now all busted).

I will challenge you to prove how scattered, unverified and uncalibrated temp sensors around the world could even hope to measure a single global temperature within a tenth of a degree, let alone define 'normal' with such shoddy data. And I will challenge you to prove that a temperature record for the entire planet is available to a tenth of a degree back to the 1880's, let along 1000 AD.

LOL! I mean really. What is the average normal temperature for the 20th of October across the USA for the last ten years within a tenth of a degree? Prove you have this solved to a point equivalent to measuring gravity (a real scientific fact) in a repeatable manner to such precision. I would be impressed of you could prove you had defined the temperature against 'normal' for today!

Ludwig Beck, I have spent years learning science, regardless of what your Jehdi Mind Tricks tell you. The Peer Review process for scientific journals is nowhere near robust of the quality required to lay a sewer to EPA codes. I understand their focus and ingenuity, but until they have gone through the type of scrutiny and challenge lipstick has to go through before it goes to market it is farce.

So you think Darwin, Edison, Einstein and Newton went through peer review???

LOL! And you claim I am ignorant of science and the scientific method! That's rich.

See you Glenn

139 AJStrata  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:04:18pm

Bagua,

Thank you, but it was not courageous to do the right thing. Or it should not be!

140 Bagua  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:07:12pm

re: #139 AJStrata

Bagua,

Thank you, but it was not courageous to do the right thing. Or it should not be!

Well said, and please excuse Ludwig, he is not typical of the commenters here.

141 pdc_lgf  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:18:58pm

re: #112 AJStrata

OK. So in what fields does one need competence?

Some other fellow on this thread reduced certain issues to high school science.
Having survived high school, I nevertheless find it implausible that the science taught in high school is decisively important.

I am suspecting that your assertion that deep familiarity with various disciplines are necessary, as precursors to understanding the issues involved in the Earth's thermal history, is true.

So tell me please, what are your areas of expertise, which underlie your confidence in your own views?

Unrelatedly: what's your opinion of Michelle Malkin's work? Has your opinion changed significantly? If so, why?

142 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:19:06pm

re: #138 AJStrata

You see I hate glenn beck my dear troll friend. And Watt you see showed up on BEck many times. It is curious how if you dislike Beck you would like Watt.

Care to see him on Beck, look at this :)

Watts Up With Watts?

Youtube Video

So now before you say oops or fail or duh, consider BTW that this video also utterly debunks you other stupid and false claims. Watts is another shill just like the Heartland institute.

Also the scientists at NOAA refuted Watts bogus claims most effectively.

Care to see?
[Link: wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com...]
[Link: www.noaa.gov...]

So where was I, oh yes, you are a hack, a fraud, a denier, and a bogus pompous idiot to boot.

FUrther, there are a lot more than just surface temperature readings, what about ocean based ones and sattelite readings?

Do they not count?

These are things that someone at NASA in the field would know about, since they actually deploy them...

So uhhh, last time I was at the Greenbelt facility, were you the guy who brought my coffee and messed that up too?

143 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:27:24pm

re: #138 AJStrata

I will challenge you to prove how scattered, unverified and uncalibrated temp sensors around the world could even hope to measure a single global temperature within a tenth of a degree, let alone define 'normal' with such shoddy data.

Well since you have asked so nicely...

Here is a real scientific paper. I know you hate it because it was peer reviewed and you well, can't get published.. but here it is anyway...

[Link: www.ncof.gov.uk...]

NOw before you say anything about his paper, you would know, if you were actually in the field, that this paper:

1. Has been cited close to 300 times.
2. Goes into excruciating detail on different data sets,
3. reports errors are as low as .03 C in certain sets. Some even lower.

Here is the abstract. Have at. Actually read it. I know you won't but others will..

The historical surface temperature dataset HadCRUT provides a record of surface temperature
trends and variability since 1850. A new version of this dataset, HadCRUT3, has been
produced; benefiting from recent improvements to the sea-surface temperature dataset which
forms its marine component, and from improvements to the station records which provide the
land data. A comprehensive set of uncertainty estimates has been derived to accompany the
data: estimates of measurement and sampling error, temperature bias effects, and the effect
of limited observational coverage on large-scale averages have all been made. Since the mid-
20th century the uncertainties in global and hemispheric mean temperatures are small and the
temperature increase greatly exceeds its uncertainty. In earlier periods the uncertainties are
larger, but the temperature increase over the 20th century is still significantly larger than its
uncertainty.

144 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:29:05pm

re: #140 Bagua

Well said, and please excuse Ludwig, he is not typical of the commenters here.

Bagua, this is an actual hard core denier spreading false propaganda from Fox and other denier sites , the real hard core deniers. This is likely the most annoying form of the breed we have seen in a while, do take your nose out of his ass. He is actually a fraud.

145 Bagua  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:31:38pm

re: #142 LudwigVanQuixote

You see I hate glenn beck my dear troll friend. most effectively.
[...]
So where was I, oh yes, you are a hack, a fraud, a denier, and a bogus pompous idiot to boot.
[...]

AJStrata made a post on his blog defending Charles, on his comments section, this led to a flounce and several angry attacks, regardless, he stands by his principled stand.

Now he comes here and is insulted in this vile manner. This is disgusting, Ludwig you should be ashamed of yourself. It is you, Ludwig, who is pompous.

You owe AJStrata an apology.

146 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:32:25pm

re: #138 AJStrata

Also how about measuring sea temps..

Well this paper was cited 624 times. You should know it if you were in the field...

[Link: lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov...]

I bring this because this one one of the first major studies of it's kind. The efforts continue to this day.

Uhhh why did you not know about them?

147 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:33:13pm

re: #145 Bagua

AJStrata made a post on his blog defending Charles, on his comments section, this led to a flounce and several angry attacks, regardless, he stands by his principled stand.

Now he comes here and is insulted in this vile manner. This is disgusting, Ludwig you should be ashamed of yourself. It is you, Ludwig, who is pompous.

You owe AJStrata an apology.

That doesn't change the fact that he is a denier propagandist of the worst sort. Get you nose ot of his ass.

148 Big Steve  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:33:28pm

re: #145 Bagua

AJStrata made a post on his blog defending Charles, on his comments section, this led to a flounce and several angry attacks, regardless, he stands by his principled stand.

Now he comes here and is insulted in this vile manner. This is disgusting, Ludwig you should be ashamed of yourself. It is you, Ludwig, who is pompous.

You owe AJStrata an apology.

And Ludwig, if you were so sure of your argument you wouldn't have to respond with childish taunts... You are the "Beck" of LGF whether you like it or not...so own it.

149 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:35:04pm

re: #144 LudwigVanQuixote

Bagua, this is an actual hard core denier spreading false propaganda from Fox and other denier sites , the real hard core deniers. This is likely the most annoying form of the breed we have seen in a while, do take your nose out of his ass. He is actually a fraud.

With the exception of comment #143 LvQ, all I've seen so far is you calling him names. I may only be a computer programmer in your estimation, but so far, your refutation is lacking, and I don't need my degrees in both physics and engineering to see that.

150 Bagua  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:35:10pm

re: #147 LudwigVanQuixote

You are the Beck of LGF.

151 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:35:58pm

re: #148 Big Steve

And Ludwig, if you were so sure of your argument you wouldn't have to respond with childish taunts... You are the "Beck" of LGF whether you like it or not...so own it.

Uhhh Stevo, did you read the argument, This guy came on here and was insulting lizards left and right before I picked up. I am hardly the Beck of LGF, rather, I have posted the actual science.

Why not look at the links?

If you were to look, like someone who actually cared about the science, which this is about, you would see that AJ is debunked.

Try it.

This is not about me. THis is about the science. Look at the links.

He is lying and linking to liars and being smug about it.

I don't care if you hate me, but don't discount the science.

152 Quilly Mammoth  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:36:30pm

Ludwig and Frank,
You two are douchbags of the highest order. You imply that AJ doesn't work at NASA because he disagrees with the current administration's take. Uhmmm, I thought we desired a wide range of thought at our government supported institutions.

Disagree all you want, but impugning his work experiance is pretty lame. It's like prefacing a comment about Barak Obama as "Our Black President". It's stoopid.

I also happen to know a man pretty high up in system propulsion in Huntsville who is a creationist, a global warming skeptic _and_ a Republican.

Should we denounce him?

153 pdc_lgf  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:36:33pm

re: #146 LudwigVanQuixote

It would be swell if you would back off some. Or more than some. There is such a thing as hospitality. I'm new here myself, and I would be upset to be treated as you are treating the new visitor.

He (I'm presuming he's a he) is plainly intelligent and sincere. But even if he were unintelligent but sincere, he still deserves the opposite of rudeness.

154 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:36:44pm

re: #150 Bagua

You are the Beck of LGF.

And you are a passive aggressive little shit, but, I happen to have linked to the actual science and refuted his claims.

155 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:37:46pm

re: #152 Quilly Mammoth

Ludwig and Frank,
You two are douchbags of the highest order. You imply that AJ doesn't work at NASA because he disagrees with the current administration's take. Uhmmm, I thought we desired a wide range of thought at our government supported institutions.

Disagree all you want, but impugning his work experiance is pretty lame. It's like prefacing a comment about Barak Obama as "Our Black President". It's stoopid.

I also happen to know a man pretty high up in system propulsion in Huntsville who is a creationist, a global warming skeptic _and_ a Republican.

Should we denounce him?

Now we have the political statements. THis is exactly why a trol like AJ is so dangerous and people like you are so gullible. Look at the science and take the politics out of it.

156 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:39:02pm

re: #149 CyanSnowHawk

Really you missed all the links in 142 or the science arguments in the other links as well.

Look you idiots, he denies peer review.

Don't you get that?

He denies peer review.

That makes him not a scientist!

157 goddamnedfrank  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:39:23pm

re: #134 Quilly Mammoth

ASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Mars Odyssey missions have provided evidence of a recent ice age on Mars. In contrast to Earth's ice ages, a martian ice age waxes when the poles warm up and water vapor is transported toward lower latitudes. Martian ice ages wane when the poles cool and lock water into polar icecaps.

Driven by solar effects?

Maybe there is Human created global warming but every adherent refuses, as you have, to address the counter argument.

Congratulations, you have just successfully confused seasons (orbital variance) with irradiance.

re: #118 AJStrata

Small drop increase in solar output is then diffused by distance and further diffused by incident angle - therefore small change big drop in the energy input to the Martian poles.

See the link above regarding Martian season, the high eccentricity of its orbit and axial tilt equate to huge natural seasonal temperature swings. In fact NASA was able to predict the Martian polar melting well in advance of its occurance based on knowledge of this cycle. Claiming that it must be due to a change in solar output just flies in the face of everything we know.

158 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:39:42pm

re: #153 pdc_lgf

It would be swell if you would back off some. Or more than some. There is such a thing as hospitality. I'm new here myself, and I would be upset to be treated as you are treating the new visitor.

He (I'm presuming he's a he) is plainly intelligent and sincere. But even if he were unintelligent but sincere, he still deserves the opposite of rudeness.

NO, he is lying and he denies the scientific method. You are just fooling yourself if you think this isn't a troll.

159 Bagua  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:40:24pm

re: #154 LudwigVanQuixote

And you are a passive aggressive little shit, but, I happen to have linked to the actual science and refuted his claims.

You can insult me all you wish Ludwig, I'll not stoop to your level. Do you even realise that this blog topic is "AJ Strata takes a stand against Robert Stacy McCain."

He was being honoured, stopped by here to comment and you call him a Troll and subject him to a rash of personal insults.

Your behaviour is disgusting.

160 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:41:00pm

re: #159 Bagua

You can insult me all you wish Ludwig, I'll not stoop to your level. Do you even realise that this blog topic is "AJ Strata takes a stand against Robert Stacy McCain."

He was being honoured, stopped by here to comment and you call him a Troll and subject him to a rash of personal insults.

Your behaviour is disgusting.

Really, did you notice who asked me to look in on the other thread I was on... Idiot.

161 Big Steve  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:41:13pm

re: #151 LudwigVanQuixote

I have been linking to your links for example your Sinclair video supposedly debunking Watts...it did not. So I have been linking so quit being such a dick here.

162 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:42:13pm

re: #159 Bagua

And I will insult you. You are are a little passive aggressive snot who has to snark at everything I wrote with stupid crap. You have yet to refute what was not certain about those three points by the way. SO please buddy do try to be less of an idiot.

163 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:43:51pm

re: #161 Big Steve

I have been linking to your links for example your Sinclair video supposedly debunking Watts...it did not. So I have been linking so quit being such a dick here.

