The only people who keep referencing Gore are deniers like you, in some type of shoddy attempt to, well, it isn’t clear what.

“I’ve been “Bob” all my life . It bugs me that someone at Heartland must have thought that just too informal to permit .”

Heartland doing something they shouldn’t? Shocking.

“Freeman Dyson, Harrison Schmitt, Walt Cunningham…”
What climate science background do they have? None. Then (as with yours) their opinions are worthless.

“A real life Heartland institute speaker? Well aren’t we “honoured” – for a certain value of the word again.”
Glancing around his web site and looking at the crap he says, being a science denier is one of the least kooky.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/12/03/global_warming_antarctica_is_losing_more_than_6_billion_tons_of_ice_annually.html

I’d say undeniable but well, there are some sad sacks out there that would try to deny exactly that reality so ..

“You all even label astronauts like Walt Cunningham and the brilliant Harrison Schmitt who have seen Earth from the Moon “flat earthers”.

I have immense respect for Harrison Schmitt and the other astronauts – but that does NOT oblige me or anyone else to accept every word they say as gospel truth or refrain from pointing out when he is badly wrong. I find it very unfortunate and sad for him that Schmitt has adopted such, yes, “flat earth” beliefs.

Oh well, sad indeed but even Isaac Newton had many crank beliefs we now find ridiculous. Science is based on evidence – not authority.

@146. Bob Armstrong : Was my post invisible to you or something? No comment on how Venus planetary average temp is hotter than Mercury despite their relative distances in any unit you care to name? Plus Neptune almost as warm as Ouranos despite being much, much more distant from our daytime star?

@ 148. Dean : A real life Heartland institute speaker? Well aren’t we “honoured” – for a certain value of the word again.

Reminds me of this good clip :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKBIP_dogMg

Bring back any memories Bob Armstrong?

Presentation @ Heartland Institute’s
9th International Conference on Climate Change
The Basic Basics
of planetary temperature in a few lines of APL showing that Al Gore’s witchdoctor Jame Hansen’s claim that Venus is a runaway greenhouse fails undergraduate physics

posted on it – then by an amazing coincidence there is another man with your name in your town, and I apologize for my error.

That in no way lends support for the bizarre comments you’ve posted here.

Global warming is only partly about the energy a planet receives from the sun. A simple stony planet with no atmosphere would lose most of its solar input pretty much at the same rate it receives it, minus a small amount that ends up in the mass of the planet, and what happens to that depends on the planet’s rotation. An atmosphere with any kind of GHG changes that enormously. Add an ocean and you also get really large changes.

You’ve never examined Mann’s work in detail. Mann’s work over the last two and a half decades has been prolific and key to many areas of climate change science. If you’ve not examined Mann’s work in any detail, then you know nothing about climate science. Nothing.

Sorry, but your undergraduate degree in physics if failing you here. Badly.

How is it that being courageous makes utterly incorrect statements that belie a level of understanding that, if it was temperature, would be 0K (absolute zero), good science?

Thank you for your comments, Bob.

I don’t care that people who don’t even know or consider important to know that the temperature of a planet , holding it’s spectrum constant , i attributable to the energy it receives from the sun s proportional to the inverse square root of its distance from the sun ( http://cosy.com/Science/AGWpptSBplanetTemps.jpg ) ban me from their discussion of whether I and the many many great courageous scientists who are more interested in truly understanding planetary temperature than parroting a party line are criminals .

However , Dean’s assertion is simply false . I have never made any comment on Mann’s work because I have never examined it in detail . I will say I think he’s shown himself to be a litigious clown tho .

My interest is restoring the essential quantitative analytical method of classical physics to this globally consequential discussion , but no one in this echo chamber appears to have either the hard science background nor the motivation to understand that physics rather than sop their politicized “science” .

There is no science going on here!