Klimaforskning - hjemmeside
Startet av Gloføken, november 05, 2011, 14:31:56 PM
Sitat fra: Telehiv på januar 14, 2012, 20:34:39 PMLitt tidlig ennå kanskje mht. direkte konsekvenser, men dere vil nok se at de blir ikke de første Solheim roper på når nye utvalg skal settes ned.....
Sitat fra: jarlgeir på januar 14, 2012, 21:01:42 PMBBC's radioprogram "More or Less" grep i 2007 tak i en kontrovers vedrørende en klimaartikkel i New Statesman, og diverse suspekte klimatrender publisert av banden til Dr. Mann via Real Climate. Enden ble et klimaveddemål: Ville temperaturen stige fra 2007 til 2012 eller ikke? Basert på Hadcrut3. 100 GBP ble satset, og James Annan, en relativ velkjent klimaguru flesket til med veddemål på stigning fordi han hadde lite til overs for skeptikere....Dr. David Whitehouse fra GWPF veddet på null stigning. Relativt safe veddemål siden man allerede da visste at temperaturtrenden hadde vært paddeflat siden 1998.BBC summerte opp veddemålet i går, fredag 13.januar, og bekjentgjorde at Dr Whitehouse hadde vunnet, da temperaturen ikke hadde steget siden 2007.Full omtale her: http://thegwpf.org/the-observatory/4748-winning-a-climate-bet.htmlog her: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100129892/global-warming-red-faced-climatologist-issues-grovelling-apology/Av en eller annen merkelig grunn har BBC sagt pinlig lite om veddemålet denne weekenden. Dog har Hr Annan bekjentgjort at dette bare var midlertidig uflaks, og han har inngått et nytt veddemål for de fire neste årene. Jeg ønsker Hr Annan lykke til på reisen. Skal man tro verdens solforskere, blir Hr Annan sannsynligvis kvitt 100 pund til om 4 år.
Sitattallbloke says: January 14, 2012 at 12:59 pm Willis says "TO CONCLUDE: I'm interested in people who can either show that my proof is wrong"I have shown Willis that his proof is wrong here:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/13/a-matter-of-some-gravity/#comment-863688[Tallbloke, I snipped that because it had no scientific content. Post your elevator speech or give it up. -w.]It is an easy to understand demonstration that his assertion that Hans Jelbring's 2003 E&E paper violates the laws of thermodynamics because of considerations regarding radiation to space is incorrect. I provided him the same demonstration in email yesterday. The demonstration consists of two lines from the very paper Willis attacks. They are:"A simplified model of Earth will be considered. The model planet does not rotate. It neither receives solar radiation nor emits infrared radiation into space. "Willis has been unresponsive regarding this demonstration both in email yesterday and on this thread he subsequently posted here at WUWT.Joel Shore made similar accusations, also unsupported by fact, against Nikolov and Zeller. I have offered him a guest post in which to lay out his objections formally. This offer was declined.It is now a matter of public record that Willis has been formally alerted to the failure of his 'proof'. I will record this on my website in a new post. Since Willis hasn't responded to my demonstration of the failure of his 'proof' here, any whining about his inability to respond on my website due to his self banning will be met with the derision and ridicule it deserves in a place his snipping scissors cannot reach.I will not have people who ignore correct formal scientific points directly offered to them multiple times and who then continue to cast demonstrably false slurs against reputable scientists posting comments on my site. They can cry "censorship" all they like, but it doesn't cut it with me, especially when they have censored parts of adverse comments here on this thread, and deleted others completely.[Tallbloke, first give us your elevator speech about Jelbring's hypothesis. Until then, I will not believe you understand it well enough to "prove" anything. You have not shown that my proof has "failed" as you claim, record it on your website or not. Finally, what "demonstrably false slurs" by Joel are you talking about? You keep making accusations without a shred of proof or even a hint of evidence, which I suppose shouldn't surprise me by now, but still does. I snipped the last bunch, but I left these in so people can see your willingness to make unsupported accusations. -w.]
SitatMe, I'm with tallbloke. Science is not settled in elevators.