Really look again...

Watts Up With Watts?

Youtube Video

Watts is also into the whole urban heat island crap, so I took that out first.

So you can think I am a dick, but, look at the science and don't be so ignorant.

164 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:44:38pm

re: #152 Quilly Mammoth

Also this administration's take speaks volumes...

165 Bagua  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:44:55pm

re: #160 LudwigVanQuixote

Really, did you notice who asked me to look in on the other thread I was on... Idiot.

I did not read the part were you were asked to launch into such vile personal insults.

And yes, I know you will continue to insult me, stamp your feet, fume in anger and lash out at all, it is your nature. It is also very ugly Ludwig, I do not respect you for this.

166 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:45:32pm

re: #165 Bagua

I did not read the part were you were asked to launch into such vile personal insults.

And yes, I know you will continue to insult me, stamp your feet, fume in anger and lash out at all, it is your nature. It is also very ugly Ludwig, I do not respect you for this.

Then go away. You are not a scientist and your comments do not help.

167 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:46:00pm

re: #160 LudwigVanQuixote

Really, did you notice who asked me to look in on the other thread I was on... Idiot.

Yea, but I don't think he asked you to come over here and start acting like some raving jerk, which you are doing, just like you did twice today on other thread, and you got it from all barrels form other Lizards.

Some of us enjoy your science, but we are getting tired of your obscene rhetoric and juvenile verbal antics.

FYI.

168 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:48:10pm

re: #161 Big Steve

I have been linking to your links for example your Sinclair video supposedly debunking Watts...it did not. So I have been linking so quit being such a dick here.

And while you were doing that you dinged a 300 times cited paper that refuted his points - because you are looking at the science?

Really, pretty shoddy there buddy.

169 Bagua  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:48:40pm

re: #166 LudwigVanQuixote

Then go away. You are not a scientist and your comments do not help.

No, you go away you phony. There is not one legitimate scientist I know who talks like you, rants like you, insults like you, and misstates science like you.

You are immature and uncouth.

170 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:49:26pm

re: #156 LudwigVanQuixote

Really you missed all the links in 142 or the science arguments in the other links as well.

Look you idiots, he denies peer review.

Don't you get that?

He denies peer review.

That makes him not a scientist!

He says that the rigor on journal peer reviews for publishing is lacking in comparison to peer review where human safety is concerned. He does not deny peer review. Get your panties untwisted and make an effort to refute his arguments without calling him names. It would be nice if you would write a general summary of the point you are trying to make rather than simply pasting a link to a paper quoting the abstract and saying QED.

171 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:50:49pm

re: #167 Walter L. Newton

Yeah sure, but when the denier came over here and was calling actual scientific posts names and floating and acting like a pig that was OK?

Look, this guy is a fraud.

I hate frauds.

This guys is full of crap about the science.

I hate that too.

You can hate me. I really don't care, but he has actually been debunked if you look at what was written.

Or the links.

Or any of the other things. Notice how he left when the peer reviewed papers came out? He's a fraud, and I am so disappointed that you guys have feel for it. I had honestly thought yuo guys were smarter than that.

172 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:51:25pm

re: #169 Bagua

No, you go away you phony. There is not one legitimate scientist I know who talks like you, rants like you, insults like you, and misstates science like you.

You are immature and uncouth.

Really, then it shows you don't now any.

173 Bagua  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:52:27pm

re: #171 LudwigVanQuixote

You are full of hate, that much is very clear.

174 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:53:28pm

re: #170 CyanSnowHawk

Are you insane? He called it a self licking ice cream cone.

175 goddamnedfrank  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:54:31pm

re: #152 Quilly Mammoth

You imply that AJ doesn't work at NASA because he disagrees with the current administration's take.

Stop lying, I only stated that AJ's attempt at argument by authority was clearly straying far outside his area of stated expertise, and omitted the true nature of his relationship as an outside contractor.

I don't care that he disagrees with the current administration, I care that he is misrepresenting the laws of physics and ignoring the established data record in order to make an erroneous claim.

If Ludwig went further, that has nothing to do with me.

176 Quilly Mammoth  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:54:45pm

re: #157 goddamnedfrank

No, I haven't.

177 tradewind  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:55:03pm

/All right, who wants a tape measure?/

178 Quilly Mammoth  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:55:41pm

re: #175 goddamnedfrank

You're the liar. I never said that.

179 Bagua  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:55:56pm

re: #174 LudwigVanQuixote

Do you even realise that the man you called a "troll" and insulted viciously is the one who the post was referencing in taking a stand?

180 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:56:13pm

re: #173 Bagua

You are full of hate, that much is very clear.

Fine that is nice. NOw talk about the science like a scientist.

Do you support the debunked claims of Watts?

Care to see the debunking again?

Did you look the first time?

[Link: wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com...]

Wanna see the video?

Youtube Video

Real scientists do not cite Watts as a credible source. You are letting your hatred and bias against me cloud your understanding of the science.

181 pdc_lgf  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:57:33pm

re: #169 Bagua

So far this has been science-light and insult-heavy.

I was in academia for a while. I still do look at peer-reviewed stuff, still, as an engineer. Peer review is necessary and not sufficient as a means of quality control. There is no doubt that the processes warrant criticism.

Maybe this isn't a place to discuss science. There are persons of good faith endowed with enormous knowledge, with various points of view on this topic.
One would never deduce this by looking at the argument-by-insult tactics deployed here.

When I had the opportunity to register here, I agreed to "play nice." What I'm seeing here is an abrogation of that promise.

182 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:58:04pm

re: #171 LudwigVanQuixote

Yeah sure, but when the denier came over here and was calling actual scientific posts names and floating and acting like a pig that was OK?

Look, this guy is a fraud.

I hate frauds.

This guys is full of crap about the science.

I hate that too.

You can hate me. I really don't care, but he has actually been debunked if you look at what was written.

Or the links.

Or any of the other things. Notice how he left when the peer reviewed papers came out? He's a fraud, and I am so disappointed that you guys have feel for it. I had honestly thought yuo guys were smarter than that.

No Ludwig, I don't care what he wrote, I don't care if he lied, I don't care a twit about him, my comment was to you, and my suggestion is that you listen to what I am saying about you, and focus on you and I.

Honestly, you display absolutely zero professionalism in your manner and approach to debating a issue. You would make Newton and Liebniz ashamed, and they were master debaters and so very capable of making stating their science without taking it to the level of malice.

Pay close attention, you show malice toward you fellow man, you actually have a hate, a hatred of anyone who doesn't see things the way you do, doesn't parrot back the science the way you do or value the same things you do.

I will actually suggest that you go back to Talmud, go back to the writing of the Rebbe's, look over the commentaries and learn something about wisdom.

I wish only good for you, but you have to start finding a little love for those who don't see things the way you do. Otherwise, you are going to grow up to be a very lonely old man.

183 Bagua  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:59:22pm

re: #180 LudwigVanQuixote

No Ludwig, we are not talking about "science," we are talking about your bad behaviour.

184 Quilly Mammoth  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:59:29pm

Actually Frank you said this:

All I see from you are appeals to your own authority with nothing to back it up. Disclosing my own advanced degrees and employers shouldn't be necessary to get you to accept an established instrument data record kept by the very agency that you just claimed employed you as an authoritative crutch.

Bold by me.

If that wasn't questioning his creds what is?

185 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 7:00:05pm

re: #174 LudwigVanQuixote

Are you insane? He called it a self licking ice cream cone.

Knock yourself out then you arrogant prick.

186 Bagua  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 7:01:45pm

re: #181 pdc_lgf

So far this has been science-light and insult-heavy.

I was in academia for a while. I still do look at peer-reviewed stuff, still, as an engineer. Peer review is necessary and not sufficient as a means of quality control. There is no doubt that the processes warrant criticism.

Maybe this isn't a place to discuss science. There are persons of good faith endowed with enormous knowledge, with various points of view on this topic.
One would never deduce this by looking at the argument-by-insult tactics deployed here.

When I had the opportunity to register here, I agreed to "play nice." What I'm seeing here is an abrogation of that promise.

I agree strongly, which is why I am calling Ludwig on this. This is a regular occurrence with him, and him uniquely. Virtually every other poster on this blog is civil when they disagree, only Ludwig relies on insults and personal attacks as a regular tactic.

187 Big Steve  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 7:03:03pm

re: #168 LudwigVanQuixote

I am downdinging you not the paper

188 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 7:06:38pm

re: #179 Bagua

Do you even realise that the man you called a "troll" and insulted viciously is the one who the post was referencing in taking a stand?

Fine so he isn't a racist prick. Good for him. The fact is that he is not a scientist. He is claiming false expertise and he is fibbing about the science.

OK real scientists don't bash peer-review. They don't call it a self licking ice cream cone. They don't link to completely debunked denier sites that attack real scientists as sources of evidence. They link to actual peer reviewed papers.

I get that he took a stand for Charles that's great. We all support Charles.

That has nothing to do with lying about the science.

189 Big Steve  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 7:09:28pm

re: #188 ludwigvanquixote

The fact is that he is not a scientist.

I suspect neither are you.

190 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 7:10:56pm

re: #187 Big Steve

I am downdinging you not the paper

NOw that is how we do science... and you guys are lecturing me now about what is and is not science?

Look the rules are pretty simple. If you ask a serious question about science you get a very respectful and detailed reply. If you snark at actual science in a smug tone you get the horns.

Very simple,,,

In the mean time you and Big Steve have just decided that science is a popularity contest.

I am calling out the man's credentials.

I just did.

I'll do it again.

He's lying about what he knows.

I don't doubt he has an engineering degree. I don't doubt he is smart. I doubt that he is a scientist or knows a thing about science. I know for a fact he does not from what he writes.

Real scientists do not reject peer review. Real scientists in this field know how the temperature data is taken. Real scientists in this field do not quote Fox shills for science.

191 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 7:12:26pm

re: #189 Big Steve

I suspect neither are you.

And yet you have seen hundreds of science posts from me that are not the sorts of things that are easily made up on the spot.

Again, it is not about me. I am glad you wish to make it so, but look at the papers. You are getting snowed and you are too foolish to see it.

192 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 7:13:28pm

re: #182 Walter L. Newton

And yet I care if he lied about the science. That is really all that matters.

193 Big Steve  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 7:14:36pm

re: #191 ludwigvanquixote

And yet you have seen hundreds of science posts from me that are not the sorts of things that are easily made up on the spot.

Again, it is not about me. I am glad you wish to make it so, but look at the papers. You are getting snowed and you are too foolish to see it.

I find most of your posts derivative and easily obtained from other sites. And incidentally if you are such a great researcher you would have easily ascertained from previous posts of mine, that I am in the AGW camp.

194 Bagua  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 7:16:19pm

re: #189 Big Steve

I suspect neither are you.

I agree. I know, work with and converse with scientists who are published, lecture, are Professors, one of which won a Noble Prize in Physics, none of them talk like Ludwig or show any of the poor behaviour we see so often.

I am talking about character here, not science, however, all of them have laughed derisively when I recount Ludwigs persistent talk of certainty when speaking about probabilities.

195 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 7:18:49pm

re: #193 Big Steve

I find most of your posts derivative and easily obtained from other sites. And incidentally if you are such a great researcher you would have easily ascertained from previous posts of mine, that I am in the AGW camp.

So then you should know that Watts has been debunked and that real scientists don't link to him...

What is wrong with you?

As to derivative, well I'm not sure what that means... I am trying in general to explain to a general audience. That's why I link to the actual papers and such. But again so what. If you want to question me go for it. But challenge the actual papers I am bringing.

This isn't a popularity contest.

I don't care if you hate me.

Read the papers.

Look at the debunking of Watts, and them once you see what a fraud Watts is, ask yourself why if AJ is such a good scientist he is promoting him?

Do I need to connect all the dots?

196 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 7:20:15pm

re: #194 Bagua

I agree. I know, work with and converse with scientists who are published, lecture, are Professors, one of which won a Noble Prize in Physics, none of them talk like Ludwig or show any of the poor behaviour we see so often.

I am talking about character here, not science, however, all of them have laughed derisively when I recount Ludwigs persistent talk of certainty when speaking about probabilities.

Bagua, given you ability to distort and smarmily misrepresent, that is not surprising.

I said amongst other things that CO2 is a GHG and that is certain.

Care to say that isn't certain?

You really are a cretin.

