Bob B’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Uncertainty agenda

  David, the consensus is only as good as the last good measurement. One data point can turn any "theory" into a falsehood. At first quantum theory was not accepted as consensus. Einstein refused to accept some conclusions from quantum mechanics. Recent measurements using delayed choice experiments with photons show "spooky " action at a distance is verified.
  Evolution is still a theory, but the data coming from fossils still point to evolution as being a viable theory. But then again one discovery in the future could possibly negate that? As far as gravitational  waves, string theory etc need to be verified. If a theory can never be verified one could argue it is useless.
  One exciting experiment due to be run soon at CERN could verify the theory of cloud formation due to high energy particles. If CRF does indeed change cloud cover, then that would go a long way to prove the reasons for the slight global warming. Cloud cover has a huge effect ~15W/M-sq
  Climate models are suppose to be valid over decade time scales. It is only now that Hansen's original 1988 simulations have shown to be wrong. So what are the consequences for that? None he goes around like a loon talking now about tipping points and that we are all going to die. Why should we believe him now?
  So for a journalists, the way I see it is to report on real DATA. Keep away from speculation and keep politics out of science and keep activists like Hansen out of positions where he has huge conflicts of interest.
  Follow the money. search out who or how people would benifit from public funding. On Journalists need to evaluate strength of scientific consensus posted 1 year, 2 months ago 31 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Uncertainty agenda

  So David. where are the incontrovertable facts that "PROVE" AGW has caused the recent slight warming over the past ~20yrs?

  I'll give you a hint---don;t waste your time--there are none. The only thing holding up the AGW scare are climate models which recently have been shown to not include feedbacks correctly and especially don't simulate could cover,ENSO,PDO,AMO etc.

  So please next time don;t be so blustery about skeptics until you get your FACTS straight.On Journalists need to evaluate strength of scientific consensus posted 1 year, 2 months ago 31 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Uncertainty agenda

  Come on David--you can do better then that. Please list all the incontrovertable facts that "PROVE" AGW has caused the recent slight warming over the past ~20yrs.On Journalists need to evaluate strength of scientific consensus posted 1 year, 2 months ago 31 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Unceratinty principle

  Easy one:

  http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3161

  http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/06/sherwood-allen-and-radi ...

  GCM's in no way match the temperature distributions especially missing is the "HOT SPOT"
  On Journalists need to evaluate strength of scientific consensus posted 1 year, 2 months ago 31 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Uncertainty agenda

  David-??

  As Lakoff puts it, Progressives keep scratching their heads how someone who is given incontrovertible facts

  Please elaborate as to what are the incontrovertable facts for AGW--I would just love to see some warmenista list them for me?? LOLOn Journalists need to evaluate strength of scientific consensus posted 1 year, 2 months ago 31 Responses