In yet another example of the squelching of scientific debate by those advocating for the position that dangerous anthropogenic global warming is a cosmic threat, Dr. Katharine Hayhoe, climate scientist, has been found twitter-blocking fellow scientists who have the audacity to ask her to support her views on the greenhouse effect.
Image Source: https://twitter.com/NikolovScience
For over a year now, physical scientist Dr. Ned Nikolov has been enthusiastically debating anyone and everyone on his twitter page who wishes to challenge his conclusions on the mechanisms that set macro planetary temperatures.
Frequently referencing the comprehensive explanations found in their 2017 scientific paper, New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model (Nikolov and Zeller, 2017), Dr. Nikolov has garnered a reputation for responding openly and directly to each serious query or objection to his views.
Casual observers of his twitter page may notice that Nikolov does not shrink away from defending his theories. He invites debate and challenges to his climate theories.
The intriguing empirical planetary temperature model he espouses is one of the featured presentations at this weekend’s Basic Science of a Changing Climate conference in Porto.
Image Source: Porto Conference 2018
In direct contrast to the openness to debating ideas and the scientific method, Dr. Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist who believes that up to 123% of climate change is caused by humans, has taken to twitter-blocking scientists like Dr. Nikolov. Why? Because he dared to ask her to discuss the basics of the greenhouse effect with him.
Hayhoe apparently finds it threatening to debate scientists who disagree with her about the role of greenhouse gases or human activity in climate change.
Is silencing those who challenge one’s views now accepted practice among climate scientists? Apparently so.
And there we have the problem with you cultists. It’s all about debating stuff as if they were a possibility. Nikolov is a good example of such a person, he uses the same vocabulary as you guys.
A smart person once said: never debate a cultist, they know all the arguments that get you into that cult!
If you believe Dr. Nikolov’s empirical results are invalid and that you know far more about planetary physics than he does, please enlighten both him and all of us by directly debating him on his twitter page. He’d surely love to take you on, as he’s up for the challenge. I have yet to see a challenger prevail on his twitter page when debating with him directly, but perhaps you will be the first.
Calling Dr. Nikolov a “cultist” and insulting those who consider or refuse to summarily dismiss the evidence eagerly presented both in his paper and on his twitter page is not substantive.
Can I assume you also support Dr. Hayhoe for blocking Dr. Nikolov after he invited her to debate the fundamentals of the AGW viewpoint?
What results? It barely matches up and the notion that pressure is causing the greenhouse effect is ridiculous. But I see why you like this guy, his Twitter feed is full of references to clouds cover changes causing everything. How that’s compatible with pressure causing everything is beyond my capabilities of understanding pseudoskeptic logic 😉
1) http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/08/making-elephant-dance-as-performed-by.html
2) https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/08/08/no-pressure-alone-does-not-define-surface-temperatures/
3) https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/10511/is-the-unified-theory-of-climate-nikolov-zeller-compatible-with-the-agw-ghg
It has been debunked many times and I don’t know why you pseudoskeptics still treat it like those two pseudo(-nym) scientists found something that “destroys” the greenhouse theory.
I can see why someone would block annoying people, but I don’t like to block people in general. Stupidity needs a voice too, only it should not be equally weighted with the rest.
Curious. Do you think you and the authors of those blog posts fully understand the results found in the paper well enough that you could debate him on his points directly (i.e., referencing what he has actually written rather than what the straw man arguments in the blog posts say he has)?
Well then you should have no problem with debating Dr. Nikolov 1:1, showing him just how wrong he is. Why not do so?
Pretty simple: the cloud cover changes influence decadal- and centennial-scale natural climate variation (like the 1 degree C change since the depths of the cold Little Ice Age), whereas the pressure forcing (+solar irradiance) sets the generalized macro planetary temperature (i.e., the temperature of Mars or Venus vs. Earth).
You’d know about this very clearly stated distinction if you actually bothered to read the paper:
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf
Potential limitations of the planetary temperature model
“Equation (10b) describes long-term (30-year) equilibrium GMATs of planetary bodies and does not predict inter-annual global temperature variations caused by intrinsic fluctuations of cloud albedo and/or ocean heat uptake. Thus, the observed 0.82 K rise of Earth’s global temperature since 1880 is not captured by our model, as this warming was likely not the result of an increased atmospheric pressure. Recent analyses of observed dimming and brightening periods worldwide [97-99] suggest that the warming over the past 130 years might have been caused by a decrease in global cloud cover and a subsequent increased absorption of solar radiation by the surface.”