197 Big Steve  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 7:24:07pm

re: #195 ludwigvanquixote


I do not accept any blog's opinion of AGW at face value...not Watts...not Sinclair. However for both of them I actually read the papers or examine the links that they show and make up my own mind. I have not seen one site that has not had retractions and that includes Watts. You must know since you are an educated person, that one can be wrong, even wrong often, but still occasionally be right. That is why I value Watt's site. Not because I swallow everything whole he is peddling but because he does make me think.

198 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 7:27:25pm

re: #197 Big Steve

I do not accept any blog's opinion of AGW at face value...not Watts...not Sinclair. However for both of them I actually read the papers or examine the links that they show and make up my own mind. I have not seen one site that has not had retractions and that includes Watts. You must know since you are an educated person, that one can be wrong, even wrong often, but still occasionally be right. That is why I value Watt's site. Not because I swallow everything whole he is peddling but because he does make me think.

Fine, and when you are into the actual papers we can talk about what the state of the science is. In the mean time, you would do well to actually educate yourself on the background science.

It is not that Watts is sometimes wrong. He is pretty much always wrong. The man is a paid shill. The second someone goes and links to him is the second you see he is a shill too.

199 Bagua  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 7:29:58pm

re: #196 ludwigvanquixote

Bagua, given you ability to distort and smarmily misrepresent, that is not surprising.

I said amongst other things that CO2 is a GHG and that is certain.

Care to say that isn't certain?

You really are a cretin.

Calling me "a cretin" is not a sensible argument. It is impossible to have a civilised debate with you for this reason. On a prior thread you called me an A-hole twice in one sentence and have not retracted that either. I can not debate with someone who displays the worst of adolescent behaviour.

I am calling you out here Ludwig for you poor behaviour, not disputing that CO2 is a GHG, yes, I agree we can be "certain" of that. As I said in that prior thread, there was a sliding scale of degrees of certainty, something the IPCC has clearly stated in thier "Uncertainty Guidance Note" which they include with the Fourth Assessment Report. However, I find it impossible to debate this point of science with you as you are so fond of gutter talk,

200 pdc_lgf  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 7:32:17pm

re: #186 Bagua

The sad part is that I wasn't trying to reply to you. It's an old computer, the router apparatus stinks; as a result, I replied to the wrong post.

But it's good to strike up a conversation. Here's a question. Let's take the physics, thermodynamics and chemistry. Suppose one were to look at reams of data, derived from a variety of sources: say, tree rings, ice cores, temperature measurements, rainfall, sea levels ... - over as long a duration as is reasonable. Some very smart guys, with no axe to grind, analyze the data, use computers to do modeling, and test the predictive value of the models on the data.

Presumably, this has been done. Any idea what happens? (Not a trick question - I don't know the answer, or whether there is one.)

The reason I'm going down this road is that it relies only on one discipline: mathematical statistics - and thus removes the variables chemistry, physics, thermodynamics... - if you get my drift.

201 Big Steve  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 7:35:56pm

re: #198 ludwigvanquixote

Fine, and when you are into the actual papers we can talk about what the state of the science is. In the mean time, you would do well to actually educate yourself on the background science.

It is so tempting to go off Avatar and tell you who I am so you could actually realize what an insufferable ass you are being. However I value my association with this site and consequently don't want to wait for another open registration to get another user name.

202 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 7:36:17pm

re: #199 Bagua

Calling me "a cretin" is not a sensible argument. It is impossible to have a civilised debate with you for this reason. On a prior thread you called me an A-hole twice in one sentence and have not retracted that either. I can not debate with someone who displays the worst of adolescent behaviour.

I am calling you out here Ludwig for you poor behaviour, not disputing that CO2 is a GHG, yes, I agree we can be "certain" of that. As I said in that prior thread, there was a sliding scale of degrees of certainty, something the IPCC has clearly stated in thier "Uncertainty Guidance Note" which they include with the Fourth Assessment Report. However, I find it impossible to debate this point of science with you as you are so fond of gutter talk,

Ahh great, and here we have backing up Bagua in the Bagua two step.

look, here it is really plain. If you read what I wrote without the bias you have up your ass about me, you would notice that I give ranges and errors and say we don't know when we don't know.

Youw ould also notice that there are some things we do know. Like CO2 is a GHG and there is an ice feedback and that there is a huge amount of methane released by the bogs.

These are certain facts Bagua, and that is what I was writing about.

Yet you came along and made a bruhaahhaa about us not being certain of them.

That makes you disingenuous at best and a liar at worst. I don't care for you games or your passive aggressive BS anymore. I stopped caring ages ago.

So I ask that you consider that in science, there really are some things that we know, and stop writing about how your scientist friends scoff at certainties.

If you accurately report what I say, then indeed we are talking about certainties.

If you are misreporting it, like you do here all the time, and mischaracterizing it like you do here all the time, it only does you disservice.

203 pdc_lgf  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 7:37:19pm

re: #186 Bagua

Sorry for the typo:
"Let's take the physics, thermodynamics and chemistry"
should be
"Let's remove the physics, thermodynamics and chemistry"

204 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 7:37:54pm

re: #201 Big Steve

It is so tempting to go off Avatar and tell you who I am so you could actually realize what an insufferable ass you are being. However I value my association with this site and consequently don't want to wait for another open registration to get another user name.

My nic is blue... send me a mail please... If you turn out to be Steve Weinberg I promise to eat one of my shoes.

205 Bagua  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 7:38:53pm

re: #200 pdc_lgf

Thank you, I wasn't clear who you were addressing. I also rarely use invective myself, I am challenging Ludwig now on a point of behaviour, not science, because this is a repetitive occurrence. That one post was one of the few that I snapped back.

I am certain we could have a sensible discussion and not resort to insults, and I would be fascinated to hear what you have to say about science and statistics, the later being a particular fascination of mine.

206 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 7:39:48pm

re: #205 Bagua

Thank you, I wasn't clear who you were addressing. I also rarely use invective myself, I am challenging Ludwig now on a point of behaviour, not science, because this is a repetitive occurrence. That one post was one of the few that I snapped back.

I am certain we could have a sensible discussion and not resort to insults, and I would be fascinated to hear what you have to say about science and statistics, the later being a particular fascination of mine.

And I am challenging you on your constant sniping and misrepresentation. However, since you refuse to ever see it, I doubt it could work.

207 Bagua  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 7:43:51pm

re: #202 LudwigVanQuixote

Ludwig, before we can have a reasonable discussion you need to retract your OTT insults and agree to be civil.

I made it very clear in that one sentence post of mine that I had no quibble with what you were saying, only your use of "certainty" in the place of a variable state of probability. You were generalising and I was generalising.

I am always happy to defend my side, however, with you it quickly becomes a cascade of insults.

208 pdc_lgf  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 7:49:02pm

re: #205 Bagua

I'm just learning some stuff about Bayesian inference now. It's job-related. I was trained in mathematics, got the Ph.D. and was a journeyman prof for six years. Then I went in to engineering. Kinda backed into it.

I'm like a musician who puts down the axe, and from time to time gets back to practicing for a bit. It would take a year of steady efforts, in order to regain the chops I had thirty years ago - and they were nothing special then.

Having said all that, as tough as math is, I find stats much tougher. It's got a philosophical component to it. I don't have too many good books on the subject. The one good starting point I found is Principles of Statistics, by M. G. Bulmer. It's a Dover book. It costs about eleven bucks. It's excellent.

There's a wonderful hunk of freeware called "R". I have yet to find a really good book to guide one through "R" - just some okay books which are all rather overpriced.

If you have proceeded past the point where these recommendations are superfluous, then I can recommend some other things. Or I can recommend them regardless.

209 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 7:54:50pm

re: #207 Bagua

Fine so here is some detente. If you have a specific quibble with a claim that I make, then point specifically to that, rather than smear the whole thing that I wrote. It angers me.

Now the specific case,

The use of the word certain, was in the context, of stating that it is certain that sooner of later the mechanisms listed - which you do not dispute, would lead to the loss of the caps and a global catastrophe if things were not changed.

I claim that is a certainty.

What is not certain about it?

210 goddamnedfrank  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 7:54:55pm

re: #178 Quilly Mammoth

You're the liar. I never said that.

Yes you did. You know you did.

re: #184 Quilly Mammoth

Actually Frank you said this:

Bold by me.

If that wasn't questioning his creds what is?

See, now you remember. That wasn't questioning his "creds," that was turning his own argument by authority into a question as to why he was ignoring a relevent data set established by the very agency he was claiming to work for. It remains a valid question. If you think AJ's working for NASA isn't germane to the question of why he ignores certain inconvenient data sets of theirs, then maybe you should ask him why he brought it up his association in the first place?

211 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 7:59:14pm

re: #210 goddamnedfrank

See, now you remember. That wasn't questioning his "creds," that was turning his own argument by authority into a question as to why he was ignoring a relevent data set established by the very agency he was claiming to work for. It remains a valid question. If you think AJ's working for NASA isn't germane to the question of why he ignores certain inconvenient data sets of theirs, then maybe you should ask him why he brought it up his association in the first place?

This is a very good point. It is one I picked up on as well. The man claims to work for NASA and makes a point out of saying "I work for NASA dude" like he is some expert on this. And his tone was out and out insulting, so I decided to put him down from the get go.

Then he manages to not know things that anyone in this field at NASA would know.

Yeah, it's OK Frank. He really was being a fraud there. You can call him that.

He is not a fraud in that maybe he does some work for them, but for sure he is a fraud wrt the actual science.

212 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 8:00:47pm

And did you notice that the second I started pulling real papers out, he disappeared anyway?

213 pdc_lgf  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 8:01:11pm

re: #211 ludwigvanquixote

Do you mean fraud as in bad faith? How about considering the possibility that he honestly thinks he knows what he's talking about?

214 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 8:01:49pm

re: #212 ludwigvanquixote

And did you notice that the second I started pulling real papers out, he disappeared anyway?

Did you notice that almost everyone disappeared when you started acting like a jerk again?

215 Bagua  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 8:04:28pm

re: #209 ludwigvanquixote

Fine so here is some detente. If you have a specific quibble with a claim that I make, then point specifically to that, rather than smear the whole thing that I wrote. It angers me.

Now the specific case,

The use of the word certain, was in the context, of stating that it is certain that sooner of later the mechanisms listed - which you do not dispute, would lead to the loss of the caps and a global catastrophe if things were not changed.

I claim that is a certainty.

What is not certain about it?

That is much better, why can we not discuss things in this manner without the egregious insults and anger? What do we gain from the added emotional content?

My one line comment made clear I was not disputing anything except your use of certainty when talking about future events that are probable, even if very likely or even virtually certain. The literature supports me on this and you must know that as you read the literature.

re: #212 ludwigvanquixote

And did you notice that the second I started pulling real papers out, he disappeared anyway?

And no, AJ Strata made it very clear he was leaving because of the OTT insults.

216 pdc_lgf  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 8:04:42pm

re: #212 ludwigvanquixote

I'll pose this question to you, which was posed by me earlier.

Let's remove the physics, thermodynamics and chemistry. Suppose one were to look at reams of data, derived from a variety of sources: say, tree rings, ice cores, temperature measurements, rainfall, sea levels ... - over as long a duration as is reasonable. Some very smart guys, with no axe to grind, analyze the data, use computers to do modeling, and test the predictive value of the models on the data.

Presumably, this has been done. Any idea what happens? (Not a trick question - I don't know the answer, or whether there is one.)

The reason I'm going down this road is that it relies only on one discipline: mathematical statistics - and thus removes the variables chemistry, physics, thermodynamics...

Your thoughts?

217 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 8:13:12pm

re: #213 pdc_lgf

Do you mean fraud as in bad faith? How about considering the possibility that he honestly thinks he knows what he's talking about?

Fraud as in he should have known better than to front as something he was not - which is to say an expert in the field.

He was here abominably insulting other posters who had put up real science - why Walter and Bagua was that OK? Oh, yes because it wasn't me...

And then he simply linked known debunked denier sites than self respecting scientists don't associate with - particularly ones from NASA, and made serious speeches about the scientific method being flawed in the context of AGW and in general.

OK

So let's review,

1. He presented himself as someone with the authority to speak as one of NASA on the field.

2. He does not accept the basic scientific process of peer review. You have no idea what a red flag that is. He wasn't going on about a horror story here or there or a hiccup where a bad paper got in or a good paper didn't/ He was trashing the whole process to discredit the whole field.

3. He thinks Watts up with that is good science. I mean c'mon that's like linking to the flat Earth society.

4. He left with some shot about temperature measurements. It was something that someone in the filed would know the answers too. I gave him two papers with 800 citations between them on the measurements and the errors - that also refute his false claim about getting reliable data.

