There is a new comment on the post "The self-contradictions of Marc Morano". 
http://mind.ofdan.ca/?p=2501

Author: ScruffyDan
Comment:
@ Bob

<blockquote>You seem to epitomize the success of the American school system in turning out perfect slaves incapable of independent analysis</blockquote>

And you epitomize American arrogance (see how too can play at this game?), thinking that you know better than thousands of relevant experts.

Oh, and I am most certainly NOT the product of the American school system.

<blockquote>Growing up I had the highest respect for many of the various organizations you trust ; It has saddened me to see , as their rice bowls became almost totally dependent on the government’s taken-money dugs , they have become mouthpieces for the ever power seeking political class .</blockquote>

Conspiracy, oh no! Lets discard the conclusions of respected scientific organizations and thousands individual studies because they have all become mouthpieces for the ever power seeking political class... well expect those that have arrived at a certain conclusion (like those free thinking Poles), those guys are still ok!

Sure that makes all sorts of sense.

<blockquote>totally rejecting of the 10s of thousands of independent minds [who disagree with AGW]</blockquote>

Wait what happened to your conspiracy theory? It would hardly be a conspiracy theory if thousands of people were publishing studies that conclude that global warming is bunk.

But I'll ask you the same thing I asked Andrew: <strong>Show me the studies!</strong>  Without them your argument is hollow.

Or is the peer-reviewed process part of this grand conspiracy?

Oh and how many of these 'independent minds' have arrived at the same conclusions you are pushing?

<blockquote>It is NEVER rational to cede your rationality to anyone else’s claims .</blockquote>

Right, lets not trust the experts. What do they know? Instead I should put my faith in a random commenter on my blog.

<blockquote>You use your submission to the mind of the State to excuse not even evaluating the now overwhelming amount of disproof .</blockquote>

Actually, I have taken a look at much of this so called disproof, and found is lacking. That fact that the relevant experts agree, gives me great confidence.

<blockquote>None of this depends on anything since Planck , a century ago . The rest is geometry and clearly explains why with the sun about 6000k , we are about 300k ... This is not optional.</blockquote>

Even if I accept your numbers (a big if), that model completely ignores the atmosphere and its effect on surface temperature. Hardly what I would call convincing evidence.

I wonder how you explain the climate forcing caused by large volcanoes (which is accurately predicted by climate models)?

But what really made me laugh is the fact that when asked why so many people who dedicate their professional lives to understanding the issue don't agree with you just said: "<em>I am quite astounded by it.<em>"  Have you even bothered to figure out why your theories aren't discussed by the experts?  Nah, obviously you are right, and they are wrong.  Talk about arrogance!

<blockquote>Apparently the SB & K laws are not even mentioned in the IPCC reports</blockquote>

Could it be because the earth is NOT a black body? Nah, not when it can be blamed on a conspiracy!

<blockquote>In this peer-to-peer internet age , traditional “peer review” seems quaint .</blockquote>

How nice, meanwhile in the real world peer-review remains a bedrock of scientific discourse. It is the minimum standard to be accepted into the scientific debate, it ensures there are no obvious errors in the study or its conclusions.

<blockquote>Surely someone could construct little miniature earths painted to maximize the effect and with a few experiments in a vacuum chamber quantify the effect and end all skepticism immediately</blockquote>

Surely you are not serious are you? Wow, and I thought I had heard everything.  Unfortunately not everything scales the same way. Not to mention that they effect of such a scaling would be so minuscule that it would be near impossible to detect.

Frankly such an experiment would be far worse than even a rudimentary climate model.

But as for what can be done in the lab, the radiative properties of the various atmospheric components can is is thoroughly tested in the lab.

<blockquote>The temperature of Venus is twice what any object in its orbit could absorb from the sun . Thus it is radiating about 16 time as much energy as it is receiving .</blockquote>

Wait, what? Venus is so hot, thus it radiates 16 times as much energy as it receives?  How does that make any sense? That would make its energy balance negative and thus make it cold, not hot.

<blockquote>That this absurdity has not long since been quashed by your experts Al and Jim</blockquote>

So are you saying that is is an absurdity? Your writing is anything but clear. Who else, but you, is making such a claim?

But why would you want Al Gore, and Jim Hansen to quash this absurdity?  Al Gore isn't even an scientist, he is just a politician. An expert he is not. As for Jim Hansen, he is an expert on earths climate, but not on the climate of Venus. Hardly the man I would listen too for information on Venus. If I want information on Venus, I'll go look for an expert on Venus, if I want information on the climate of Venus, I'll look for a Venus climate expert.

Remember what I said about relevance? Expertise matters, not everyone's opinion is equally valid.

<blockquote>However , there is rather massive experimental data , by USDA and others , that plants love as much as 10 parts per 10,000 CO2 , versus the our current 3 or 4 .</blockquote>

So why don't you cite it! Much of the USDA experiments are done in greenhouses (where CO2 indeed does boost productivity), but greenhouse experiments are hardly representative a farm ecosystem. Again please Liebig's law of the minimum.

Also if you wish to claim that CO2 is beneficial to agriculture you need to include as many effects on the biosphere as possible. Simply looking at plant growth is missing a huge part of the puzzle.

Also completely ignoring the effects on food supply caused by ocean acidification is just irresponsible, when arguing that CO2 is a good thing.

<blockquote>We are nowhere near a geological maximum .</blockquote>

Yes that is immediately clear by reading the IPCC. 

No one is claiming that the planet is entering uncharted waters, only that <em>we</em> (aka the human species) are entering uncharted waters.

See all comments on this post here:
http://mind.ofdan.ca/?p=2501#comments

To manage your subscriptions or to block all notifications from this site, click the link below:
http://mind.ofdan.ca/?wp-subscription-manager=1&email=bob%40cosy.com&key=cf28f344812041ce432d029d7cbe9ca5