tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post1839754453574712350..comments2024-02-12T15:25:44.028+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Hitting rock bottom at WUWT: OMG it's insects - Ronald D Voisin is ba-a-a-a-ck!Souhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-88655148411436188502014-07-16T17:46:31.969+10:002014-07-16T17:46:31.969+10:00While I don't agree with Ferdinand on every to...While I don't agree with Ferdinand on every topic, I have the greatest respect for the calm rational way in which he tirelessly addresses this particular topic on WUWT. It is sad that there are so many skeptics that cannot accept any part of AGW, no matter how solid the evidence is (and the evidence for the rise in atmospheric CO2 being *anthropogenic* is very strong). It is ironic that this comes so soon after another WUWT article saying the consensus is 100% not 97% (at the Heartland Institute conference) . The comments however do give some hope, for example this one:<br /><br /> Nylo says: <br />July 15, 2014 at 5:07 pm <br /><br />I’m a bit disappointed with WUWT lately. I see too many stories published where the author is getting it totally wrong. Which would not be a bad thing itself as long as, once it was made evident by people commenting on the article that the conclusions do not hold water, some editting was provided in the article to, at least, warn about it being controversial. But I am not seeing it. I hope at some point common sense returns.<br />Dikran Marsupialnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-6634852851476219482014-07-16T14:43:22.237+10:002014-07-16T14:43:22.237+10:00I have a soft spot for Ferdinand and also Leif. I...I have a soft spot for Ferdinand and also Leif. I don't always agree, but they're not dishonest idiots.Joenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-43910701442494980362014-07-16T08:46:35.023+10:002014-07-16T08:46:35.023+10:00I used to think the strong nuclear force was the s...I used to think the strong nuclear force was the strongest force in the universe, but motivated reasoning is obviously stronger <b>and</b> longer range.<br /><br />Sadly, we mastered the physics of combustion centuries ago but still haven't advanced psychology enough to defeat Morton's demon, or sociology enough to build a demon-proof moat around our elected leaders.<br /><br />Maybe humans aren't unique in this respect. Maybe physics is universally easier to discover than psychology. Does the Dunning-Kruger effect explain the Fermi paradox?Dumb Scientisthttp://dumbscientist.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-16396322564066130272014-07-16T08:27:00.266+10:002014-07-16T08:27:00.266+10:00No wonder there is not one reference in his 20 pag...No wonder there is not one reference in his 20 pages of pseudoscientific babble!Raoulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-8994575957605245932014-07-16T07:55:05.642+10:002014-07-16T07:55:05.642+10:00Perhaps on IP address.Perhaps on IP address.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-66873442378910995542014-07-16T07:37:58.380+10:002014-07-16T07:37:58.380+10:00It doesn't suit deniers to think that burning ...It doesn't suit deniers to think that burning hydrocarbons could give off carbon dioxide. I don't know what they think happens when the burn their autumn leaves or what they think comes out of the exhaust of their cars. <br /><br />Most of them, including Anthony, don't have a handle on chemistry or arithmetic. Or if they do, they suspend their understanding when it comes to anything climate.<br /><br />I don't know why they are so adamant since they don't accept the greenhouse effect anyway. They probably think that Earth stays warm from angels' breath - sweet warm breezes wafting down from heaven.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-33501135293638699862014-07-16T07:28:01.140+10:002014-07-16T07:28:01.140+10:00I also just bashed my head against the "CO2 r...I also <a href="http://dumbscientist.com/archives/abrupt-climate-change#comment-41420" rel="nofollow">just bashed my head</a> against the "CO2 rise is natural" zombie myth. An important point is that CO2 outgassed from the oceans comes out as complete CO2 molecules, which doesn’t decrease atmospheric oxygen. <b>But burning carbon uses up oxygen.</b><br /><br />At WUWT, <a href="https://archive.today/110AM#selection-11119.35-11131.65" title="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/29/new-book-slaying-the-sky-dragon/#comment-541860" rel="nofollow">Ferdinand Engelbeen</a> cited TAR Fig 3.4 (<a href="http://www.grida.no/climate/IPCC_tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-03.PDF" rel="nofollow">on p.206</a>) which plots atmospheric O2 vs. CO2 from 1990-2000. If the rise in CO2 were due to ocean outgassing (or volcanoes) the line would be horizontal because O2 wouldn’t decrease. If 100% of the rise in atmospheric CO2 were due to burning carbon, the line would point down at a 45 degree angle because each added CO2 molecule removes an O2 molecule from the atmosphere.<br /><br />However, notice that the actual line points down at an even steeper angle than 45 degrees. This shows that we’re responsible for ~200% of the rise in atmospheric CO2, and that dissolved CO2 (which causes ocean acidification) is increasing despite the warming oceans.<br /><br />And yet WUWT keeps posting this ocean outgassing zombie myth. Despite the fact that Ferdinand Engelbeen has repeatedly corrected it. Abandon all hope, ye who enter here...Dumb Scientisthttp://dumbscientist.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-5299153123055572902014-07-16T05:08:02.623+10:002014-07-16T05:08:02.623+10:00How do they ban? Can't someone just change the...How do they ban? Can't someone just change their name?Bobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-46685099080655065672014-07-16T00:56:21.100+10:002014-07-16T00:56:21.100+10:00Tell us when John Carter gets banned.Tell us when John Carter gets banned.Joenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-32532223637559123642014-07-15T23:26:01.152+10:002014-07-15T23:26:01.152+10:00Ronald "Bug Farts" Voisin as I like to c...Ronald "Bug Farts" Voisin as I like to call him.Rattus Norvegicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03449457204330125792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-91330831008814832642014-07-15T23:15:47.594+10:002014-07-15T23:15:47.594+10:00Where on earth does Ronald get the 10-20pgC for vo...Where on earth does Ronald get the 10-20pgC for volcanoes from? It's certainly not from the IPCC, NASA or NOAA as he asserts.<br /><br />He should check out this paper here.<br />http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf<br /><br />Or have a read of this<br />http://globecarboncycle.unh.edu/CarbonPoolsFluxes.shtml<br /><br />It makes a mockery of his massive lies and distortions.<br /><br />Why is it that 5 seconds of Googling reveals their gross and wilful distortions. Yet the WUWT audience seems to swallow this latest crock of lies, hook, line, sinker, rod, and boat. What a bunch of totally gullible, braindead and uncritical bunch of losers. And yet they have the gall to call themselves skeptics. Skeptics my arse. <br /><br />BTW. You should have a read of his 'paper'. He dismisses the idea that CO2 influences the climate, like most deniers, but then he goes even further into cuckoo land and dismisses the idea that previous climate change is due to changes in solar insolation. His hypothesis. Wait for it. Hold onto your hats. It's because of changes in the earth's core. The 'geo-reactor' explanation. I kid you not. Go, read it if you don't believe me. Just when you thought that the 'Force X theory' was crazy, Ronald's paper takes crazy even further, and just goes into to la la land.<br /><br />It's just amazing the outrageous and outlandish ideas these guys will come up with.Davenoreply@blogger.com