The bottom line is, deniers always think they are right. However, they are wrong.

218 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 8:14:42pm

re: #216 pdc_lgf

I'll pose this question to you, which was posed by me earlier.

Let's remove the physics, thermodynamics and chemistry. Suppose one were to look at reams of data, derived from a variety of sources: say, tree rings, ice cores, temperature measurements, rainfall, sea levels ... - over as long a duration as is reasonable. Some very smart guys, with no axe to grind, analyze the data, use computers to do modeling, and test the predictive value of the models on the data.

Presumably, this has been done. Any idea what happens? (Not a trick question - I don't know the answer, or whether there is one.)

The reason I'm going down this road is that it relies only on one discipline: mathematical statistics - and thus removes the variables chemistry, physics, thermodynamics...

Your thoughts?

The answer respectfully is that such an analysis is meaningless without the context of physics and chemistry and thermodynamics.

219 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 8:15:52pm

re: #214 Walter L. Newton

Did you notice that almost everyone disappeared when you started acting like a jerk again?

Walter did you notice that you have had a bug in your ass about me ever since I called you an idiot for believing that nazis were leftists?

Look, I am sure this little pile on with bagua has please you greatly, but I really really don't care about your views here.

220 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 8:17:46pm

re: #215 Bagua

And no, AJ Strata made it very clear he was leaving because of the OTT insults.

Uhh because you are always the one who starts with the egregious insults by smearing and misrepresenting everything I wrote. How can you be so dense? I really hate the innocent who me act Bagua.

221 Bagua  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 8:22:30pm

re: #217 ludwigvanquixote

Charles just posted this comment:

Just got a very nice email from SoCalJustice, if anyone remembers him. He's one long-time lizard who totally gets it, and is on my side. Made my day.

Well, that and Barrett Brown's article made my day. And AJ Strata's article, that made my day too. All in all, not a bad day.

Emphasis mine. When AJ Srata stopped by the thread acknowledging him, you denounced him as a troll, and "a hack, a fraud, a denier, and a bogus pompous idiot to boot." That was very poor behaviour and entirely uncalled for and unnecessary.

You could have simply disputed him on the scientific merits of his positions, instead you demonised him and drove him away.

You also heaped insults and profanity on me, while all I did was challenge you tendency to use the word certain in the place of probable.

I realise that none of this makes any sense to you Ludwig, instead, you imagine that "science" is being challenged, not your representation of it and not your bad behaviour. In this sense of personal grievance and paranoia, you do very much resemble Glenn Beck as Mr. Strata correctly observed.

222 pdc_lgf  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 8:29:51pm

re: #218 ludwigvanquixote

Well, alrighty then. I doubt you are suggesting that physics and chemistry progress exclusively as thought experiments. (Thermo is a bit of a different story.) We both know that empiricism plays a decisive role, throughout the scientific process.

If things are as you depict them, then you truly can't blame folks for overlooking evidence. - You presuppose a "sufficient" grounding in physics and chemistry.

Thermodynamics presents a simpler issue: what knowledge of thermo is required to participate in the discussion? I've got an old copy of Lee and Sears right here in the room with me. I'd love an excuse to spend some quality time with it. What do I need to look at?

223 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 8:42:13pm

re: #219 ludwigvanquixote

Oh goody, he must have finally passed out?

224 pdc_lgf  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 8:44:41pm

re: #223 Walter L. Newton

Am I a thread-killer? Or do I just get into the mix too late? Something else?

By the way: what's a sock-puppet in the context of this forum? I'm new here, and I don't understand the jargon.

225 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 8:47:50pm

re: #224 pdc_lgf

Am I a thread-killer? Or do I just get into the mix too late? Something else?

By the way: what's a sock-puppet in the context of this forum? I'm new here, and I don't understand the jargon.

If you have registered twice or more times, under different accounts and names. Charles does not like that, and he has tools that searches the logs and if he finds two accounts with the same IP address (or piping though proxy servers) he will delete all of your accounts.

Unless you have another family member who also has an account on LGF and you are all using a wireless network of working off the same router. (like I do)

In that case, Charles likes you to email him and let him know that there are more than one LGF user in the house.

226 Bagua  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 8:49:17pm

re: #224 pdc_lgf

Am I a thread-killer? Or do I just get into the mix too late? Something else?

By the way: what's a sock-puppet in the context of this forum? I'm new here, and I don't understand the jargon.

No, you killed nothing, the blood was everywhere by the time you joined us.

227 pdc_lgf  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 8:53:30pm

re: #225 Walter L. Newton

None of what you said. Just one account. I thought a sock-puppet was a behavior-thing. Thanks.

My only regret is that I don't care for my user name. Sort of user-name envy, so to speak. The other ones seem way cooler. (If this were my biggest problem...)

Thanks. It's just vaguely disturbing. I finally get to ask a question that's been on my mind, and the guy ain't there anymore to answer it.

228 pdc_lgf  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 8:56:16pm

re: #226 Bagua

Were the statistics recommendations of any use to you? I've been reading the stuff rather fixedly, and coming here to refocus my verbal functioning. I'm exhausted. Sometimes coming here and participating enlivens my mind. Tonight was, on the other hand, utterly frustrating. I'll figure it out eventually.

229 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 9:05:27pm

re: #227 pdc_lgf

None of what you said. Just one account. I thought a sock-puppet was a behavior-thing. Thanks.

My only regret is that I don't care for my user name. Sort of user-name envy, so to speak. The other ones seem way cooler. (If this were my biggest problem...)

Thanks. It's just vaguely disturbing. I finally get to ask a question that's been on my mind, and the guy ain't there anymore to answer it.

As you can see by Ludwig's manner of debating, he wasn't really answering anything, he was hating and being hurtful to everyone. You didn't miss out on anything, in my opinion.

230 pdc_lgf  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 9:07:55pm

re: #229 Walter L. Newton

When you're right, you're right. It's a shame, though how things went to shit so thoroughly.

231 b_Snark  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 9:18:55pm

re: #138 AJStrata


You must be the Glenn Beck of LGF. Anyone who starts with name calling is usually compensating for another weakness.

Either that or they are completely tired of debunking the same previously debunked misinformation. The same thing happens when scientists debunk creationists, eventually they get so tired of the crap coming out of the mouths of tards that they start name calling.


WUWT is not a propaganda. They ask probing and challenging questions and note the reams of data which counter the AGW theories (which after a decade of cooling are now all busted).

They also cherry pick data to back their nonsense while ignoring the rest of the data that proves them wrong.

If you believe we have seen a downturn in the trend because of a drop in yearly temperature you obviously have trouble differentiating between signal and noise. You need to learn the difference between the warming trend and natural variability. There have been several similar drops throughout the last 100 years and every single time the temperature did more than just recover it in fact surpassed previous temperatures.

Do you or Watts have any evidence that the drop in yearly temperature since 2005 is any different than the previous drops?

232 Bagua  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 9:19:07pm

re: #228 pdc_lgf

Yes, I'd like to discuss it further during a normal thread. For me this is a major point, which Ludwig dismisses as mere semantics (but more colourful language).

When people speak of something that has a 90% or even 99% probability, which itself is based upon a variety of assumptions, as a scientific certainty, then I definitely suspect that that person is expressing a personal belief, and not accurately reporting the science. I question if that person understands even the basics of probability and statistical analysis.

The IPCC is hardly a Climate "denialist" group and yet they speak in terms of probabilities in very clear language. Yet to hear Ludwig speak on the same matters and he is absolutely certain, and anyone who questions this must be a "liar," "fool," "idiot" and worse. It is very frustrating to try to carry on a rational and reasonable discussion in this situation.

In this thread, it was more about challenging the insults and poor behaviour than discussing any point of science or reason. As he is a prolific writer on these comment threads, and a boisterous and insistent one at that, I feel it appropriate to challenge him and hold him to account. I am quite disgusted at the reception that AJ Strata received here today.

233 goddamnedfrank  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 9:40:10pm

re: #222 pdc_lgf

Thermodynamics presents a simpler issue: what knowledge of thermo is required to participate in the discussion?

None are required to participate, but a firm understanding of black body radiation and how it governs the temperature relation between a planet and its star goes a long way towards understanding.

Some other fellow on this thread reduced certain issues to high school science. Having survived high school, I nevertheless find it implausible that the science taught in high school is decisively important.

I missed this earlier. I guess your mileage may vary, but I have found that understanding the science taught in high school is fundamental to the understanding of more advanced subject matter. I didn't know that ignoring it was an option.

234 AJStrata  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:16:03am

RE: #127

godamnfrank, your degrees mean little unless you have experience in the field. And yes, there is a difference between radiation heating and convective heating. We go back to basics, how much solar radiation makes it to the surface to effect atmospheric temps and climate. On Mars it is a different process because different factors determine how the solar radiation impact the atmosphere. But all this aside you brought up the linchpin point:

in spite of 30 years of consistent instrument data to the contrary

There are two sets of data over the past 30 years. The satellite data (using a single calibrated instrument to measure all points on the globe) shows no significant warming. The ground sensors are not a single instrument, but various instruments of varying quality and precision and placing. The ground network is basically crap. It is not calibrated or maintained to a level that will produce or sense tenth of a degree values. Even if they did, they are so sparsely located they only measure local effects (a few feet) versus the satellites which use a uniform measurement and sense broad areas and up and down the air column.

If you look at how some researchers on the alarmist side do the data processing you find they overwrite the highly precise, uniform sat data with 'corrections' from the crappy suite of ground sensors. Which is completely backwards. The satellites, being a single uniform sensor, should be used to calibrate or correct the ground sensors, remove the errors and local effects.

When you do this the warming is not all that high. Hopefully those advanced degrees can help you understand this.

But that is not the only problem here. When you try and claim that this is the warmest period in 10,000 (or 1,000) years there are no temperature records to a tenth of a degree.

The researchers who claim this have also done some very shoddy work. They use proxies like tree rings and varves. But local effects, genetics and many other factors mask any temperature signal in these proxies. A tree is not a thermometer with tenth of a degree accuracy. It just isn't and no one as ever proven that is it. NEVER!

So when you compare today's temps to the MWP etc, you cannot claim you know the temperature in those periods they claim.

Look, it is pretty simple. You have to define 'normal temp' even for a small region. There are no sensors or proxies which can drive out the temp to a couple of degrees with confidence. You change the assumptions slightly and the entire record goes the opposite direction. They just don't know.

Then, you have the problem of trying to create a global temp from regions that differ as much as Antartica does with the Sahara. What is the global temperature? No one has proven they can derive a single value within a tenth of a degree that represents the global number.

For example: what is the global nominal rain fall or precipitation per season? Rainfall is completely dependent on local climate and geography. If the US sees 3 extra inches ones summer and the Sahara sees 3 extra inches the same year, is that an increase in global precipitation that can be established to a tenth of an inch?

Of course not. Because we don't know how wet or dry it was over the oceans (that 75% of the surface would over ride anything we see on the land).

It is arrogance to think we have established a global or hemispheric or land/ocean normal value of temp, or measured deviations from that proposed (and that is all it is right now, proposed) normal value within a tenth of a degree.

The instruments you have on the ground are as precise as a butter knife when you need a scalpel. And I do not think, orders of magnitude wise, that is an exaggeration.

Prove otherwise! Because remember, the burden of proof is on the ones who support the theory.

235 AJStrata  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 9:09:06am

RE: #141

I have a background in biology, physics and mathematics. My experience base, as I mentioned, is reviewing science missions and their viability. I also have years of experience in space systems, sensors, etc.

I am not sure what the minimal is, but as I said before the topic is incredibly complex and runs across many scientific disciplines. And the language of science is uber-geeky and hard to process for even those of us used to it.

So what underlies my confidence. I know the precision of what a space based sensor is capable of, and I understand the precision (or lack of therein) of ground based sensors, and I understand the error bars around proxies. I also know that when you go back in time the precision of the 'data' drops off rapidly.

The error bars around the 1880's sensor data is easily over one degree C. No one on any side of this discussion would disagree. The error bars on data older than that is even higher (global temp data only goes back to 1880). You can decide for yourself if the technology of 1880 is comparable in precision to technology today.

Furthermore, you have data, evidence and human accounts going back through 100' s of years about the climate during the MWP and Maunder Minimums. Just one example would be the fossilized forests under the ice in the northern hemisphere dating way back. You can see the agricultural records during the MWP showing longer or equivalent growing seasons with modern times. You can see population numbers in the MWP and Little Ice Age indicating how humanity thrived and strived during warm and cold periods.

