01-19-2020, 09:58 PM
I love the way you diss the recently deceased NZ scientist as not a climate scientist yet fail to answer my question as to what (you think) is required to be so badged?
If you had bothered to read the article it details his long running role as a global leader through the whole IPCC early years.
Clearly others, much better placed than you or me, though he was very much qualified. But again, you revert to the ad hominen. Yawn.
As for Mann being exonerated, that is laughable. He even lost a defamation case in Canada (he instigated) last year after failing to produce his data.....maybe I'm naive but I recall a time when a government funded scientist was obligated to produce his/her data/stats - you know the principle of replication - see K. Popper.
And I note his rubbish 'hockey stick' charts have now been erased from IPCC reports - any credible scientist knows his stuff was (and is) very suspect. Biffra's efforts were little better.
Happer and CO2 - the bloke made CO2 lasers ffs. 200 peer reviewed papers - lauded by numerous US administrations (before Trump). Here's a few of his research papers - http://physics.princeton.edu/atomic/happ...tions.html
Dyson? Very much an expert in the field. Was one of the leaders in CC research dating back to the early 70 at the Institute for Energy Analysis at Oak Ridge. Guess you didn't know that. I would refer you to his famous 'Paper 105'.
The simple fact that you endeavour to dismiss these guys as 'not experts' or 'not climate scientists' says everything. And is also a serious indictment on your credibility.
I'm sure you appreciate the science behind global warming is pretty straight forward, yet you reckon these blokes have no clue but a modeller does. ROFL.
Very lightweight again LP - i expected more given your certitude (but you know the game is being lost....). And feel free to drop the rhetoric at any time and converse on an actual issue related to the science.
Go Blues.
If you had bothered to read the article it details his long running role as a global leader through the whole IPCC early years.
Clearly others, much better placed than you or me, though he was very much qualified. But again, you revert to the ad hominen. Yawn.
As for Mann being exonerated, that is laughable. He even lost a defamation case in Canada (he instigated) last year after failing to produce his data.....maybe I'm naive but I recall a time when a government funded scientist was obligated to produce his/her data/stats - you know the principle of replication - see K. Popper.
And I note his rubbish 'hockey stick' charts have now been erased from IPCC reports - any credible scientist knows his stuff was (and is) very suspect. Biffra's efforts were little better.
Happer and CO2 - the bloke made CO2 lasers ffs. 200 peer reviewed papers - lauded by numerous US administrations (before Trump). Here's a few of his research papers - http://physics.princeton.edu/atomic/happ...tions.html
Dyson? Very much an expert in the field. Was one of the leaders in CC research dating back to the early 70 at the Institute for Energy Analysis at Oak Ridge. Guess you didn't know that. I would refer you to his famous 'Paper 105'.
The simple fact that you endeavour to dismiss these guys as 'not experts' or 'not climate scientists' says everything. And is also a serious indictment on your credibility.
I'm sure you appreciate the science behind global warming is pretty straight forward, yet you reckon these blokes have no clue but a modeller does. ROFL.
Very lightweight again LP - i expected more given your certitude (but you know the game is being lost....). And feel free to drop the rhetoric at any time and converse on an actual issue related to the science.
Go Blues.
Finals, then 4 in a row!