manacker’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Andrew denies physical observations

  Hey Christophersj and BobFJ,

  Been following your exchange.  It appears to me that Andrew Dessler started the ball rolling with an unsubstantiated claim that "Negative climate feedback is as real as the Easter Bunny".

  This was all the more astounding, since it came after the physical observations by Spencer et al., which demonstrated a strong negative feedback from clouds, thereby in effect validating Lindzen's earlier "infrared iris" hypothesis.

  So it appears that Andrew's tactic was the classical one of a "denier".  When evidence is presented, which goes against the preconceived belief or paradigm, one simply sticks the head in the sand and denies that this evidence exists.

  Thomas Kuhn has written about this in his treatise on paradigms.  Physical evidence, which refutes the prevailing paradigm, is either ignored, refuted or (in some cases) not even seen.  This inability to think outside the box of the prevailing paradigm is, unfortunately, a frequently occurring problem with "mainstream consensus scientists", who have a vested interest in keeping the prevailing paradigm alive, and therefore defend it against any new data that may represent a direct challenge to the paradigm.

  I believe this is the crux of the problem here, although I have to admit that Andrew's choice of the "Easter Bunny" was cute.

  Max
  On There is no negative feedback in the climate system posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago 51 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  amazingdrx returns!

  The amazinglyimperceptivedrx strikes again!

  To the topic of "meaningful contribution to the debate", amazingdrx conceded that he "never made one, never will".

  In going back through this and other sites to which the good "dr" has contributed, I can confirm that his statement is true.

  Why have a climate blogsite if every contributor is just going to repeat the officially sanctioned mantra without rationally and skeptically questioning the data that lie behind it?

  That's the whole purpose of these sites, to stimulate the ongoing scientific and political debate surrunding all the uncertainties relating to our planet's ever-changing climate. And, let's face it, there are many, as the exchanges demonstrate.

  Sure, there are some "trolls" out there who can only come with ad hominem attacks, snide remarks, emotional outbursts or toxic BS, but these are not to be taken too seriously.

  Stick with facts, amazingdrx, and you'll be better off.

  Just a tip.

  Regards,

  MaxOn Australia faces collapse as climate change kicks in posted 9 months, 1 week ago 50 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Introduction of Peter Martin

  Christophersh

  Since Peter Martin has been kind enough to write his brief introduction of both Black Wallaby and myself, I'll return the favor, leaving out any opinionated comments.

  Peter Marting apparently lives in or near Brisbane.  He is a firm believer in the premise that anthropogenic greenhouse warming is causing and will cause great damage to our planet's environment.

  He bases his belief on a few points of data, such as the late 20th century increase in both global temperature and atmospheric CO2 and a recent trend of melting Arctic sea ice, but primarily on the firm belief in the notion that an "overwhelming majority" of scientists (a) support the suggestion of potentially disastrous AGW, and (b) that they cannot possibly be wrong in this assessment.

  He occasionally slips into discussions of a more political nature.  These reveal that he supports world socialism and big government intervention as solutions to many of the world's problems today. He has expressed his disdain for former UK PM Thatcher, for example.

  He favors massive international governmental mitigation actions to stop the AGW development before it is too late.

  He has been known occasionally to become emotional and lose his calm, but hardly ever does he slip into ad hominem attacks on those with whom he debates the issues. I can recall no incidents where he became openly hostile or impolite.

  I have never witnessed him telling his debate partners "you are insincere", accusing them of "extremely biased behavior" or calling them "frauds".

  His arguments are usually to the point, with only occasional side-tracks. As a result, he keeps his debate partners on their toes.

  So, all in all, he is an excellent partner with whom to debate the many unresolved scientific and policy issues surrounding AGW.

  You could learn from him, Christophersj, if you really want to make a meaningful contribution to the debate on sites such as this.

  Regards,

  MaxOn Australia faces collapse as climate change kicks in posted 9 months, 1 week ago 50 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Nice dissertation Christophersj

  Very nice dissertation, Christophersj, although I completely missed the significance of your alleged "George Orwell government picture", which I apparently "have in my mind", or even less my lack of "criticism of right-wing unscientific foolishness", both of which you have apparently pulled out of the air (or possibly some other darker place) to divert from the real issues we have been discussing.

  What does all this silly double-talk have to do with a serious debate on the many unresolved scientific questions surrounding the ongoing debate on AGW?

  I'd say nothing.

  Christophersj, I'd recommend that you stay away from emotional polemic and stick to addressing the unresolved scientific questions surrounding the hypothesis of alarming or potentially disastrous AGW with an open mind.

  Forget references to "Orwell" or "right-wing unscientific foolishness".  These are emotional and polemic sidetracks that have absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand.

  And while you are getting all your information on the topic at hand from Grist and Climate Progress, I'd suggest you also check out Climate Audit and What's Up With That to get a more balanced picture.

  Just a tip to help you become a bit more objective in this discussion.

  Regards,

  Max
  On Australia faces collapse as climate change kicks in posted 9 months, 1 week ago 50 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Don't get emotional Christophersj

  Our discussion is apparently taking place on two different levels: emotional and rational.

  I personally prefer to address the scientific debate surrounding the AGW question rationally with a degree of rational skepticism.

  Yes, Christophersj, there is a valid ongoing scientific debate on this subject, i.e. the science on our planet's climate is not "settled", as some would have us believe.

  Despite your disclaimer, "What I AM is a rational and thinking human being - sans sociopathic paranoia" you appear to prefer the more emotional approach. Why else would you throw in the totally irrelevant "sans sociopathic paranoia" line? It really has nothing to do with our discussion.

  It also appears that you do not want to get into discussing any real substantive issues.

  Real science (as opposed to agenda driven pseudoscience) is based on rational skepticism, rather than "group think".

  Religious or quasi-religious belief is based on blind acceptance of a dogma, because the Bible (the IPCC, James E. Hansen, the prophets, Al Gore, the oracles, Susan Solomon, the "fortune teller", etc.) said so.

  When you make claims on substantive issues, I will challenge those claims if I can see that there is some evidence that they may be false.  And I will do this in a rational manner, not resorting to name calling or emotional outbursts.

  But if you just want to throw tantrums, count me out of the discussion.

  Regards,

  MaxOn Australia faces collapse as climate change kicks in posted 9 months, 1 week ago 50 Responses