Finally, you can take the data that went into the hockey stick graphs and find some things that would blow your mind. For example, many of the conclusions about rapid temperature increases in the modern era are based on selected tree rings from small data sets. If you use the entire data set for that region you see no abnormal temperature increases. These indicates that the proxies used to try to compare modern temps to historic temps beyond 1880 are very suspect.

Look, in science there are theories and there are established facts. Gravity is an established fact. How the Moon was created is all theory (many conflicting ones). As we get more data or more studies are done the origin of the Moon concept changes. Same here with global climate. There are conflicting indicators - it is not settled. Another example would be the evolution of humanity. The recent Ardi discovery through the entire established science out the window!

So you need to know when you are in the midst of theoretical discovery and debate versus dealing with scientific fact.

I see the creationists and the GW alarmists as different camps of the same kind of ignorance and zealotry. They want to believe so badly they refuse to face the contrary evidence and studies. A real scientist does not fall into this trap. They go where the data and evidence leads them.

236 AJStrata  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 9:10:20am

Ludwig,

Hate to say this lad, but you clearly are not capable of entering this debate. Come back when you have some cred.

237 AJStrata  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 9:13:45am

RE: 145,

Don't sweat Ludwig. He is compensating. I could care less what he says, especially since he has not produced anything concrete. He shows contrary studies, which by definition means the science is not settled. BFD.

And of course, if solar output had minimal impact on global warming we would still be warming these past ten years, not cooling.

Ignore the trolls my friend.

238 AJStrata  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 9:22:44am

RE: #147

My poor ludwig, I never said the peer review process was wrong for what it was designed to so (review theories and gender scientific debate). What I said is it is completely insufficient to the phase where you go into policies or programs that impact massive numbers of humanity.

I said, that when you go from debating theories to imposing laws and systems, the peer review process is completely inadequate to challenge the findings and drive out bullet proof results. When you get into the real world, you need to withstand challenges. It would be like trying to rely on an airplane or space vehicle that went through journal peer review versus the much more rigorous and demanding system design process.

Laughably, you were the one who claimed Einstein went through peer review! Too funny.

239 AJStrata  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 9:23:53am

re: #238 AJStrata

Should have been in response to #156

240 AJStrata  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 9:34:34am

OK Ludwig the pretend scientists, lets have at it. Your link to NCDC shows this:

Q. Do many U.S. stations have poor siting by being placed inappropriately close to trees, buildings, parking lots, etc.?
A. Yes. The National Weather Service has station siting criteria, but they were not always followed. That is one reason why NOAA created the Climate Reference Network, with excellent siting and redundant sensors.

Right off the back the NCDC agrees with Watt on the siting problems. Doh! They also agree their quality control guidelines are not followed. They clearly do not control the world wide network. In addition, Watt has shown NCDC tends to pick really bad sensors. For example, there are 2 on Oahu, HI. One is at the airport and is clearly biased by the local environment (tarmac, jet engines, etc). The second is a few miles away. They always differ with the airport one be much higher. Does NCDC drop the airport one? No. Does NCDC use the other one, No. Watt right, you wrong.

Your text to link...

NCDC here admits there is only one study that has attempted to measure the quality of the US network. Moreover it only sampled a small number, and was performed by NOAA (who clearly have a conflict of interest here). Also note the subtle but clear not on peer reviewed studies.

As I said, NCDC is quite clear on what they do. When a satellite measure a site and it is different they change the satellite data. Even though that SAME SATELLITE measured other sites and agreed with them - no change.

Come on dude - can do better than that? And videos are science.

241 AJStrata  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 9:35:41am

re: #240 AJStrata

Still getting used to the editor here. That link should have been this quote:

Q. How has the poor siting biased local temperatures trends?
A. At the present time (June 2009), to the best of our knowledge, there has only been one published peer-reviewed study that specifically quantified the potential bias in trends caused by poor station siting

...

Written by a NOAA National Climatic Data Center scientist, it examined only a small subset of stations

242 AJStrata  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 9:43:35am

re: #196 ludwigvanquixote

Ludwig Von Beck,

Yes, CO2 is a GHG. But hopefully you know it represents only 3% of the GHG's. So increasing it to 3.5% is not going to do squat globally.

For those interested, the idea of GHG's actually storing heat in any amount necessary to increase temps was debunked.

More papers here.

243 AJStrata  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 9:50:46am

re: #200 pdc_lgf

pdc_lgf,

The problem is you cannot detach the physics and biology from the statistics. Tree rings are a great example. Assume the rings are getting wider. Is it the increased CO2? Is it due to a wind storm taking out taller trees? Is it due to a flood depositing nutrients?

You have to know the 'noise' in the data to ascertain not just confidence, but accuracy. I can be highly confident of a statistical relationship as long as the accuracy is very low (+/- 2 °C). When I try to claim confidence with high precision (+/- 0.2 °C) I cannot due to the other factors which may be over riding any temperature signature.

Make sense?

244 AJStrata  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 9:52:48am

re: #212 ludwigvanquixote

And did you notice that the second I started pulling real papers out, he disappeared anyway?

It's called having a life.

245 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 12:19:40pm

re: #240 AJStrata

Very well, let's have at it as you say... And BTW, a couple of ground rules. I have given some thought to the anger with which I responded to your comments, so I will keep my sniping to a minimum and prove you wrong solely on the basis of science.

You have made a very large series of false claims that are simply not true. I shall do my best to address as many of them as I can as time permits. I too have a life.

So let's get on it. Quotes are all yours.

your degrees mean little unless you have experience in the field.

Which is true. And by your own admission, you do not.

There are two sets of data over the past 30 years. The satellite data (using a single calibrated instrument to measure all points on the globe) shows no significant warming.

This is an outright lie on multiple counts. First off, of course the satellite data shows significant warming.
There are also multiple satellites measuring this. In fact NASA alone has 17 doing it.

[Link: climate.nasa.gov...]

Given that these are NASA programs, and you claim expertise from NASA, it is particularly egregious that you do not know of them and that you distort their findings.

All of the following satellite programs, and there are more, show increasing temperatures. All papers linked are cited more than 100 times.

AVHRR
[Link: airs.jpl.nasa.gov...]

ASTER
[Link: asterweb.jpl.nasa.gov...]

ASTER is supported by the European ERS1

[Link: www.agu.org...]

Just throwing that paper in in case you want to say ASTER doesn't work...

and AIRS are four of them you should know about.
[Link: airs.jpl.nasa.gov...]

Here is a review from 1998, of how you get data from these sorts of things - the basic physics at least - which you are falsely discounting, but should actually know yourself, so you would not make such errors...

[Link: www2.bren.ucsb.edu...]

Now what of the actual data? You falsely claim it shows no warming. This is also an outright lie.

Here is the truth. It turns out that we are warming faster than the models predicted...

[Link: science.samxxzy.ns02.info...]

And here is a review of the actual measurements:

[Link: airs.jpl.nasa.gov...]

[Link: climate.nasa.gov...]

[Link: data.giss.nasa.gov...]
[Link: data.giss.nasa.gov...]

Again, since this is from NASA, and you claim your own authority by association with NASA, you should not lie about what the data says.

246 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 12:29:50pm

Sorry mis link

Here is AVHRR

[Link: noaasis.noaa.gov...]

247 Coracle  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 12:42:11pm

re: #235 AJStrata


Look, in science there are theories and there are established facts. Gravity is an established fact. How the Moon was created is all theory (many conflicting ones). As we get more data or more studies are done the origin of the Moon concept changes. Same here with global climate. There are conflicting indicators - it is not settled. Another example would be the evolution of humanity. The recent Ardi discovery through the entire established science out the window!

Your analogous examples argue against your point. Theories of lunar origin are not constantly changing. In recent decades the debate has largely coalesced around giant impact origins. It is the hypothesis with the most supporting evidence. There are still reasonable arguments for others and active research, but there is a single most likely theory at this point. As we get more data, the explanation of lunar origin becomes refined. It hasn't been redefined since the introduction of the giant impact theory.

With Ardi, certain aspects or paths of human descent are certainly going to be rethought. But the basics of human evolution are not put in question by the discovery. This is again a refining and not a redefinition.

Lunar origins, and human evolution are not beyond redefinition, if some big discovery were to come along, but even Ardi in the latter case is not on that level.

As for climate science, and the warming record in particular, as has been demonstrated amply by LVQ, physics and chemistry are giving us the rules here. We can and do refine the observations and interpretations, but there is no redefinition in the offing here, either.

So you need to know when you are in the midst of theoretical discovery and debate versus dealing with scientific fact.

I see the creationists and the GW alarmists as different camps of the same kind of ignorance and zealotry. They want to believe so badly they refuse to face the contrary evidence and studies. A real scientist does not fall into this trap. They go where the data and evidence leads them.

248 Coracle  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 12:43:01pm

PIMF. Last two paragraphs in my post were trailing quotes I neglected to erase.

249 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 12:47:49pm

re: #240 AJStrata

PLease don't call me dude, and right off the bat you miss this key graph that shows even when taking everything that Watts complains about is taken into account, there is no significant difference in the data.

You are falsely cherry picking. That is a form of lie. There are many lies you have posted here, it just takes time to out all of them.

So first off...

Lets look at the graph in dispute shall we? It is on page three:

[Link: wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com...]

Two national time series were made using the same gridding and area averaging technique. One analysis was for the full data set. The other used only the 70 stations that surfacestations.org classified as good or best. We would expect some differences simply due to the different area covered: the 70 stations only covered 43% of the country with no stations in, for example, New Mexico, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee or North Carolina. Yet the two time series, shown below as both annual data and smooth data, are remarkably similar. Clearly there is no indication for this analysis that poor current siting is imparting a bias in the U.S. temperature trends.

In other words, you are falsely creating a non-existent controversy.

Your claim is debunked completely. Yet, when faced with evidence of such, you continue to persist. This is a classic denier stratagem, of insisting on a false controversy when there is none.

250 Coracle  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 12:58:43pm

re: #240 AJStrata


NCDC here admits there is only one study that has attempted to measure the quality of the US network. Moreover it only sampled a small number, and was performed by NOAA (who clearly have a conflict of interest here).

Conflict of interest? How about actually looking at the data instead. Look at a direct comparison between over 1200 stations in the USHCN system and the cherry picked 70 "best" stations from surfacestations.org: [Here] Big difference? I don't think so. Unless you'd like to say that the entire surface record is completely bogus.

251 Bagua  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 1:11:59pm

re: #244 AJStrata

I am taking the liberty of reposting a relevent follow up comment Ludwig made on another thread as you may not be reading all the threads

Sorry to hijack this, but I have an apology to make. I let my anger at a sinde climate denier override the need to simply just state the science.

I am now going to take a new tact of simply and thoroughly debunking the foolishness without snark. It turned a science debate into a popularity contest. In that sense both Walter and Bagua were correct.

There really are a lot of very egregious lies posted on this site right now. They are not true. So please let me try a new tract.

I spent the better part of an hour debunking one set of lies.

Noted with appreciation.

252 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 1:14:14pm

re: #242 AJStrata

Ludwig Von Beck,

But hopefully you know it represents only 3% of the GHG's. So increasing it to 3.5% is not going to do squat globally.

For those interested, the idea of GHG's actually storing heat in any amount necessary to increase temps was debunked.

More papers here.

Now this is your singe most false and egregious post.

Let's take it apart one piece at a time.

Yes, CO2 is a GHG. But hopefully you know it represents only 3% of the GHG's. So increasing it to 3.5% is not going to do squat globally.

And yet, we would be 60 degrees cooler if not for that small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. So it clearly does have a significant effect. Further an increase from 3% to 3.5 % and these are the wrong numbers anyway would have a very significant effect as that is fractionally a very large increase.

No how do we know how warm the Earth is because of the CO2 blanket? Someone with your expertise should be able to calculate such a thing to first order yes? It is after all a homework problem for sophomores.

So let me run you through it. It is called an energy budget model. It is based on the idea that energy is conserved.

1. Estimate the amount of CO2 you have.
1a, Take pressure and total atmosphere into account...

2. Look at the absorption of CO2 and how many watts come in from the sun in those bands...

3. Remember that energy is conserved.

The first detailed calculation of this time was done in the late 1890's by Svante Ahrenius. In fact, he took curvatures and soils into account as well.

He found...

[Link: wiki.nsdl.org...]

