Yep, that’s the way they talk about each other, but trying to influence journals NOT TO PUBLISH competitors work is a horse of a different color. That is NOT how science works.
Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by Jim2
↧
↧
Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by Tom
Louise,
The scientists of Astrology understand the Zodiac, and are able to predict the future already. So, why do we need AGW scientists too? We can do more, with less.
↧
Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by Jim Cripwell
Girma you write “Jim, how would you explain the existence of a quadratic function in the temperature record?”
I dont even try. I merely ask the question, how can you prove conclusively that what you have observed, whatever that is, is definitively caused by an increase in CO2? With all the unknowns as to what causes changes in global temperatures, I dont see how you can possibly have established that CO2 must be the cause of the correlation that you have observed.
↧
Comment on Aerosols and Atlantic aberrations by Paul Vaughan
↧
Comment on Aerosols and Atlantic aberrations by John from CA
Thanks R. Gates,
It also relates to the climate hacking craziness. There was a scheme proposed to increase plankton blooms by introducing iron to the oceans. Do they fully understand, if they do this it can also effect climate?
↧
↧
Comment on Letter to the dragon slayers by peteridley
Hi Stephen (ref. http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-191200) thanks for once again trying to enlighten Dougy and maybe, just maybe, he’s starting to move ever so slightly those blinkers that the “Slayers” may have given him as a gift when he joined their PSI blogging group. I recall that you made a similar but more detailed explanation for Dougy’s benefit on the 8th Feb. (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-166940). It had no impression on him then but there is always hope, even with Dougy.
You never did get back about my response regarding Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) campaigner Professor Iain Stewart’s deliberately rigged demonstration in the CACC-supporting BBC’s “Climate Wars” propaganda series. In that demo. then Dr. Stewart deliberately tried to mislead the audience into thinking that CO2 is opaque to IR.
I repeat what I said on 8th Feb. QUOTE:
There is one thing that you are totally wrong about, “ .. we know that C02 is opaque to IR. Here is a video that shows how C02 “blocks” IR. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo .. ”.
CO2 is NOT opaque to IR, it is opaque to only a very narrow band of IR. Water vapour, which is opaque to much more IR than CO2 is not opaque to all IR. The set-up for the demonstration to which you linked, presented by Professor (then Dr.) Iain Stewart for the BBC’s “Climate Wars” programme was designed by Dr. Jonathan Hare. He was forcewd to rig the set-up in order to give the impression to the viewers that the IR emitted by the candle flame was prevented from reaching the IR camera by the CO2.
Without the use of a 4 micron filter the demonstration would have provided no indication whatsoever that CO2 absorbs any IR. See my comment here on November 6, 2011 at 9:01 am for further details (I’m surprised that you missed it) .. UNQUOTE (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-166967).
Any comment this time on that bit of BBC CACC propaganda?
Best regards, Pete Ridley
↧
Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by Steven Mosher
a banana is yellow
↧
Comment on Letter to the dragon slayers by peteridley
In Feb. 2010 “Slayer” John O’Sullivan wrote an article about the BBC. “Follow the money: BBC exposed in biggest climate racket on planet” (http://www.climategate.com/follow-the-money-bbc-exposed-in-biggest-climate-racket-on-planet). John reported on the link between the BBC pension fund and investments in renewable energy through “ .. The chairman of IIGCC and BBC head of pensions investment Peter Dunscombe .. ”.
If what John said then is correct (and I have no reason to believe otherwise) then this could explain the obvious BBC support for the CACC hypothesis (http://biased-bbc.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/climate%20change). “ .. The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) is a forum for collaboration on climate change for European investors .. ” (http://www.iigcc.org/) in association with Gore, Soros, UN, etc.etc.etc. (http://www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/documents/14jan_investor_statement_pressrelease.pdf) – ’nuff said?
Best regards, Pete Ridley
↧
Comment on Letter to the dragon slayers by peteridley
In Oct 2009 the general public were made aware of the disingenuous nature of certain aspects of CACC science with the release of the first batch of “Climategate” E-mails. John O’Sullivan may have seen Climategate as providing another career opportunity. His 20-year teaching career had come to an abrupt end in Feb. 2003 (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-148855) and he appears to have tried several different career paths since then (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-132934 Para. 4), the latest being CEO and Legal Consultant to the PSI blog (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-o-sullivan/19/6b4/84a) .