Since you believe Dr. Nikolov is stupid, all the more reason to go ahead and show him just how stupid he is. Debate him. We’ll sit back and watch how you fare.
did my reply vanish?
roflmao
seb cites blogs run by scientific non-entities, even the clown from “andthenthereisNOphysics”, and eli the rabid. WOW !!!.
Always the way with you, isn’t it seb.
NOTHING there comes close to debunking anything Dr Nikolov puts forward.. just “oh, I don’t like it” All based on standard AGW ignorance and arrogance.
Sorry you STILL haven’t got the education or intelligence to comprehend the gravity thermal theory as being the cause of the badly named “GHE”
There is certainly ZERO EVIDENCE that enhanced atmospheric CO2 has anything at all to do with climate or atmospheric temperatures.
You have NOTHING, as usual, you poor pathetic troll.
I like the term “scientific non-entities” … since you are one, how can you judge others? And why do you think pseudo(-nym) Nikolov & Zeller are not “scientific non-entities”?
Oh boy … no, I don’t comprehend nonsense. How can anyone?
Poor seb
You have proven that you STILL have zero comprehension of basic physics
You are STILL TOTALLY UNABLE to support the very basis of the AGW scam
You are STILL playing the evasion and distraction HEADLESS CHOOK routine.
Let’s all watch as the poor little troll runs away , YET AGAIN from producing any real evidence. 🙂
Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?
Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?
So funny, seb.
“Oh boy … no, I don’t comprehend nonsense. How can anyone?”
Obviously you don’t read your own posts, seb.
It really is basically INCOMPREHENSIBLE how anyone could write as much garbage as you do.
Stick to your little EVIDENCE-FREE fantasy fairy-land , seb.
“Stupidity needs a voice too, only it should not be equally weighted with the rest.”
ROFMLAO.. use a mirror, seb.
Why do you think Pierre let’s you post here. seb!
The utter stupidity of most of your posts shows just how dumb and idiotic the AGW cult has become.
As mentioned earlier..
those post have ZERO worth,
ZERO rational thought..
they have ZERO SUBSTANCE
and carry ZERO WEIGHT in any argument.
They accomplish nothing, because they are EMPTY.
Their only reason for existence is attention-seeking trolling and wasting space and time.
Now do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE AT ALL for CO2 warming, seb, or are you going to keep up your headless chook evasion routine.
I see warmist stupidity a lot too, especially at this forum:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/environment.84/
I suppose because he likes the troll replies of yours to whatever I write?
Wrong.
So seb…
Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE AT ALL for CO2 warming?
YES or NO.
If yes.. THEN PRODUCE IT. !!!
If NO.. then have the guts to admit that you don’t.
I know …
It’s because you are a good guy deep down and don’t block other opinions like so many pseudo skeptic blogs do. I applaud you for that level of tolerance even though it must be hard from time to time.
It seems to be easier for you to tolerate guys like spike55 though, that’s why I wrote what i wrote above 😉
You are the one continually making mindless unsupportable anti-science claims, then refusing to back up even the most basic farce of the AGW scam
You KNOW that your only purpose here is as a time and space wasting troll.
At least TRY TO BE HONEST about your motives.
Not in your nature, though, is it seb.
Uh, it’s not the skeptic blogs that block comments. It’s blogs like realclimate.org and skepticalscience.com that do. No comments from skeptics are allowed there. Why?
At Twitter, you don’t even need to comment at many warmist accounts because they have a blacklist of people to block. Mann, Rahmstorf, Hayhoe, for example, have me blocked even though I never or very rarely commented at their accounts. I assume their ban applies to other skeptics as well.
I am a moderator at WUWT, who got someone here put into moderation to stop his overbearing replies. He was never banned, just slowed down to make the point of improving his civility level.
He is otherwise a good writer who deserves to continue to expose warmists absurdities, my self enjoy reading them along with many others.
He has since quit posting comments there, which is a shame as he was good at replying dumb warmists comments, but needs to drop the overbearing sometimes overtly insulting words that damages his otherwise fine comments.