Arrhenius used his model to calculate the change of temperature that would follow if the quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was two-thirds, double, or even triple its present value. He reported that a doubling of CO2 would raise global temperatures by about 3 to 3.5 °C while a reduction of CO2 by one-third would lower temperatures by roughly the same amount. These values happen to be within the range of current estimates even though Arrhenius ignored the possible effects of changes of horizontal advection and cloud cover and worked with very limited spectroscopic data. For example, the infrared atmospheric window between 8 and 12 microns and the strong carbon dioxide and water vapor absorption bands beyond 12 microns were unknown at the time.

Arrhenius, Svante (1908). Worlds in the Making. New York: Harper & Brothers.

Now this is really well established science.

Right, this has been standing in it's basic from since 1896! We know full well increasing CO2 increases temperature. The fact that you are trying to deny this is like someone trying to deny the importance of Origin of the Species.

Now part 2.

The unpublished paper you cherry picked in an attempt to create false and non-existent controversy over established science...

For those interested, the idea of GHG's actually storing heat in any amount necessary to increase temps was debunked.

Again this is an outright lie.

253 Coracle  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 1:17:45pm

re: #242 AJStrata

Ludwig Von Beck,

Yes, CO2 is a GHG. But hopefully you know it represents only 3% of the GHG's. So increasing it to 3.5% is not going to do squat globally.

For those interested, the idea of GHG's actually storing heat in any amount necessary to increase temps was debunked.

That kind of debunking is pretty useless, since it is not claimed that GHG's "store heat". Put most simply, GHGs absorb infrared radiation (different gases absorb different wavelengths) emitted from the sun-warmed earth, and then re-emit them in an isotropic fashion. That radiation, without the interference of the GHG, would have escaped the earth to space. If absorbed by a GHG molecule there's a slightly smaller than 50% chance (based on the molecule's altitude) that the energy will be re-emitted in the direction of the surface again, and a nonzero percentage that it will encounter another GHG in whatever direction it is re-emitted.

The entire Gerlich & Tscheuschner paper is geared toward proving that GHGs do not create a "greenhouse" effect. While it is unfortunate that the term greenhouse was used long ago to describe the atmospheric phenomenon, 115 pages is not needed to say so. G&T nowhere challenge successfully the basic physics of absorption and re-emission that drives the "heat trapping" effects of GHGs.

254 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 1:21:49pm

To continue, after looking at the 115 page bit of unpublished, and with good reason crap, from Archiv x, I can honestly say I have never seen a more sophisticated attempts at lies falsehoods and distortions in my entire scientific career.

From the get go, your paper claims that there is no model or calculation to show that CO2 increases temperature.

This is astonishing to claim given that the first of hundreds of such calculations was published in 1896! There have been hundreds refining the idea since.

It could not be any more demonstrably false.

Again, the very basic sorts of things that one needs to take into account were well established over 100 years ago!

Look at the paper!

[Link: onramp.nsdl.org...]

255 Coracle  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 1:24:52pm

Sorry Lud. Looks like I'm tripping over you in the last few posts. Ah well.

256 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 1:32:58pm

re: #252 ludwigvanquixote

Again, the original Ahrenius paper:

[Link: wiki.nsdl.org...]
[Link: onramp.nsdl.org...]

While we are at it...

Here are some more of the many seminal papers on the basic mechanism. The nonsense paper that was unpublished, with good reason would be shocked to find these exist, as it foolishly claims they do not.

Ångström, Knut (1900). "Über die Bedeutung des Wasserdampfes und der Kohlensaüres bei der Absorption der Erdatmosphäre." Annalen der Physik 4(3): 720-32. published online 308(12): 720-32 (2006) [doi: 10.1002/andp.19003081208]

Angstrom! You know that guy we named the unit after?

He made such a calculation way back when too!

Now these were simple models it took the work of Hulbert to really bring it forward in 1931!

Hulburt, E.O. (1931). "The Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere of the Earth." Physical Review 38: 1876-90.

The point in this is that not only is is established science that CO2 concentrations will raise a temperature, but that it is very old and very well established science.

257 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 1:39:27pm

re: #250 Coracle

Conflict of interest? How about actually looking at the data instead. Look at a direct comparison between over 1200 stations in the USHCN system and the cherry picked 70 "best" stations from surfacestations.org: [Here] Big difference? I don't think so. Unless you'd like to say that the entire surface record is completely bogus.

Well that is what he is falsely trying to imply.

This is actually the most sophisticated denier in terms of the amount of bullshit and misdirection to be put up we have yet seen on these boards.

258 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 1:39:39pm

re: #255 Coracle

Sorry Lud. Looks like I'm tripping over you in the last few posts. Ah well.

You are not at all buddy.

259 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 1:40:15pm

re: #255 Coracle

Sorry Lud. Looks like I'm tripping over you in the last few posts. Ah well.

You are not at all, meaning that you are not tripping over me at all. I am glad to have you with me.

260 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 1:51:49pm

Now just to sum up about Mr. Strata.


1. He outright lies about the mechanism of CO2 producing heat in the atmosphere. This has been very well established science for quite some time. The mechanism itself is not even that difficult to understand. The calculations are of course more difficult, but why CO2 must heat your planet should by now be obivous. To falsely attempt to discredit that core science, put Mr. Strata in the same category as someone like disgraced Dr. Behe.

2. He has outright lied multiple times. This has been clearly shown. He made false claims about NASA's programs and what the data says. It was just a lie.

3. He snarks at the peer review process. Real scientists understand that peer reviewed papers with large numbers of citations are considered the most weighty.

4. He does all of this while presenting himself as one with real credentials from NASA in a false attempt to create a non-existent controversy. This is up and up a classic denier tactic. How many times have we seen it?

He posts a bogus paper with bogus claims and then tries to present it as the equal of the actual bulk of real published science and the consensus of the community. This is a classic denier tactic. He even used the words evidence of controversy when I brought real papers debunking him.

Now I hope that I have sufficiently made the case that look, this guy is a liar and a fraud when it comes to the science. What else needs to be shown?

261 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 2:48:20pm

re: #234 AJStrata

Just to debunk some more of your lies:

When you try and claim that this is the warmest period in 10,000 (or 1,000) years there are no temperature records to a tenth of a degree.

And this after I posted two papers, with 800 citations between them, on this very thread, pointing out that you just lied. That is some chutzpah there!

[Link: www.ncof.gov.uk...]
[Link: lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov...]

Now these are reviews on modern sensor techniques and measurements back to 1850 or so... that's fair, what about the other proxy record?

Why don't you read any of the methodologies in the actual papers themselves?

You will find that you are well, just making shit up. Back your claim for a second with some actual peer reviewed science, not the crap from a denier blog. But actual published stuff.

Here is the original Mann paper.

[Link: cas.umkc.edu...]

Cited 908 times, and for that matter completely vindicated from the false attacks of Mckintyre by no less than the National Academy.

[Link: www.nap.edu...]

That's the report, you can download the whole PDF for free from that link!

Here is another great paper:

[Link: www.eos.ubc.ca...]

Again, the methodologies are clearly listed. What is your beef? And uhh, BTW, your claims are again lies. And as you look at the Academy's summary and overview of the literature, you will find not just one hocky stick but rather a hockey team from hundreds of different researchers that tells a consistent story.

The researchers who claim this have also done some very shoddy work. They use proxies like tree rings and varves. But local effects, genetics and many other factors mask any temperature signal in these proxies. A tree is not a thermometer with tenth of a degree accuracy. It just isn't and no one as ever proven that is it. NEVER!

See the above papers... You will find yourself once again conclusively outed as a liar.

So when you compare today's temps to the MWP etc, you cannot claim you know the temperature in those periods they claim.

Uhuh, except there was no medieval warm period!

Here's a cute video on all of this crap: And why not look at the papers shown in the video too:

[Link: www.youtube.com...]

Now again, I know the video is not the same as a science paper, but we both know you will not read the papers I am linking to. Also, the papers I have given you are referred to in this video.

Once again, you are outed as a liar and a fraud.

262 goddamnedfrank  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 5:41:02pm

re: #234 AJStrata

There are two sets of data over the past 30 years. The satellite data (using a single calibrated instrument to measure all points on the globe) shows no significant warming. The ground sensors are not a single instrument, but various instruments of varying quality and precision and placing. The ground network is basically crap. It is not calibrated or maintained to a level that will produce or sense tenth of a degree values. Even if they did, they are so sparsely located they only measure local effects (a few feet) versus the satellites which use a uniform measurement and sense broad areas and up and down the air column.

The 30 year data record I was referring to is of direct satellite measurements of solar irradiance, not the Earth surface temp record. Solar irradiance has not varied by more than 0.1%, or 1.3W/m**2 over that entire period. This is why I say there is no evidence that solar variation is responsible for the current warming on any planet. The inverse-square law only compounds the abject failure of the solar variance "theory" to be conducive to reality.

263 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 5:42:06pm

re: #251 Bagua

Right but this does not get you off the hook for your shenanigans either Bagua.

264 Bagua  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 6:12:21pm

re: #263 LudwigVanQuixote

No, you certainly never appologised for the insults and profanity you have directed at me recently, I assume you stand by those and I expect you will indeed remain the Glenn Beck of this forum as AJStrata has observed.

Yet, I do wish to give you credit for the limited psuedo apology that you did make, as even that amount of self awareness is unusual for you and after all, hope springs eternal with me.

265 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 6:22:51pm

re: #264 Bagua

No, you certainly never appologised for the insults and profanity you have directed at me recently, I assume you stand by those and I expect you will indeed remain the Glenn Beck of this forum as AJStrata has observed.

Yet, I do wish to give you credit for the limited psuedo apology that you did make, as even that amount of self awareness is unusual for you and after all, hope springs eternal with me.

NO that is not what I said. Please relax Bagua.

Where I stand as far as you are concerned is that over and over, I see the pattern of me writing something about something settled, and you sniping that somehow it is not settled in the most general way that smears the whole essay.

Then upon interrogation, no you really only had an issue with one bit. Exactly what the issue was you never say in science terms, you just are pretty sure that one bit isn't so certain.

OK great.

However, this is after four iterations of you snarking at the science I posted and trying to insult the whole thing. It normally takes a few exchanges with you in this passive aggressive manner to really get me furious.

So what I suggest is the next time you decide I have made a claim which you belive is too strong, you point to that specifically - and actually have a reason why it is.

Otherwise you are just being insulting and starting a pissing war. Since I have no evidence that you are going to do otherwise you are not off the hook.

And I do stand behind the diagnosis of your passive aggressive snarky behavior.

I would love it if that were different.


I am making no apologies to Strata per se either about the science. While I greatly commend his views about not liking hateful racists, he took an utterly smug and condescending tone that belittled people here who were actually posting real science long before I got involved. My apology was to the readers here who were right that I should have just stuck to the science and pointed out his lies. Of which there were many.

266 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 6:48:09pm

re: #264 Bagua

And one other thing...

Call me stupid, call me Shirly, doubt my credentials as a scientist... Even cuss at me, but comparing me to Beck is just low.

I mean really Bagua the worst I have ever called you pales in comparison.

267 Bagua  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 6:54:09pm

re: #266 ludwigvanquixote

And I do stand behind the diagnosis of your passive aggressive snarky behavior.

That comment is irrelevant, just you pretending to understand psychology, yet another field you imagine expertise. The insults you made were more in the line of “Asshole, Idiot, liar, little shit”, that sort of thing you consider acceptable discourse. But here again is your normal MO, rephrase everything to read like you only ever were making an innocent comment. I do realise that you are unable to grasp this and that you have let these egregious insults stand. Quite typical of a Malignant Narcissists to play your little game.

As far as the point you were making, if you could take the time to ponder your own words you will find that you articulated a point I have made repeatedly, that when I make a limited and clearly stated criticism, instead of dealing with that you instead launch into an extended essay listing all the things you imagined, incorrectly, that I was alluding to. Thus you are always arguing with the straw Bagua, not I. Once you have calmed down, you often do realize that I was in fact not disputing something I never mentioned. By that time you have launched into a froth of fury and red herrings which is your default behaviour.

This same pattern repeats with other posters as well, as several others have noted.

As far as calling you Beck, that is actually entirely accurate as a personality type. You both are fascinated with yourselves, preen, brag, slander, berate, get worked up into frothy anger and wallow in claims of victimization. You also are both convinced that you are saving the world in your heroic struggles. Different politics to be sure, but very similar personality types.

268 MinisterO  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:08:49pm

re: #263 LudwigVanQuixote
re: #264 Bagua

Please, guys, end this feud. You argue like an old married couple.

