Thursday, April 9, 2015

Denier comment of the day: undermedicated at WUWT

So, let's talk about what went wrong here. First question: what is it about the mentally ill that makes them adverse to paragraph breaks? Really, I sincerely wonder this. Lots of great writers and artists in general have been pretty nutty, yet skilled at their craft. But if you wander into the dark corners of the internet where aliens built the pyramids, vaccines cause autism, or "the Greenies" cooked up the global warming scare, you get headache-inducing rambling like this, the written equivalent of pressured speech. At a certain point horror gives way to pity, and I just wish I could help.

The CO2 numbers are wrong in predictable and boring way, debunked by better men than I here and here. But I do find this interesting: "CO2 naturally is . . . ."

Essentialism is, of course, not a scientific concept. It's interesting to me that for all their hostility to "greenies," many deniers partake in this idea of a natural world with a fixed set of characteristics which is set apart from humans and our influence. This set of assumptions clashes with many other parts of their Weltanschauung, but it creeps in over and over.
A trace gas in our atmosphere being blamed for as we all know here, everything bad. Somehow my civilian intellect is screaming WTF? That on the surface does not make any sense to me.
The denier has a high regard for his own intuition, which he confuses with rational thought. They form a false idea of the subject which emerges from their lack of understanding of the physical world and is animated by paranoia. The reminder of their process of deduction will involve seeking out confirmatory evidence and ideas and shunning other facts and arguments as the pleas of the condemned.
I have complained before to the CAGW Alarmists, I want them to explain exactly
Like a particularly obnoxious child, the denier firmly believes that other people owe him "exact" answers to any question he might be able to formulate, and that a free education is his right. Meanwhile, with ignorance his holy shield, he will beat off any effort to actually help him bring his thoughts in line with reality.
When I read these reports and NOAA comes out saying warmest winter ever, I get crazy.
 Your words, man. Your words.


7 comments:

  1. Why did you chose this comment? Okay he is probably right about himself, but on the scale of WUWT, the comment sounds rather sane and well argued. One could imagine have a long conversation with this guy and explaining him his fallacies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, I didn't pick it because it was the worst of the worst -- it isn't -- but because I thought it was illustrative.

      Delete
  2. Speaking of crazy loons. There's this denialist guy Doug Cotton who not only is a denier of the "greenhouse effect" , but also has substituted it with some crackpot "gravitational-thermal" hypothesis of his own.
    I start out talking to him nice and respectfully here...
    http://www.principia-scientific.org/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-infrared-radiative-structure-of-the-earth-s-atmosphere.html#comment-9486
    but then I finally lose it with him here...
    http://www.principia-scientific.org/stack-theory-mathematics-paper-discredits-greenhouse-gas-climate-alarm.html
    Boy, there are some idiots and crazies about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes indeed, and it is even more sad that more stable people (Curry, Pielke, even Watts himself) will place themselves at the heads of these online mobs of disturbed people. "The company you keep."

      Delete
  3. This 43 minute presentation of the 21st century breakthrough in our understanding of atmospheric physics will blow your mind:
    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-TXYe4rJp0xmbBh51AD8jptu34LAJc-b

    The fictitious, fiddled physics of Climatology

    Climatologists make reference to "the peer-reviewed scientific literature" but in fact they are referring to a cherry-picked subset of such. For example, in a peer-reviewed paper by Dr Hans Jelbring (with a PhD in climatology) which was published in the journal "Energy and Environment" in 2003 Jelbring explained (in my words) that ...

    "the surface temperatures can be determined from the temperature at the radiating altitude extrapolated along the expected temperature profile with a gradient that is based on the force of gravity divided by the weighted mean specific heat of the gases. This calculation works for all such planets."

    What Dr Jelbring wrote then was based on the explanation by the brilliant 19th century physicist Josef Loschmidt that gravity forms a temperature gradient and thus makes the base of the atmosphere warmer, not back radiation from carbon dioxide and water vapour, as climatologists claim. I expanded on their work and explained the necessary heat transfer processes for the first time anywhere in world literature, but based on correct physics that has been overlooked or misunderstood by many.

    In a recent article on WUWT Dr Tim Ball wrote:

    "The global climate campaign was intent on proving to the world that human production of CO2 was causing AGW. This means it was premeditated. It became a crime of passion after the crime was committed because the perpetrators allowed their passion to override and resist anything that revealed the truth. The people involved knew from the start that what they were doing was less than pseudoscience, so it is premeditated. Sadly, if they didn’t know, and there were far too many who didn’t, then they were incompetent."

    Tim Ball also quoted physicist Klaus Eckart Pol:

    "I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements."

    and also another physicist the late Hal Lewis:

    "It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist."

    ReplyDelete
  4. This 43 minute presentation of the 21st century breakthrough in our understanding of atmospheric physics will blow your mind:
    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-TXYe4rJp0xmbBh51AD8jptu34LAJc-b

    The fictitious, fiddled physics of Climatology

    Climatologists make reference to "the peer-reviewed scientific literature" but in fact they are referring to a cherry-picked subset of such. For example, in a peer-reviewed paper by Dr Hans Jelbring (with a PhD in climatology) which was published in the journal "Energy and Environment" in 2003 Jelbring explained (in my words) that ...

    "the surface temperatures can be determined from the temperature at the radiating altitude extrapolated along the expected temperature profile with a gradient that is based on the force of gravity divided by the weighted mean specific heat of the gases. This calculation works for all such planets."

    What Dr Jelbring wrote then was based on the explanation by the brilliant 19th century physicist Josef Loschmidt that gravity forms a temperature gradient and thus makes the base of the atmosphere warmer, not back radiation from carbon dioxide and water vapour, as climatologists claim. I expanded on their work and explained the necessary heat transfer processes for the first time anywhere in world literature, but based on correct physics that has been overlooked or misunderstood by many.

    In a recent article on WUWT Dr Tim Ball wrote:

    "The global climate campaign was intent on proving to the world that human production of CO2 was causing AGW. This means it was premeditated. It became a crime of passion after the crime was committed because the perpetrators allowed their passion to override and resist anything that revealed the truth. The people involved knew from the start that what they were doing was less than pseudoscience, so it is premeditated. Sadly, if they didn’t know, and there were far too many who didn’t, then they were incompetent."

    Tim Ball also quoted physicist Klaus Eckart Pol:

    "I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements."

    and also another physicist the late Hal Lewis:

    "It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist."

    ReplyDelete