I also moderate at another large science blog, with a tighter commenting standard because of censorship laws in place, where a lawsuit is much more likely to happen over a comment that would be considered normally valid in America.
There, the Mods leave it up to the blog owner to decide if such questionable comments should be approved or not. No one gets banned if the owner decides to heavily edit or toss it into the trash bin.
In both blogs I moderate in, banning is a very rare event often after warning the offender a few times.
Now go see how Katharine Hayhoe REACTS to civil tweets in reply to her:
Dr. Katharine Hayhoe Blocks Scientists Who Invite Her To Debate CO2’s Effect On Planetary Temperature
https://notrickszone.com/2018/09/06/dr-katharine-hayhoe-blocks-scientists-who-invite-her-to-debate-the-role-of-co2-in-climate-change/
Snicker………….
Sebastian H. What an ignorant reply to a serious question. Cults do not invite debate on their fundamental premises, much like alarmists then.
What question?
Hayhoe claims she is a “Christian”. However, Christians don’t lie, and don’t purposely and willfully deceive like she does. She won’t debate Tony Heller either. Thanks for exposing this.
“A smart person once said: never debate a cultist, they know all the arguments that get you into that cult!”
Curious that Mr H should spend so much time here if he thinks this.
DNCWTRT
A number of years ago, I finally came to understand that democracy is dependent upon one key feature, the ability to share power. You have to be comfortable allowing others to govern.
This concept applies to science, especially complex science. If you can’t share ideas comfortably, you are no longer working for the advancement of science.
You might find this amusing, R.S.
https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/gv090518dAPR20180905014508.jpg
I actually find the theory to be well thought out and presented in a good way. I am not Atmospheric Scientist. But I do understand the need to question and defend your idea. You make a theory and try to disprove it. Asking for debate on his ideas is a perfect way to see if there are any flaws in his theory that needs to be investigated. Something the Global warming community never does.
This is not a big deal as it’s counter productive. Refusal to debate simply comes off as arrogant on the one hand and raises suspicions that the refuser won’t hold up well ina debate. The approach may have bee useful 10 years ago when climate change was less polarized politically and before the bills started coming due for green energy’s inflated prices. When funding runs out for the AGW crowd or much more money gets directed too the understanding of natural climate cycles, the willingness to debate will return.
Hayhoe asks ” please have the courtesy to read…” and yet she shows complete arrogance and rudeness in blocking and other inanities. Write her off as worthless
Well, people can have their weird opinions, but you can’t expect that other will tolerate your BS. When you get blocked by someone you either swallow your pride or you try to find out why people might block you. That’s the way it is …
You seem to expect others to tolerate YOUR total and utter BS, seb.
Swallow your slimy arrogance and your baseless ego and ADMIT that you have ZERO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE for CO2 warming
Hey-Hoe, Hey-Hoe, a-lying we will go!
Hey-Hoe etc.
It’s what warmists do.
Hi, Pierre. I’ve got a lot on my plate in the upcoming month, so will be posting sparsely – but before I go I’ll leave this very nice interview of Fritz Vahrenholt for those who like to watch such things. The whole thing is good, but I’ve set it to start right before he exposes the greens for being utterly anti-environment. They claim to love it, but they hate it.
https://youtu.be/JS5Bm44O_TQ?t=740
Again, I hope you guys enjoy the whole thing, but the portion that begins there puts the lie to them caring about anything but their agenda, at the expense of everything and everyone else.
Nice thoughtful comments from so many non-regular posters (though probably regular readers, I hope). It’s refreshing, and I hope they feel motivated to post more often. It gets boring with just all the regulars, however much I enjoy reading them.
Thanks! I recall posting on Vahrenholt’s interview awhile back . Hope you’ll still find the opportunity comment!
I think people are perfectly entitled to block, on Twitter, whoever they would like, for whatever reason they would like.
https://andthentheresphysics.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/screen-shot-2018-09-07-at-10-08-08.png
What you think is irrelevant to rational thought and discussion.
Its seem that Ho-Hum is yet another alarmist apologist that cannot provide empirical evidence of anything to do with the farce of “climate change™”..
So just RUNS and HIDES.