269 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:13:28pm

re: #267 Bagua

Fine Bagua take it elsewhere,

I do not care to see hours of work typing science eaten by your interjections. This is not about you.

270 Bagua  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:25:10pm

re: #269 LudwigVanQuixote

Fine Bagua take it elsewhere,

I do not care to see hours of work typing science eaten by your interjections. This is not about you.

That is just the problem Ludwig, your hours of typing are not "eaten" by the corrections I propose, and much of your time typing is insults, grievance and red herrings, not science.

If you focused on the actual points I made instead of launching off into the ether and being so quick to anger and lash out, we could make some progress.

I know you believe science is about the message, the intentions, beliefs and morals of the scientist, I believe Science is about details, facts and accuracy. Fake but accurate does not cut it for me.

271 Bagua  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 7:29:15pm

re: #268 MinisterO

re: #264 Bagua

Please, guys, end this feud. You argue like an old married couple.

I appreciate your view, but this is not a feud. I never call Ludwig "Asshole, Idiot, Liar, Little Shit and so forth" nor to I speak to anyone in that manner. My view is that I am standing up to a brute and a bully in an effort to raise the level of debate,

272 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 8:14:06pm

re: #270 Bagua

I know you believe science is about the message, the intentions, beliefs and morals of the scientist, I believe Science is about details, facts and accuracy. Fake but accurate does not cut it for me.

This is exactly what I mean by endlessly insulting. Find one bit of the science I posed that is fake. I challenge you to do this. You never can come up with anything concrete. You just insult the whole damn thing by calling it fake.

Well guess what Bags,

You are not a scientist.

You do noot know science and when you go and call tyhe science fake, it is the one thing that actually does insult me and make me angry. You do it again and again without any back up or evidence or understanding of your own about the science.

It is unbearably rude.

It makes you a smarmy little shit.

273 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 8:17:49pm

re: #270 Bagua

So just to be fully clear. You are so stuck up that you don't even see how insulting you are. You do not correct me Bags. You do not make corrections for me Bags.

You just sit and make blanket and unfounded insults over painstaking writing, for your own foolish gratification. YOu have yet to make a single substanative claim about a single bit of science I have posted.

You just whine about levels of certainty - without back up, and make insults. Then you wonder why I am pissed.

And then you go on about raising the debate.

Well try this:
Fuck you you smug asshole!

274 Bagua  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 8:21:50pm

re: #273 LudwigVanQuixote


Fuck you you smug asshole!

re: #272 LudwigVanQuixote

It makes you a smarmy little shit.

Amazing. I will not engage or debate on this gutter level.

275 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 8:22:49pm

re: #274 Bagua

Amazing. I will not engage or debate on this gutter level.

And you don't see what a prick you are to earn the rebuke either. Believe me I would be happy if you disappeared from these threads.

276 Bagua  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 8:26:13pm

I do understand that your intention is to bully. I will not stoop to your level and engage in gratuitous insults.

BTW Ludwig Beck, you insult everyone who disagrees with you, not only I. The difference being I am willing to call you out on your disgraceful behaviour.

277 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 8:29:08pm

re: #276 Bagua

And I understand you intention is to slander.

POINT OUT ONE SINGLE THING ABOUT THE SCIENCE I HAVE EVER POSTED THAT WAS FAKE.

Do you have any clue how insanely insulting that is?

No you don't. So stop the games Bagua, I am calling you out. Back up your false claims and your lies once with the actual science.

278 Bagua  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 8:31:44pm

re: #277 LudwigVanQuixote

And I understand you intention is to slander.

POINT OUT ONE SINGLE THING ABOUT THE SCIENCE I HAVE EVER POSTED THAT WAS FAKE.

Do you have any clue how insanely insulting that is?

No you don't. So stop the games Bagua, I am calling you out. Back up your false claims and your lies once with the actual science.

Ludwig, you are way beyond the ability to debate with reason. Retract your outrageous insults, agree to civil debate, and I will happily defend my positions.

Every time I take the time and patience to move the conversation back on topic, you go off on a flurry of angry insults. It is I who am calling you out on this poor behaviour.

279 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 8:42:31pm

re: #278 Bagua

Ludwig, you are way beyond the ability to debate with reason. Retract your outrageous insults, agree to civil debate, and I will happily defend my positions.


Your position is the outrageous insult in of itself. You are the one who always starts with the insults.

This is always the same sick little game with you. It got ancient ages ago.

What was fake?

Do you have any idea how insulting that is?

So answer the challenge.

Either that of just stop.

280 Bagua  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 8:45:27pm

re: #279 LudwigVanQuixote

Ludwig, I made it clear I will not debate with you until you retract your profane insults, something I never did to you.

And yes, I have called you out on other issues in by various posts, not a one of them have you understood or refuted with reason, instead, I just get a string of boorish insults.

Retract and apologize properly if you wish to talk to me.

281 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 8:50:26pm

re: #280 Bagua

Ludwig, I made it clear I will not debate with you until you retract your profane insults, something I never did to you.

And yes, I have called you out on other issues in by various posts, not a one of them have you understood or refuted with reason, instead, I just get a string of boorish insults.

Retract and apologize properly if you wish to talk to me.

In otherwords, you admit you were lying and slandering the science I brought for whatever petty reasons of your own OK.

282 Bagua  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 8:57:11pm

re: #281 LudwigVanQuixote

In otherwords, you admit you were lying and slandering the science I brought for whatever petty reasons of your own OK.

No, I never lie and I stand behind my prior comments. I have already told you that I will not debate or answer your instant demands until you retract and end your profane personal insults.

If you wish to define refusing to debate with a foul mouthed brute as "lying" then that is your problem, not mine.

283 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 9:04:29pm

re: #282 Bagua

No, I never lie and I stand behind my prior comments. I have already told you that I will not debate or answer your instant demands until you retract and end your profane personal insults.

If you wish to define refusing to debate with a foul mouthed brute as "lying" then that is your problem, not mine.

Right, so you call what I brought fake and think that is not an insult. You refuse to back it up and play this prissy game and think that too is not an insult... Right bags...

MMMHMMM.

OK, I've sufficiently proved that you have nothing to my satisfaction.

You are a total intellectual coward by the way as well as condescending and insulting.

284 goddamnedfrank  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 9:06:44pm

I would like to amend my last post to say that the (very consistent) 11 year Solar cycle very well may have a measurable impact on the surface temperature of Mercury, but that is about it.

I would also like to ask Bagua and Ludwig to please stop typing, for the sake of my eyes.

285 goddamnedfrank  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 9:08:10pm

My drunk, late night poli blog surfing, do not deserve this, eyes.

286 goddamnedfrank  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 9:11:08pm

Plus these drunk eyes need to get to fifty posts to rate again, you will comply!

287 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 9:14:51pm

re: #286 goddamnedfrank

Plus these drunk eyes need to get to fifty posts to rate again, you will comply!

You can do it!

288 AJStrata  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 2:44:54am

re: #245 ludwigvanquixote

LOL! Trying to garner some self control finally? Well clearly you failed here too. I have learned a lot about you Ludwig Von Beck as you post your lickspittle ridden rants. But we will get to that at the end. This is going to have to be a multi-part response across comments. Want to give Ludwig Von Beck a reasonable hearing.

This is an outright lie on multiple counts. First off, of course the satellite data shows significant warming.

I never said there was only one satellite. I said there were two SETS of data: ground based and satellite based. I did this to note how a global sample from a single calibrated sensor (or sensors if you must be talked down to) represent a better source of data (precision-wise) than a suite of uncalibrated and verified sensors scattered around the globe. Which is only a step in demonstrating how little is settled in the GW 'science'.

You know, you really need to stop yelling 'lie' when it is your reading comprehension that is failing. but this is one of those interesting things I learned about you. You're used to intimidating people with what I am sure you consider your massive frontal lobes. But there is something about me that I think sets you off. And its not my (calmly laid out) points. It is much deeper. You are compensating with your rants.

For the others here at LGF let me state up front my challenge to the alarmists. There a couple of hypotheses that underpin the AGW argument (I was being too generous before when I elevated them to 'theories'). The unproven hypotheses are:

(1) We can measure a 'global' temperature index that is akin to an average or mean temperature (pay attention to those things called adjectives Ludwig) within a tenth of a degree today.
(2) We can determine a global' temperature index to a tenth of a degree back in time 10's or 100's of years (at least 2,000 would be nice).
(3) By comparing today to the historic record we can determine a global 'normal' temperature index to within a tenth of a degree.

I challenged Ludwig to prove these hypothesis - he failed and instead tried to divert attention to non sequiturs. If any of these fail, the entire argument behind AGW fails. But these are not the only hypotheses that need to be proven to get to AGW, they are just part of the foundation. In addition you have to prove CO2 is the DOMINANT driver behind the global temps - if you can prove you can measure them to the precision claimed. But we are focused just on these three right now. Because my post was about precision, it important to note keep this in mind.

Let's begin with AIRS instrument:

These studies used the AIRS data to show that surface warming leads to an increase in water vapor. This water vapor acts as a greenhouse gas and amplifies the surface warming. The AIRS observations are also consistent with warming predicted by numerical climate models, increasing confidence in model predictions of future warming.

Nice set of reports. But show me the data from AIRS. All you did was link to analysis of AIRS performance. Here is what I was looking for as AN EXAMPLE, something to back up your claim of 30 years of significant warming in the Sat data. AIRS won't do it since it launched in 2002, and as the link I noted pointed out there has been no significant warming since 2002. I will also note AIRS seems to have a precision of only 1° K - not a tenth of a degree. Therefore it cannot be used to claim the 0.6° C increase in temperature over the last 50 years or so, can it? Thats like trying to measure your fingers with a meter stick.

On to Part II

289 AJStrata  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 3:16:32am

re: #245 ludwigvanquixote

Part II.

When I left off I was about to note how the AIRS instrument has discovered that increasing temperature increases H20 in the air (the sort of thing you can work out on your stove with a pan of water)., which 'might' produce a feedback since H2O is the dominant GHG. Which begs the Chicken-Egg debate, which is the cause and which is the result. If simple increases in temperature (without CO2 forcing) can increase H20 then the CO2 gets swamped. In fact, there is no proof (just a hypothesis) that CO2 is the cause and not an effect of higher temperatures (which leads to greater number of animals, etc, etc.)

Anyway I need to get back to Ludwig Von Beck's dodge. Nothing in the AIRS site shows increasing temperatures (of significance) over 30 years. You have something specific bring it on.

ASTER has only been flying since 1999. Again you don't site specific papers or data, just websites. Nice googling there champ but you did not show a 30 year trend of significance in the sat data. Given these were you two top examples (magically in the A's) and they do not show any warming over 30 years I detect another indication about you.

You posted a paper on the process of measuring land temps from space. Where's the data slick? The IPCC paper doesn't show Sat data? You linked to a NASA site showing increased CO2 - but not Sat temperature data.

It seems you went looking and came up empty didn't you? Yet I found Sat data (and linked to it) which showed no significant warming,

You also did not address the issue of uncalibrated ground sensors being used in lieu of consistent and diverging Sat data. Which was the whole point of my post.

So what have I learned. You are a bit of a poser with a career in being an alarmist. I for for one could care less either way. I simply demand proof of the hypothesis. Your penchant to attack people who disagree is a sign of serious insecurity issues. You noted I was a threat when you first tried to post about me here (where I had no account and could not challenge you ) versus on my blog.

But someone confident in their science and conclusions never needs to brow beat people with their frontal lobes. In fact, they tend to be willing to work with others to understand. Leading, not beating.

Which tells me you understand AGW is under serious challenge. Your over reaction tells me you see your life's assumptions falling down around you. If I am right and you are deeply invested in AGW, then your views are biased. QED: few should be listening to JUST you.

Grow a few Ludwig Von Beck, and prove the three hypotheses I listed in Part I of this comment.

Now for anyone else on LGF interested in some science that disproves some of the alarmists' hypotheses, let's look at the idea that America is the largest producer of CO2 and if we just reduce CO2 we can stop the warming. For this to be true our reductions need to offset all other areas producing CO2 (and increasing over time).

Ludwig was kind enough to point me to something on the AIRS site which I had not seen, but confirms results from a Japanese satellite sent into orbit to measure CO2 and GHG. what it showed was pretty stunning (see here).

It turns out America is one of the lowest sources of CO2 and Methane, with the big producers in Europe, Africa, Asia, etc. And it is not just a little less, but a lot less. One of my readers noted that America and the Americas are actually CO2 sinks given our vast forests (which I am 100% behind protecting). This result is confirmed here, where you can see plumes of CO wafting from Asia to America. We cannot reduce our production enough to offset the big producers.

