I didn't start off from a false assumption. YOU have previously claimed in the past to have senior academic status. YOU are blatantly anti-AGW. YOU gave a scenario which claimed that anyone who is anti-AGW doesn't get an academic job. There is an inherent contradiction there, which anyone, especially someone with the senior academic status you have claimed, you should be able to see.
Nya, nya, nya (yawn again)!
Not true:
In total we have or will have by about 2020:
DU ~ 106kt LEU ~ 10kt HEU ~ ambiguous but
Nya, nya, nya (yawn)!
Children, children, when are you go>
Are you then say>
Again you are confusing what is known about the science from measurement 'in the wild' and laboratory work with an ability to predict the future. Just because the science can't yet predict the future doesn't in any way diminish its existing body of knowledge. Geologists cannot yet predict the exact moments of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Are you therefore implying that geology as an entire science is disproved?
Again:
How do you explain the correlation between temperature and CO2 (and volcanic activity, to be complete)?
You've been caught out lying so many times that I wonder you have the nerve to cast that aspertion on anyone else. Most normal people would be too embarrassed. It does say something about how your mind works though - paranoia: "Everyone else is lying and I'm the only one speaking the truth! Why won't you listen to me? Hey? Why are putting my arms in this jacket? LET GO OF ME! HELP!"
"Hey now Turnip, baby, you just sit quietly inside this padded cell and everything will be juuuuust fiiiiine!"
Time for your medicati>
It's part of a theme she's on - that 'things green' tend to be in bed with business. Sometimes knowingly, sometimes not.
More hand waving.
I was right: JJ *is* an arguebot.
As seems increasingly evident, you have made a false assumption and 'proved' your case with it.
Can you see where you went wrong, or would you like someone to point it out to you?
Ah, the 'false assumption' syndrome again.
Tim said 'Anything else is "hand-waving blue-sky b/s" ', whereas you have responded to the 'not-anything-else' part of his statement to 'prove' him wrong.
Again, you start from a false assumption!
You'll have to find it for yourself, though as part of the learning process.
Rest snipped.
You really must do better.
False assumption!
Well, a good test for the models would be to 'predict' something that's already happened. How do they cope with the icing of Greenland or the mini-ice-age?
er...they don't.
Correlation is not causation.
How to you explain the non-correlation of the tree-ring data, the reason for Mike's Trick?
Don't you understand?
You've started from a false assumption that *I* need to *prove* something.
*I* don't have to 'prove' anything. It up to the supporters of AGW to 'prove' their claims; and in my opinion, they haven't.In all my time, which is considerable, I never felt the need to:
- hide data - select data - do a Mike's Trick - tell anyone I'm not showing them the data - tell anyone not to let anyone have the data - be afraid that 'they would use the data against me'
and I'm wondering why this lot felt the need to do *all* of these things.
He seems to appear to start from the position of having 'security' of supply, which he equates to indigenous availablity.
Quite why he takes this position is unclear; I get the impression he hasn't thought through this part of his argument. However, I don't recall seeing his expound on this, but may have missed it.
Ah, deliberately mis-reading what I wrote to make a point. Did I say that pumped-storage was "hand-waving blue-sky b/s"? No I didn't, I said that the idea of being able to build more than a hand-full of sites in the country is hand-waving blue-sky b/s. It's the sort you specialise in.
Try reading for comprehension. You expecting me to be as specific about each fuel as he was in four lines? Rape, by the way, is AFAIK a possible biofuel. If it isn't, then consider my phrase containing it suitably amended.
You never claimed what? That you think that we have to do as much as poss with renewables? You certainly have done that.
Do we conclude therefore that you agree that the notion of using batteries to smooth out intermittent wind generation is "hand-waving blue-sky b/s"? Be nice if we could, but that's just another statement of the bleeding obvious.
[snip childish rant]
In short, why they behave in the opposite way that any ordinary scientist is expected to behave.
well since security of supply on windless sunless januaryt day is totally zero for renewables of the intermittent sort, he isn't offering even a potential solution to that, either.
security of supply is a fat stockpile of coal or uranium, enough to last several years..the gas storage situation is alarming. But fracking could change that and make it far more secure.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.