My very important opinion is that this section of the big, fragmented debate helps to demonstrate that fragmentation.
I’m pretty sure the simple CO2 explanation is not big enough to get us all into disaster, but that doesn’t mean I agree with everything said by “the skeptic side.” Some of that is questionable, too.
This tendency is tough for the consensus side to get a grip on. They have one main unified theory, and they want a debate with one main unified theory. But they won’t get it. because there are many.
[…] Ref.: https://notrickszone.com/2018/09/06/dr-katharine-hayhoe-blocks-scientists-who-invite-her-to-debate-th… […]
Since my first comment got through, I’ll make a more serious comment. Ned Nikolov’s ideas are simply flawed at a very fundamental level. His proposed hypothesis doesn’t even conserve energy. Many people have discussed this with Ned and he continues to promote it. It seems entirely reasonable for someone to simply block him, rather than waste their time with someone who cannot recognise that the scientific idea that they’re promoting is flawed.
CO2 warmists ideas are flawed, as are your own. But I still let you comment. They block because they are afraid.
Why do you block? Are you also afraid?
In a sense, whether or not Ned’s ideas are flawed has little to do with whether or not some other ideas are flawed. Understanding the flaw in Ned’s idea is quite simple. The surface loses almost 500 W/m^2. Including albedo, we’re only receiving about 240 W/m^2 from the Sun. Without an atmospheric greenhouse effect, the surface should – on average – be cooling. Why isn’t it? This is because of the atmospheric greenhouse effect. This prevents all the energy leaving the surface from escaping directly to space. Essentially, in order for the amount of energy being radiated back to space matching the amount we’re receiving from the Sun, the surface needs to be warmer than it would be in the absence of an atmosphere.
What’s the problem then? If his “flaw is quite simple” to prove wrong, then there’s no risk letting him present them. I see no reason for all the climate scientists like Mann, Hayhoe, Rahmstorf etc. to block everyone they don’t agree with. They can’t tolerate a little dissent.
I notice you didn’t answer my initial questions.
Blocking Ned doesn’t prevent him from presenting his ideas. He presents them regularly. People, however, have the right to choose how they engage on social media.
No one has said that blocking Ned on Twitter prevents him from presenting his ideas on Twitter.
Yes, they do have the right to block him. No one has questioned this as a right.
Similarly, Dr. Gavin Schmidt has a right to run away from a “debate” with Dr. Roy Spencer on TV. The optics don’t look good for him, however. It makes him look like he’s afraid…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYKggC5VOzA
The last thing a rational person does is run from debate when (s)he’s comfortable with her/his position. Obviously they are very uncomfortable with their POSition.
Ken says… “This is because of the atmospheric greenhouse effect. “
Ah.. the badly named GHE, which is actually the atmospheric mass/gravity-thermal effect, which exists on every planet with a viable atmosphere.
Could it be possible that the reason he continues to promote his hypothesis is because there is a misunderstanding of what the hypothesis actually states, and thus the “discussions” have not served to undermine his actual positions? I ask because I see many potential challengers mis-state what it is he is hypothesizing in their “discussion” (actually, it’s not a discussion, but a blog post about what they think the hypothesis entails). For example, it is often assumed that Nikolov ascribes micro changes in planetary temperature (i.e., the warming of the last 100 years) to gravitational processes. He doesn’t.
The problem with this is that scientists like Nikolov are not going to slink away quietly because they’ve been blocked/banned/blacklisted. That’s why they continue to present their ideas at science conferences and lectures and other venues. They don’t find that twitter blocking or the blog posts full of straw man arguments/misrepresentations of the hypothesis or the name-calling and shaming and “his ideas are fundamentally flawed” pronouncements are enough to keep them quiet.
Why not go ahead and actually debate him directly if it’s so facile to demonstrate the fundamental flaws in his position? The opportunity to do so is wide open. That’s the problem: I don’t see people who dismiss his ideas as “nonsense” or “flawed” having the temerity to actually go up against this highly credentialed scientist 1:1. Why is that? Like Pierre, I’m guessing it’s due to fear.
I have. From the perspective of convincing Ned of his errors, it was pointless. Others may have learned something from it. However, there is a limit to how much time I can spend debating someone who is clearly wrong and will clearly not accept this, so I doubt I will bother doing so again.