290 AJStrata  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 3:18:03am

re: #247 Coracle

Actually, you made my point. It is not settled science and that is all I said. You seem to have picked one as your preference. Fine. I was debating which theory was leading or right.

291 AJStrata  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 3:23:02am

re: #249 ludwigvanquixote

Dude (yeah, it feels good dude) I did not "lie". What is it with you? Ever mature past 3rd grade?
I simply noted what you missed. The NCDC admits they do not police their sites, they admit some had bad siting and they pointed to a study that only investigated a small sample. Watts has pointed them many times to bad sites they do not deny.

Your personal issues with Watts aside, that indicates to me the sites are crap until proven otherwise. And, as I noted, they do not control all sites world wide (doh - going to call me a lier again dude).

And that is just a diversion from the main point your little lobes cannot grasp. There is no consistency or QA on these ground sensors that give any confidence in a tenth of a degree index for that local, that region, that hemisphere, that land mass or the globe!

Dude.

292 AJStrata  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 3:25:35am

re: #250 Coracle

I have said the entire surface station network is bogus, in terms of generating a measurement for the region, land mass, hemisphere or globe within a tenth of a degree and back 100 years.

My point has been you cannot claim the Earth has warmed 0.6°C in the last 100 years until you prove your measurement system has that precision over that time.

Until then it is a mildly interesting hypothesis in search of a proof.

293 AJStrata  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 3:27:11am

re: #252 ludwigvanquixote

Ludwig, up your game dude. This is the physics I was talking about. (from the original comment)

294 AJStrata  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 3:33:58am

re: #253 Coracle

Well Coracle, you are a step up from Ludwig. Your points are valid to some degree. But the supposition that CO2 re-radiating is going to swamp the other massively more abundant GHG's and other balancing forces in our climate is not intuitive and has never been proven (unless you have some links to share).

That re-radiation, even if it was in significant quantity, could be totally overwhelmed with the H2O cycle, cloud cover, etc, etc. I am open to arguments, but to my you are still in the land of hypothesis here. And you have no long term temperature record of the required precision to prove your hypothesis (that is circular reasoning). So if you have something share it with everyone.

Yes, it was a bit too cheeky to use the term Greenhouse, since it was a lazy attempt to wrongly connect to the general public.

295 AJStrata  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 3:36:18am

re: #260 ludwigvanquixote

Dude, did you enjoy your little self indulgence while I was out last night? Keep stroking those frontal lobes baby - we are all highly impressed.

296 AJStrata  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 7:46:26am

re: #262 goddamnedfrank

Ah, you admit you were wrong! You admit there is no satellite record of a significantly warming climate or atmosphere over 30 years???

Come on, you can admit you tried to answer the wrong point.

297 AJStrata  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 7:47:56am

re: #271 Bagua

You did call him a shit - or was it me?

Very mature, I give you that.

298 AJStrata  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 7:50:07am

re: #274 Bagua

He's insecure - apparently for good reason. Take your own advise. No one can impress Mad Ludwig, everything pales in comparison to his own brilliance!

299 AJStrata  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 7:51:00am

re: #277 LudwigVanQuixote

Too easy:

POINT OUT ONE SINGLE THING ABOUT THE SCIENCE I HAVE EVER POSTED THAT WAS FAKE.

Your brilliance. Game, set and match.

300 AJStrata  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 7:58:41am

re: #297 AJStrata

*He* not *you* - oops

301 MinisterO  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 9:06:30am

Hundreds of lines of name-calling and snark. Very convincing cases you both make here. /

302 goddamnedfrank  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 9:34:45am

re: #296 AJStrata

Ah, you admit you were wrong! You admit there is no satellite record of a significantly warming climate or atmosphere over 30 years???

Come on, you can admit you tried to answer the wrong point.

Re-read the thread "dude." I never referred to the surface temp record. All my references were to measurements of solar irradiance, my link to that record in comment #115 should remove all doubt that may linger in your obviously confused little mind. Your mendacity has (again) been noted.

303 AJStrata  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 9:45:10am

re: #301 MinisterO

Now, now, I did try to sprinkle less snark and more information.

304 AJStrata  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 9:48:01am

re: #302 goddamnedfrank

Why reread what I wrote and you missed??? You responded to my post dude. Not my fault you went off topic someplace else. We were not talking irradiance, but how that irradiance interacts with the planets to create 'climate change'!!

So answer my question - is there a record of significant warming in the satellite record of the last 30 years???

305 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 10:13:59am

re: #291 AJStrata

Look, you can call me all the names that you want, but
please stop pretending.

1. You foolishly claimed that CO2 does not drive temperature. This alone makes you a fraud and a fool.

You have no call to neglect the science going back to Ahrenius. You can dodge all you want with other nonsense, but as soon as you claim that there is no link between CO2 and Temp you just mark yourself as a crazy.

In fact, you gave a BS argument about parts per million and linked to an unpublished paper after making that wild claim,


2. I have already given you dozens of links to actual papers about the methodologies of collecting the data, and honestly all of your red herrings are just that.

As to the links showing the data, you really didn't look hard, as I also provided links the results of the satellite measurements - which by the way, you should know if you do anything actually involved in the field at NASA.

So seem to have conveniently forgot that.

Also don't lie about what you did and did not claim.

Let me reprint it for you.

The satellite data (using a single calibrated instrument to measure all points on the globe) shows no significant warming.

Why not check all those links I gave you a little better? Of course the satellites show warming. In fact why not ask some actual scientists at NASA who work on this to show you the data themselves. They really will talk to computer programmers. You do not need to be afraid.

And no I am not dodging you or your brave schemes. I actually have posted dozens of papers if you look responding to your so called challenges.

In the mean time, respond to mine. Where do you get off denying the basic science or claiming that the satellites don't show warming?

This makes you a supreme fraud and liar. So let me reprint the summary of your false attempts to impress with your non-existent authority.

306 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 10:14:28am

re: #303 AJStrata

Now, now, I did try to sprinkle less snark and more information.

No, all you do is snark mixed in with misinformation.

307 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 10:15:59am

re: #300 AJStrata

Also just to remind you look at #261.

308 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 10:24:03am

And just a little thought experiment...

NASA has 17 missions right now measuring temperature data by a variety of means. They all show that the Earth is warming.

Now, Mr. Strat would have you believe that they do not.

This is a lie. And BTW, the data is up there in those links :)

And here is the thought question... IF they did not show this, DO you think it would be front page news?

Do you think at the very least the GOP and the Oil company types would be screaming bloody murder?

And yet, even those harsh political foes of the science are silent on this.

Hmmm...

NASA says the satellites show warming. The scientists say the satellites show warming (look at the review paper I linked Strata) and the avowed enemies of the science do not claim the satellites do not.

Yet, Mr. Strata bravely, on his kooky, crazy own, would have you believe the opposite.

309 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 10:28:49am

And a repost, because I did respond to your other foolish challenges here is a repost of 261 The links are active if you scroll up.


Just to debunk some more of your lies:

When you try and claim that this is the warmest period in 10,000 (or 1,000) years there are no temperature records to a tenth of a degree.
And this after I posted two papers, with 800 citations between them, on this very thread, pointing out that you just lied. That is some chutzpah there!

[Link: [Link: www.ncof.gov.uk...]...]
[Link: lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov...]

Now these are reviews on modern sensor techniques and measurements back to 1850 or so... that's fair, what about the other proxy record?

Why don't you read any of the methodologies in the actual papers themselves?

You will find that you are well, just making shit up. Back your claim for a second with some actual peer reviewed science, not the crap from a denier blog. But actual published stuff.

Here is the original Mann paper.

[Link: cas.umkc.edu...]

Cited 908 times, and for that matter completely vindicated from the false attacks of Mckintyre by no less than the National Academy.

[Link: [Link: www.nap.edu...]...]

That's the report, you can download the whole PDF for free from that link!

Here is another great paper:

[Link: [Link: www.eos.ubc.ca...]...]

Again, the methodologies are clearly listed. What is your beef? And uhh, BTW, your claims are again lies. And as you look at the Academy's summary and overview of the literature, you will find not just one hocky stick but rather a hockey team from hundreds of different researchers that tells a consistent story.

The researchers who claim this have also done some very shoddy work. They use proxies like tree rings and varves. But local effects, genetics and many other factors mask any temperature signal in these proxies. A tree is not a thermometer with tenth of a degree accuracy. It just isn't and no one as ever proven that is it. NEVER!

See the above papers... You will find yourself once again conclusively outed as a liar.

So when you compare today's temps to the MWP etc, you cannot claim you know the temperature in those periods they claim.

Uhuh, except there was no medieval warm period!

Here's a cute video on all of this crap: And why not look at the papers shown in the video too:

[Link: [Link: www.youtube.com...]...]

Now again, I know the video is not the same as a science paper, but we both know you will not read the papers I am linking to. Also, the papers I have given you are referred to in this video.

Once again, you are outed as a liar and a fraud.

310 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 10:33:07am

PIMF I hate that the formatting doesn't transfer... I wouldn't want to confuse your silly quotes with my writing... I also added some extra points.

Just to debunk some more of your lies:

When you try and claim that this is the warmest period in 10,000 (or 1,000) years there are no temperature records to a tenth of a degree.

Since we have seen fluctuations by much larder than that in the proxy record this is a silly non issue I should add.. However, we do have that accuracy! That is just a lie.


And this after I posted two papers, with 800 citations between them, on this very thread, pointing out that you just lied. That is some chutzpah there!

[Link: [Link: www.ncof.gov.uk...]...]
[Link: lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov...]

Now these are reviews on modern sensor techniques and measurements back to 1850 or so... that's fair, what about the other proxy record?

Why don't you read any of the methodologies in the actual papers themselves?

You will find that you are well, just making shit up. Back your claim for a second with some actual peer reviewed science, not the crap from a denier blog. But actual published stuff.

Here is the original Mann paper.

[Link: cas.umkc.edu...]

Cited 908 times, and for that matter completely vindicated from the false attacks of Mckintyre by no less than the National Academy.

[Link: [Link: www.nap.edu...]...]

That's the report, you can download the whole PDF for free from that link!

Here is another great paper:

[Link: [Link: www.eos.ubc.ca...]...]

Again, the methodologies are clearly listed. What is your beef? And uhh, BTW, your claims are again lies. And as you look at the Academy's summary and overview of the literature, you will find not just one hocky stick but rather a hockey team from hundreds of different researchers that tells a consistent story.

The researchers who claim this have also done some very shoddy work. They use proxies like tree rings and varves. But local effects, genetics and many other factors mask any temperature signal in these proxies. A tree is not a thermometer with tenth of a degree accuracy. It just isn't and no one as ever proven that is it. NEVER!

See the above papers... You will find yourself once again conclusively outed as a liar.

So when you compare today's temps to the MWP etc, you cannot claim you know the temperature in those periods they claim.

Uhuh, except there was no medieval warm period!

Here's a cute video on all of this crap: And why not look at the papers shown in the video too:

[Link: [Link: www.youtube.com...]...]

Now again, I know the video is not the same as a science paper, but we both know you will not read the papers I am linking to. Also, the papers I have given you are referred to in this video.

Once again, you are outed as a liar and a fraud. Go to the original post and read the links to the actual papers done by actual scientists.

311 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 10:34:24am

Again mr Astra, your challenges were answered. GO to 261 and read the actual science.

When you try and claim that this is the warmest period in 10,000 (or 1,000) years there are no temperature records to a tenth of a degree.

Since we have seen fluctuations by much larger than that in the proxy record this is a silly non issue I should add.. However, we do have that accuracy! That is just a lie.

312 goddamnedfrank  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 3:00:46pm

re: #304 AJStrata

We were not talking irradiance, but how that irradiance interacts with the planets to create 'climate change'!!

You continue to dodge the crucial point, how much irradiance a planet receives is governed primarily by orbital distance. I do not expect you to acknowledge this very basic fact. This post serves only to place me at the threshold necessary to down ding your idiocy. Later.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Good Liars at Miami Trump Rally [VIDEO] Jason and Davram talk with Trump supporters about art, Mike Lindell, who is really president and more! SUPPORT US: herohero.co SEE THE GOOD LIARS LIVE!LOS ANGELES, CA squadup.com SUBSCRIBE TO OUR AUDIO PODCAST:Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple.comSpotify: open.spotify.comJoin this channel to ...
teleskiguy
3 weeks ago
Views: 769 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0