Some of us may be wondering whatever happened to the dana who we all love and miss so much. Well, Lubos Motl at the Reference Frame has a nice little update on the adventures of dana:H/t: Mindert Eiting
Why Dana 1981 Hasn’t Proved…
By Lubos Motl
Dana1981 is a 30-year-old Prius driver and the owner of several other alternative vehicles who has mistakingly received a bachelor degree in astrophysics and a master degree in physics, so he or she became a self-described environmental scientist who is “passionate” about the climate hysteria.
Clearly, such people shouldn’t be admitted as college students because they’re incapable of rational thinking. The presence of people like him dramatically cripples the intellectual atmospheres at the world’s universities…”
PS: My advice to you dana is: I wouldn’t mess with Lubos, as he would certainly do physics circles and orbits around you. Dana, you’ve only proved one thing, and you may realize what that is when you get older.
26 responses to “Why Dana 1981 Hasn’t Proved Climate Disruption”
Readers- Click on the dana1981 link and scroll down to his photo gallery. He’s got quite an assortment of photos there. I wonder if he has any of them as posters in his bedroom.
I’d say he’s just a wee bit religious about being green. I don’t want to say anything bad about him – seems like a nice enough fellow. He just ought to consider he might be wrong.
Pierre, better put Lubos’ words above in quotation marks so passers by don’t think you wrote them… Typical Lubos…
Thanks Dirk…good idea.
Readers might want to note that Lubos couldn’t even handle the first question that Dana asked in response to his comments about the tropospheric hot spot and then after 4 very polite posts banned Dana and deleted all but the first post.
Note that Lubos actually admitted that he was wrong about the hot spot, as Dana pointed out, but deleted that too.
Hence, Lubos folded like a cheap suit.
If that’s true, he behaved like RC. Hmm… Best practices? 😉
You know, that degree series doesn’t sound possible. When I went to school it was a BS in Physics, then an MS in Astrophysics.
The degree sequence is possible nowadays, Ed.
My own undergraduate institution, Siena College, now offers a BS of astrophysics in addition to a BS of physics.
Siena College formerly provided the standard undergraduate curriculum in physics as prerequisite for a BS, as developed by the APS, including Physics I-IV, elctrodynamics 1,2, mechanics 1,2, modern optics, quantum mechanics, nuclear physics, particle physics, thermal physics, solid state physics, math physics 1,2.
Most of those have unfortunately disappeared from the curriculum offered, and what is offered is an admixture of “astrophysics” courses without a curriculum set by any educational accreditation entity.
The problem is that many rather “fringe” subjects such as Planetary Climatology[!] have crept into the curriculum, the product of the curriculum being a dumbed down version of a BS science student.
There are no standards left in “science” any more, it’s a free-for-all to go do what “feels good” and call it “science”
If Dana1981 is the same Dana as appeared on ths blog, I conclude that he produced an anti-scientific rant that could not be justified by proper argument.
Simply reiterating the idea that there are hundreds of papers that show he is correct and anyone who challenges this is a cretin does not hold the intellectual high ground.
What a waste…. of time and effort.
He’s driving a Toyota Prius.
That sucks too.
I do not doubt the ability of Dana’s brain; the concern is that it is a driven, bordering on a zealot’s brain. I do not mean this in a derogatory way; it is just that as so it closes off options. It is very difficult to view with an open mind presentations that have so obviously been produced by a closed mind.
There are too many variables in this very emotive subject for anybody to allow themselves the luxury of certainty.
Also claims of absolute certainty can be seen, rightly or wrongly, as a sign of arrogance, especially to the inquiring sceptic mind.
Clearly his photo gallery, writings and lifestyle confirm his enviro-religiousness. His complete exclusion of the possibility of being in error is not a scientific approach. And so he can’t be taken seriously when it comes to climate science. And that’s why it’s impossible to have a discussuion with him, making his expulsion from this blog inevitable from the start. Nothing is going to change this guy’s mind.
And the more peer (pal)-reviewed literature he finds supporting his position, the harder his convictions will get, as will his zealotry to dismiss anything that contradicts his position.
