We need to stop funding AGW fraud

[Claudius Denk]

On Jan 3, 5:04 am, 7 <website_has_em...@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote:
> Eunometic wrote:

<snip>

> > The evidence is weak, despite the scare campaigne.
>
> > We need better computers, better computer models and acknowledgement
> > that positive feedback forcing may not be happening.
> > This means a 1 degree temperature change.
>
> No we don't. We need to stop funding AGW fraud - it is not a science.
> Their crap science and public perception management has got you
> thinking they were on to something that you should worry about
> so that you can buy them more computers and pay for more
> software programs. Its utter crap science that needs big spending
> cuts and replacement of holowarmers with sensible politically neutral
> scientists that have no affiliation with or share aspirations of
> holowarmers and who are prepared to go on with the science
> for science sake.
>
> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

Well stated!

[Roving rabbit]

Ah, the infamous G&T paper pops up again. My advice is, don't ruin your
own career by citing this paper.

Q

--
The difference between us and the Titanic is the band.

[Claudius Denk]

It's regrettable you are not willing and/or able to directly address
the contents of this paper in an intellectually honest manner.
Regrettable, I tell you, just regrettable. Tsk tsk.

[Roving rabbit]

Others already did, and I don't want to waste my precious time on this
planet.

[Claudius Denk]

And, apparently, they did such a poor job of it that you aren't even
willing to quote them directly.

> and I don't want to waste my precious time on this
> planet.

You are precious.

[richp]

> Regrettable, I tell you, just regrettable.  Tsk tsk.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hey asshole how does one address an intellectually dishonest paper in
an intellectually honest manner.

[Claudius Denk]

By directly addressing its content. Try it sometime.

[Giga]

"Claudius Denk" <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:0e428541-9ff3-415f...@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

Maybe better to give them more funding, to just shut the f***********k up!

[richp]

> By directly addressing its content.  Try it sometime.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Claudius Denk the lets' stop climate research fuckhead that sums it up
as far as you're concerned. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck
you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck
you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck
you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.

[Tom P]

Ok.. On page 61 they get the equation for the radiation equilibrium
temperature wrong by a factor of four, and use the resulting incorrect
temperature to justify introducing a meaningless factor into the equation.

Your turn.

T.

[Flaps_50!]

> Ok.. Onpage 61they get the equation for the radiation equilibrium

> temperature wrong by a factor of four, and use the resulting incorrect
> temperature to justify introducing a meaningless factor into the equation.
>
> Your turn.

You mean the ratio of areas of a circle and a sphere? Is that what
you call their error -if so you need to go back to school.

Cheers

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 11:28:34 -0800, richp wrote:

> Hey asshole how does one address an intellectually dishonest paper in an
> intellectually honest manner.

The recent e-mail revelations show that the intellectually dishonest
papers were in support of anthropogenic global warming.

They were addressed by real scientific papers like the Gerlich and
Tscheuschner paper. They explain why the dishonest papers contain bad
physics.