Food fight

Those anxiously awaiting my detailed reply to RP’s reply to my reply to RP’s attack on the IPCC are doomed to disappointment. I’m afraid its fallen into the lifes-too-short category.

In summary: RP has forgotten the T^4 radiative feedback; and the IPCC figure is a difference from 1750.

Now, who to vote for, or against?

Comments

  1. #1 Hank Roberts
    2007/12/05

    >vote
    Advice welcome, on that, I’m guessing none of them are you?

    [Oh no, I have no time... -W]

  2. #2 windansea
    2007/12/05

    nice, make a drive by and then plead incompetence

    [A self referential comment, how sweet -W]

  3. #3 WVhybrid
    2007/12/06

    I see that RPs still has his comments turned off. How convenient!

    William, all the best in your new career!

    From a friend across the pond.

  4. #4 Roger A. Pielke Sr.
    2007/12/07

    William – I am disappointed. Restating your misinterpretation of my weblog does not add to the scientific discussion of the issues I raised.

    In any case, best wishes for the Holidays! Roger

    [Nor does your restatement of your original point. I fear we shall have to agree to disagree over this. Festive wishes to you & your family too -W]

  5. #5 Eli Rabett
    2007/12/07

    WVhybrid, think asymmetric blogfare.

  6. #6 Steve Bloom
    2007/12/08

    Roger, that’s mighty bold talk for someone who’s turned off the comments on his blog. You got plenty of scientific response when you had them turned on. Going forward, of course there will be less interest in responding to your material since most of those reading your website won’t see the responses.

    While it’s true that you also got a lot of noise in the comments, that’s mainly because you kept encouraging those denialist fanboyz.

  7. #7 windansea
    2007/12/09

    [A reminder to people that politeness is required -W]