Eli Rabbett has encountered Essex and McKitrick's briefing about their book Taken by Storm (which I criticised here) and is not impressed:
with so many dubious claims that one hardly knows where to begin.
Now on ScienceBlogs: myMac 01
Taken by Rubbish
Eli Rabbett has encountered Essex and McKitrick's briefing about their book Taken by Storm (which I criticised here) and is not impressed: with so many dubious claims that one hardly knows where to begin....
Tim Lambert (deltoidblog AT gmail.com) is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales.
« 20th Skeptics Circle | Main | Australian government: climate change debate over »
Category: McKitrick
Posted on: October 29, 2005 11:52 AM, by Tim Lambert
Eli Rabbett has encountered Essex and McKitrick's briefing about their book Taken by Storm (which I criticised here) and is not impressed:
with so many dubious claims that one hardly knows where to begin.
casaubon's book 02.06.2012
denialism blog 02.06.2012
uncertain principles 02.05.2012
life lines 02.04.2012
class m 02.04.2012
Comments
In Mr. Rabett's explanation of the Greenhouse Effect, he states, "The sun pumps energy into the car at a constant rate."
Oh? Over what period? Certainly not in the day time, where energy varies continuously with time of day plus cloud/particulate/other cover; nor annually where irradiance varies seasonally; nor over every 11, 22, 88, 200, 2300 and more years, as the sun cycles in intensity ... nor over earth periods of orbital, precessional etc changes, nor over other cycles in solar irradiance that have been documented to vary and cycle as well.
So the answer to when the sun pumps energy into the car at a constant rate must be, AT NIGHT? Maybe in Mr. Rabett's simplified world, we should only examine the greenhouse effect on the dark side of the atmosphere -- one could simulate closure of the system, by measuring the energy transfer over the light to dark boundaries?
Posted by: JohnMcCall | October 29, 2005 4:44 PM
I offer you my take here.
Posted by: William Connolley | October 29, 2005 5:17 PM
I continue to be heartened at the argumentation the denialists use these days. How is it that such an argument leads the discussion? This is the level of dialogue to flood the zone?
D
Posted by: Dano | October 29, 2005 7:45 PM
It was worth starting a blog if only for the entertainment value of John McCall's post. Many thanks for the grins.
Posted by: Eli Rabett | October 31, 2005 9:39 PM
re:4 Oh, I get it -- you can single out and selectively attack ideas or phrases from somebody whose views you disagree, but when somebody does the same to your own lightweight absurdities, it's entertainment! Like many with such views, your hypocrisy is exposed for all to see. Consult your role model, Professor Schneider.
Re:3 You would be better served by not exposing your lack of insight on things like this (Physics, and especially Thermodynamics). As the old saying goes (updated for blog discourse), when you open your keyboard(?) on such things, you remove all doubt.
Posted by: JohnMcCall | November 10, 2005 9:13 PM