Comment on Republican(?) brain by jim
hunter, intellect vs morphology. I make fun of ideas, all of our ideas stand on their own merit. What we each look like is irrelevant. And: No condemnation on my part. Eminent domain or otherwise. I...
View ArticleComment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by peterdavies252
A good exposition Bart. It seems that Lindzen has only won one round so far and is heading for an overall point loss. The weaknesses shown by both fighters would make a knockout result highly unlikely.
View ArticleComment on Republican(?) brain by jim
Judith, I hope you need me to ask this, but; would you ever care what they think? so nothing squared equals nothing
View ArticleComment on Authority(?) in political debates involving science by...
You two have clinically insane perspectives on the physics. Both of you plainly don’t understand a thing about photonics, and especially are clueless on how Bose-Einstein statistical mechanics...
View ArticleComment on Republican(?) brain by jim
what we each look like is irrelevant, and ridicule of appearances is much more hurtful than any joust of ideas.
View ArticleComment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by jim
No, the other judges may have scored it differently…
View ArticleComment on Pseudoscience (?) by WebHubTelescope
Dave, You and me both. That interest spurred Michale Schermer to title one of his books “Why do people believe in weird things?” Schermer would have a field day on this blog.
View ArticleComment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by Pythagoras
I personally don’t share Lindzen’s belief that a reliable cost benefit analysis can be constructed that justifies a do nothing approach. It seems like no one is considering that just as there might be...
View ArticleComment on Meteorological March Madness by WebHubTelescope
“Tell me why potential energy differences don’t decrease. Of course I don’t mean ALWAYS. Tell me why a warmer world automatically means more extremes.” You have got to be kidding me. No natural...
View ArticleComment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by HAS
Actually if we aren’t allowed to dispute his book then he loses here with an “own goal”. From the 2007 version: “We cannot rule out the potential for catastrophic impacts that might overwhelm the...
View ArticleComment on Authority(?) in political debates involving science by...
“The diffusion concept is incorrect. There are multple sources and multiple sinks. So it is a problem that is different in kind to a simple atmospheric source and sink idea.” Captain #2 doesn’t...
View ArticleComment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by vukcevic
I wouldn’t think so. Temperatures in the far reaches of the North Atlantic may be directly controlled by the Icelandic low. You may find some of my research if you follow this link:...
View ArticleComment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by Bart R
jim | April 5, 2012 at 4:07 am | While I’m not so old as Oscar Wilde, I did intentionally misword the quote, to avoid deletion, yes.
View ArticleComment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by Willis Eschenbach
Who the heck is Julio? You need to cite more. w.
View ArticleComment on Authority(?) in political debates involving science by Pooh, Dixie
“it will be discarded, but the goal will not.” “Sustainability”, perhaps?
View ArticleComment on Lindzen et al.: response and parry by Willis Eschenbach
Steven Mosher | April 5, 2012 at 2:44 am | Reply For something simpler start here http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/a-simple-analysis-of-equilibrium-climate-sensitivity/ I read that and found it to...
View ArticleComment on Authority(?) in political debates involving science by capt....
Web, how did that work out for Oliver? I tend to take most everything I read on the internet with a grain of salt myself.
View Article