In what venue? Do you have a link to this 1:1 debate with Nikolov? Did you represent his positions correctly, or would he say you misrepresented them?
Considering Nikolov’s persistence and the perpetual presentations of his hypotheses in international scientific forums/conferences/workshops (not to mention on Twitter) have gained a larger and larger following and are not going to disappear on their own, wouldn’t those who wish to squelch him find that actually taking the time to demonstrate just how “clearly wrong” he is think it’d be worth it to do so? Again, he’s not going to go away. How much actual time would need to be sacrificed to slay this thing? The guy is a former AGW adherent, but thinks he’s found a hypothesis for the mechanisms of macro planetary temperatures that stands up to scrutiny. I personally find hypotheses like this exciting and would love to see a real debate. Because that’s what science is/should be all about.
Twitter.
There is a lengthy thread that ran for many months. You can probably find it if you wanted to.
Yes.
Yes, of course he would.
I don’t know how to go about finding it, as Twitter is not a search-friendly forum, but I will try. I’ve only been reading his page for a few months. Until you prove otherwise, I will assume you are being truthful that you did not misrepresent his position.
But all we can say conclusively is that we have two people who both claim that the others’ positions are flawed/wrong on social media. I fail to see how this was refereed in your favor, aTTP. Just because you claim that he is wrong doesn’t make it so. That’s why direct debates are not a waste of time, in my opinion.
https://www.universetoday.com/22551/venus-compared-to-earth/
“Venus’ surface temperature experiences little to no variation, owing to its dense atmosphere, very slow rotation, and very minor axial tilt. Its mean surface temperature of 735 K (462 °C/863.6 °F) is virtually constant, with little or no change between day and night, at the equator or the poles. The one exception is the highest point on Venus, Maxwell Montes, where atmospheric pressure drops to about 4.5 MPa (45 bar) and the temperature drops to about 655 K (380 °C).”
Why is Maxwell Montes (Venus) significantly colder than the rest of the rest of the planet, aTTP? What’s the mechanism?
As I understand it, Maxwell Montes is 11km high. The lapse rate on Venus is about 10K/km, so Maxwell Montes would be about 100K cooler than the surface.
So the pressure determines the -100K temperature drop in that location, then?
Would it be impossible that such a phenomenon (gravity/pressure–>temperature) could be transmitted to the rest of the planet?
The lapse rate tells you how the temperature changes with altitude, but it can’t, by itself, tell you what the actual temperatures are. For that you need to know something about the radiative properties of the atmosphere. If the surface radiates all its energy directly to space it will be colder than if some of the energy is radiated from within the atmosphere. On Venus, most of the energy is radiated to space from an altitude of about 50km in the atmosphere. A lapse rate of 10K/km means that the surface is about 500K warmer than it would be in the absence of an atmosphere (and with the same albedo). On the Earth, the effective radiative altitude is about 5K and the lapse rate is about 7K/km (not dry), so the surface is about 35K warmer (more like 33K, but you get the idea).
The quantified atmospheric gas properties of planets are exactly what Nikolov (and Zeller) find are not needed to accurately predict the GMAT:
“Our analysis revealed that average temperature of rocky planets with tangible atmospheres and a negligible geothermal surface heating can accurately be predicted over a broad range of conditions using only two forcing variables: top-of-the-atmosphere solar irradiance and total surface atmospheric pressure.”
And the paper itself does indeed show that the GHG compositions of rocky planet atmospheres are not needed to determine the planets’ temperatures. The pressure and TOA solar irradiance are predictive enough. The temperatures of Mercury, Europa, Callisto and Pluto can also be predicted with this model. Do you disagree that this is what the N&Z paper demonstrates?
Found the “debate”. Not looking good for you here, aTTP.
https://twitter.com/theresphysics/status/892419367119581185
“The lapse rate on Venus is about 10K/km, so Maxwell Montes would be about 100K cooler than the surface.”
Ahh.. the gravity/thermal based gradient coming into effect.
Seems you actually agree with Ned’s work after all.
ROFLMAO.
And why does the atmosphere radiate at the effective altitude that it does? 😉
You have effectively shown that you agree with Ned’s theory that the atmospheric pressure gradient helps set the surface temperature.
Well done Mr. Rice. !!