It seems that John only started assembling his team of “Slayers” in early 2010, pulling together a group of sceptical climate change bloggers and persuading them to join him and contribute to that cobbled-together hodge-podge of blog articles “Slaying the Sky Dragon”. The names of members of the original group started appearing in E-mails that I had from John in Spring 2010. There were Hans, Alan Siddons and me in April, Kent Clizbe (now dissociated) later that month, Joe Olson, Martin Hertzberg and Tim Ball in May, Charles Anderson, Piers Corbyn (now dissociated?) and Will Pratt (now dissociated) in June (Dr Spencer was Ccd on many of those E-mails so perhaps John was trying to get him involved too).
Then came John’s invitation on 3rd July 2010 “ .. Friends, Co-author with me on my new book project .. John .. ” and the outcome, the “Slayers” claiming to be “Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory” (http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/slaying-the-sky-dragon-muddled-confusing/). The comments on Lucia’s thread say it all, especially the final one by Steve Mennie “ .. this tome was definitely not to be taken seriously .. ”.
In his latest offering (April 9 at 12:57 am) dear old Dougy says of the PSI blog membership numbers “ .. about 36 of us now .. ”. On 19th March it was “ .. a growing membership of PSI (now over 40 I understand).. ” then on April 4th it was “ .. nearly 40 of us now .. ”. So from over 40 to about 36 in less that a month. When I dared to suggest on 26th Sept. to John O’Sullivan about “ .. what appears to be a dwindling group of “Slayers” he retorted “ .. your unsubstantiated claim ( in effect, a lie) about the Slayers being in decline is laughable .. ”. Come on Dougy, lets all have a good laugh. Since “transparency” is claimed to be so important to the PSI blog what’s the real number of members. I speculate 10 at the most.
As usual, if anything that I have said here is considered to be unfair or a misrepresentation of the facts then please let me know and I will consider whether or not a retraction or apology is warranted. The last thing that I wish to do is misinterpret the evidence that has been made available to me and present a misleading picture to others.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
↧
↧
Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by Girma
No.
Here is my reading of the IPCC projections
2000=>0.4 deg C
2010=>0.6 deg C
2015=>0.7 deg C
2025 => 0.9 deg C
Check the above values here => http://bit.ly/HnYPQf
↧
Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by Bart R
Just for fun:
↧
Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by jim
He’s retired or unemployed, as are all the rest of us here
↧
Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by Bart R
Jim2
It’s simple courtesy to our host.
What I lack in quality, I’m endeavoring to make up in quantity. 
Truthfully, I’m beginning to suspect there’s something wrong with anyone who would post one tenth so compulsively to any blog. 
↧
↧
Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by jim
The ‘A’ alternative left unwritten…
↧
Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by jim
It is the ‘A’ alternative…
↧
Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by stefanthedenier
Jim D | April 9, 2012 at 1:03 am said: Stefanthedenier, so if I take a temperature now and one hour from now and it changes by 1 degree
Jim DJim D, with your thermometer, statistically you can average the temp for your ‘’BEDROOM’’, no worries (NOT, if you don’t have data for the coldest minute also – swindlers don’t take for the coldest minute). But for the whole GLOBAL temperature… where are you going to position your thermometer… under your armpit, or into some other place?! Your cheap trick will work on the D/H Fake Skeptics / the flat earthers. They know exact temperature on the WHOLE planet for 1234BC, when the earth was flat and 2/3 of the GLOBE didn’t exist – ‘’before the invention of the thermometer’’ That means; against your one thermometer – you are only half the liar than they are. Just tell them that; for IPCC is used 6000 thermometers, that will convince them. As long as you don’t tell them that: 6000 thermometers are sufficient for 6000 rooms…. Hilton hotels have 12000 rooms – wouldn’t be enough. They cannot notice that the planet has bigger troposphere than 6000 rooms; because every fake Skeptic has common sense / logic and honor/dignity of a fence post.
