tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6965073194684424505.post4779581738622459269..comments2023-03-20T06:30:08.977-07:00Comments on Professor Brian Blais' Blog: The Not-so-Hidden Flaw in this Climate Argumentbblaishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03856943924761781091noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6965073194684424505.post-2219419867949916672011-09-04T20:22:31.426-07:002011-09-04T20:22:31.426-07:00Nice summary, Professor Blais. Your friend roscom...Nice summary, Professor Blais. Your friend roscomac above has been spreading his own special brand of physics over at Skeptical Science under the moniker Rosco:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=354&p=2#61914" rel="nofollow">http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=354&p=2#61914</a><br /><br />Alas, he seems none the wiser for your able efforts.Yooperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15905153190867109713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6965073194684424505.post-43422870803588878042011-07-28T16:02:31.068-07:002011-07-28T16:02:31.068-07:00I wrote a very detailed response to this comment, ...I wrote a very detailed response to this comment, Roscomac, at the following point...<br /><br />http://bblais.blogspot.com/2011/07/climate-and-moon.html<br /><br />Please comment on the new post, if there is something I missed.<br /><br />Thanks for your comment!bblaishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03856943924761781091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6965073194684424505.post-78371923216768380792011-07-25T19:16:45.263-07:002011-07-25T19:16:45.263-07:00I almost bought your discussion until you provided...I almost bought your discussion until you provided the diagram from Kiehl and Trenberth which is ludicrous. The whole construct here is to create the illusion that the sun cannot heat the earth above minus 18 which is absolute nonsense based on assuming it is valid on geometric grounds to reduce the solar insolation by a factor of 4 then again by the albedo.<br /><br />If this is valid how then does the surface temperature of the moon reach ~123 C - quoted by NASA.<br /><br />And how do you explain daytime temperatures on Earth in excess of 50 C as has been recorded ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6965073194684424505.post-14177740668876150782010-03-03T15:32:54.190-08:002010-03-03T15:32:54.190-08:00I'm not an expert in another field... well, in...I'm not an expert in another field... well, in any field... but I figured I'd share some points I learned in debate because some of the fundamental considerations align with determining the legitimacy of scientific work. <br /><br />If an opponent isn't using the following, he doesn't have as strong of an argument.<br /><br />Clarity- using concise words, not easily subject to interpretation. Avoid emotionally-charged words. <br /><br />Evidence- essentially, not quoting someone as fact. For example, don't say "Most scientists believe..." Point to the actual data.<br /><br />Causality- just because one time A lead to B doesn't mean they have a relationship. Look for actual scientific reasoning behind something. It always reminded me of Sir Bedevere in Monty Python's Quest of the Holy Grail (...and that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana shaped!) When the snow storm hit two weeks ago, Fox News consistuents stated that global warming is a hoax because it snowed today! I'm not saying people should blindly believe that polar bears are dying off (which they're not) but COME ON! Look at the CLIMATE data, not out the window at the WEATHER.<br /><br />If I have time, I'll come back to this. I should probably be studying for my midterm tomorrow instead of commenting on a blog.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com