Laspe rate is ‘specific heat’ over gravity.
Enhanced atmospheric CO2 has an insignificant effect on the lapse rate. Extra CO2 in the upper atmosphere at the radiative altitude, would enhance radiative outflow.
The lapse rate is not setting anything. Spike55, you are making a fool out of yourself with this gravito-thermal-effect thing and have no idea why.
SebastianH, what’s stopping you from heading over to Dr. Nikolov’s twitter page and showing him just how foolish his research is? We’d love to see how you’d fare in a debate with him considering your presumed superior expertise in astrophysics. He takes on those who try to challenge him every day. Why not give it a go?
https://twitter.com/NikolovScience
Huh? It has been shown many times, why should anyone be required to add on it? Either you get why he’s wrong or you believe in his nonsense. Your choice.
So because I didn’t debate him he remains right on his views or the world? That’s not how logic works, Kenneth. Can someone who spreads nonsense simultanously have expertise on the topic? I doubt that.
I imagine you somehow belief that his claims have not been refuted so far. Is that the case?
Do you at least agree that the lapse is not setting anything?
On his twitter page, when actually debating his arguments and not some made-up rendition of his theoretical framework?
No, that would be an illogical leap. That’s why I didn’t write any such thing.
Instead, I asked you why you wouldn’t debate him since showing him just how foolish he is would potentially keep him from spreading his “nonsense” at international science conferences and workshops…and converting people to his point of view. He’s gained quite a following…and it’s not as if he’s going to just “go away” anytime soon. Why not use your expertise as an astrophysicist to take him down in a 1:1 debate?
If it’s nonsense, then expose it as such in a direct debate with him. He’ll respond.
Atmospheric pressure sets the temperature of Venus at a steady 462 °C, except on Maxwell Montes, where the set temperature drops by -82 °C because the atmospheric pressure drops to 45 bar.
https://www.universetoday.com/22551/venus-compared-to-earth/
“Venus’ surface temperature experiences little to no variation, owing to its dense atmosphere, very slow rotation, and very minor axial tilt. Its mean surface temperature of 735 K (462 °C/863.6 °F) is virtually constant, with little or no change between day and night, at the equator or the poles. The one exception is the highest point on Venus, Maxwell Montes, where atmospheric pressure drops to about 4.5 MPa (45 bar) and the temperature drops to about 655 K (380 °C).”
If you don’t agree that atmospheric pressure sets the temperature differential, please provide another explanation for why the set temperature is different for Maxwell Montes vs. the rest of Venus.
NOBODY has shown Dr Nikolov’s work to be wrong. Just in disagreement with the anti-science AGW scam.
You CERTAINLY have NEVER and can never produce any actual evidence that counters anything he says
Prove me wrong
PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE, seb
Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?
Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?
Nobody expects you to not believe that this is the case.
As if you would be able to actually understand the existing “evidence”. Why does anything weird a pseudoskeptic claims needs constant “countering” for it to be false when you aren’t ready to accept that it could be false anyway? Be for once skeptic about what your fellow climate trolls are claiming … can you do that?
You are doing that to yourself all the time. No need to “counter” you.
“No need to “counter” you.”
NO ABILITY to counter.
Mindless anti-science cackling is never a counter to anything, but its all you have.
“Nobody expects you to not believe that this is the case.”
There is NO EVIDENCE that this is the case.
I’d ask you to PRODUCE IT.
… but you won’t because you have NONE.
Your headless-chook type ranting, is NOT evidence, seb
Seb.. you live in a science-free little fantasy world., and are so blinded by your own ego, that you don’t even realise it.
Sorry, Ken, but it is your understanding of Ned’s work that is FLAWED.
Stick to looking at stars and leave climate to those who know way more than you do about it.
I saw some of that “debate”. Ned had you running around in circles as you intentionally misinterpreted his work.
“someone who cannot recognise that the scientific idea that they’re promoting is flawed.”
You mean like the conjecture of AGW that is totally flawed from its most basic level. ?
You think those people promoting the FLAWED AGW conjecture scam should be blocked ????
I prefer them not to be, because they are great comic relief as you watch them tie themselves in knots trying to support a scientifically unsupportable political agenda/meme.
People like Ho-Hum and Schmidt effectively block themselves from having to face reality.