They don’t even monitor for the coldest minute / the word ‘’cold’’ obviously irritates them – it spells ‘’long jail terms’’. Also Jim, if you monitor for one hour temperature – will not tell you even close; what the average temperature will be for that same day. They are monitoring for you and Girma, only the hottest minute of the day – but are ignoring the other 1439 colder minutes for that day; EVEN THOUGH THEY FLACTUATE INDEPENDANTLY and never same as the hottest minute. One minute, will not tell you the temperature for that day – they have temp from 365 minutes, for the WHOLE year… from 6000m3, for the WHOLE planet. On the witness stand, under oath; those and many other questions I have prepared for the leading Swindlers; there questions cannot be silenced, or avoided.
Jim, the genuine non-believer in ANY phony GLOBAL warming – but believer in constant big / small climatic changes, says: ‘’’if they monitor for every 10 minutes of the year; for every 10m3 in the whole troposphere, they will see that: overall every day of every month and year has exactly the same temperature. Because the laws of physics and my formulas prove that: EXTRA HEAT IN THE TROPOSPHERE IS NOT ACCUMULATIVE !!! For the last 150y, in the troposphere hasn’t accumulated enough EXTRA heat, to boil one chicken egg!!! The truth will win JimD, you are pissing against the wind… not a prudent position to chose.
↧
Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by Bart R
jim | April 9, 2012 at 11:21 pm |
He’s retired or unemployed, as are all the rest of us here
Sorry; wrong on all counts.
A full and healthy family and social life, never blog from (full time) job, maintain regular exercise routine, part-time studies, and do charity work besides, as well as regular reading for enjoyment and some television watching.
Technology, typing like a demon, Evelyn Wood, and neglecting to proof-read will do wonders.
When I was an undergraduate, there was some speculation by fellow physics students about the Schwarzschild radius of the object in my brain responsible for the spontaneous .. well, let’s just say, it’s not a new habit, and related to why I pursued seven minor degrees back then.
However, I’m not paid to post here, no.
You may accept either that I lost a bet, or http://xkcd.com/386/
↧
↧
Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by Jim D
It works out to be 10000 chicken eggs for every square meter of the earth’s surface over the last century (assuming one egg is equivalent to bringing 1 kg of water to the boil). An average 1 W/m2 imbalance adds up to that. That’s one egg per square meter every three days on average.
↧
Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by WebHubTelescope
So the Captain Kangaroo doesn’t have a deep feel for stochastic processes. That’s why he makes so many mistakes, and why he can’t even tell whether the quote pulling he engages in supports his agenda.
That’s just the way it goes.
“Even scepticalscience disagrees. Heat doesn’t diffuse into the ocean – heat just doesn’t emerge from the ocean.”
This is just double-speak. The rule is that thermal energy will flow from regions of high concentrations to regions of low concentration, in keeping with an increase in entropy.
“They are beneath contempt but still a threat to be regognised. “
Nice. Cliche Olé.
↧
Comment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by stefanthedenier
@ Jim D | April 10, 2012 at 12:01 am | said: It works out to be 10000 chicken eggs for every square meter of the earth’s surface over the last
century (assuming one egg is equivalent to bringing 1 kg of water to the
boil).
JimD, according to longitude, looks like you are on similar longitude as me = not ”decriminalized for medicinal purposes” the hallucinatory substances. you must be hallucinating that the surface temperature is warmer by 85C now than 100y ago. Suggesting to know what the correct GLOBAL temperature was 100y ago – that doesn’t say anything about the temperature; but about your credibility. in the backyard you can find 10 different variations in temp. My 3-4 year old question hasn’t been answered by any swindler from both camps: ”WHAT WAS THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE LAST YEAR” ?!?!?!
Nobody knows correct GLOBAL temp for last year to save his life. You know correct temp for 100y ago? Take it easy on that stuff. You are starting to sound as WebHub; he talks things that wouldn’t make sense to an earthworm, just to contradict. Jim D, check on my formulas; because other people do -after when you are avoiding the facts that counts… appears silly for you to talk about warmer / colder planet. Jim, don’t be with the losers. People telling constantly lies, cannot be good people. Chronic liar = embarrassments, disasters follow. Think about it, first. .
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