I was always led to believe that the automatic reaction of any scientist to any new scientific claim is to be sceptical. Critical thinking is vital while a closed mind with usually lead you to error.
O/T I was looking for information about the variation of LWIR backradiation and found this fascinating experiment by Dr. Roy Spencer. He’s constructed a box that can only be warmed by IR backradiation during the night to demonstrate the GHG effect. IMHO, there should be some seasonal variation with humidity and sky temperature – does anyone have more information about the extent of this variation?
I really think the Science of Doom guy is the person to contact on that subject. I think he’ll give you an honest answer about it.
There are many such constructions, such as by Arthur Smith.
None of the constructions provide a means for a cooler atmosphere (stratosphere) to BECOME COOLER and at the same time warm a lower atmosphere (troposphere), at least not if heat transfer is possible (as by conduction).
Stratosphere has to cool if there is more CO2 in the atmosphere, and that leads to a contradiction that cannot be resolved within the realm of physical science anyway.
That is why “global warming” has nothing to do with physical science anyway, there would be howling about “deniers” from the other side if it was physical science. There would be nothing to howl about.
I remember Dr. Roy’s series of posts and experiments.
I did ask him if he took into account the surface heating, retention, and later (varying) release that effected one part of the experiment (over soil and within vegetation), but not the other (because it was insulated).
He dismissed the suggestion.
I was not impressed with his experiment in all honesty, in fact, in the respect I mention it seemed to be quite misleading. A seemingly deliberate misdirection of the reader I thought.
I asked him if he had not taken this into account wouldn’t it more than likely explain most if not all the differences, rather than “back radiation”…
He did not answer for sometime, and when he did it was “indirectly”.
O/T but this is just amazing:-
NASA : “FOSSIL FUELS TRUMP LA NINA”
“Are the geniuses at NASA unaware that 2010 was an El Nino year, and that 2011 is when La Nina shows up in the temperature record? Why are these people being paid to do science which would flunk them out of most middle schools?”
I, for one, would be interested to know who at NASA besides Hansen and his pet poodle Gavin are doing the AGW thing for a living at NASA.
There’s no way to stop it either, except to re-direct their mission (but unfortunately has been attempted in the past without avail)
Well, Pierre, Dana1981 did not follow your advice, and has been severely punished by Lumo in the comments.
Thanks for the tip. I guess we didn’t need a model to see that coming.
Face it, dana is a zealot, and his life is ruined because of it, as he can no longer think flexibly. His thinking now must conform to a green ideology.
If he’s so smart, why does Lubo only cite one paper as ‘proof’ of the solar hypothesis (while not even specifying which Lean et al. he’s referring to…), while ignoring several of the most recent that completely debunk his 1/2 claim?
Cherry picking of literature is no different than cherry picking of data, especially as Judith Lean’s 2010 review,
estimates the solar contribution at 10% or less during the past century.
Someone is being less than honest here.
“Cherry picking of literature is no different than cherry picking of data” – a reformulation of the litany “98% of climate scientists say AGW is true”… No, Edwin, you don’t understand science. One truthful paper can send a thousand wrong papers to the dustbin.
FYI, there’s a recent review article in the Dec. 2010 Review of Geophysics on ‘Solar Influences on Climate’. It’s quite long, but very comprehensive. Here’s a PDF copy:
>No, Edwin, you don’t understand science. One truthful paper can send a thousand wrong papers to the dustbin.
You completely missed the point. That paper is by the SAME AUTHOR that Lubo dishonestly claimed backed his 1/2 solar fantasy. So, Lubo is either a complete liar or a hack scientist who can’t be bothered with reading the most recent literature.
So, do you either have a real rebuttal, or can you only attack the messenger with nonsensical personal attacks?
And yes, I understand science. How many peer-reviewed publications do you have again?
How is it nonsensical to try to explain to you that there is no such thing as “cherrypicking papers”? It has no meaning – that’s like saying i’m cherry-picking a painting when i’m talking about the Mona Lisa; or saying that i’m cherry-picking a piece of music when talking about Beethoven’s Ninth.
No, you still don’t understand science. Try again.