That would be useless. I already know it would be persuasive. And so would whoever debunks it. And so would Lindzen after debunking the debunker, to infinity.
-
-
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @geoffmprice and
After considering it for a short time, it occurs to me that your second sentence here is the show stopper for you. You know. By making this declaration, you seem to have set up what may be an unbreakable roadblock in your mind. One must be persuadable, to be persuaded. No?
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @NickMcGinley1 @geoffmprice and
It isn’t about me. The problem is that both sides are lying (about too much) and yet both sides are persuasive if they go last. Any observer who is confident in this realm is not on solid ground.
22 replies 2 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @NickMcGinley1 and
I know most of the best known climate skeptics, and they are the most honest, decent, selfless group of people I know of. Most of us work as volunteers with no funding, because we are deeply concerned about the damage climate alarmists are attempting to force on humanity.
6 replies 35 retweets 126 likes -
Replying to @Tony__Heller @SteveSGoddard and
Scott, what is the main point you are trying to share? I really want to hear a good argument for AGW/ACC.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @minimalastiks @SteveSGoddard and
You’d like to hear about the case in physics for AGW, i.e. how do scientists know it’s due to greenhouse gases?
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
-
Replying to @minimalastiks @SteveSGoddard and
This may help http://climatechangenationalforum.org/teaching-climate-change-through-six-questions/ … Earth continually bathed with solar energy. Cools itself via infrared (Stefan-Boltzmann). Rooted in conservation of energy – oceans can't gain or lose huge amounts of energy unless there's a shift in the balance of incoming/outgoing energy
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @geoffmprice @minimalastiks and
Last sentence is key. Turns out the things that can influence in/out energy are constrained: rate of solar energy (stable), how much the earth reflects (most complex – ice, clouds), and then the greenhouse effect, the main thing that modifies the rate of outgoing energy.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @geoffmprice @minimalastiks and
The greenhouse effect itself has been known for a couple of hundred years. How it works is directly observed and confirmed. Something called radiative transfer codes, developed originally for radiation, track the absorption and emission layer by layer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect …
5 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Any interest in coming on my Periscope as a guest (audio only) to make your case? I've been tracking your for months and you seem to be well-equipped to talk to lay people in non-jargon terms.
-
-
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @geoffmprice and
No serious skeptic doubts the existence of the greenhouse effect. I worked as a contractor for the National Center for Atmospheric Research doing software development on their radiative transfer code (RRTM-LW.) This is not a valid skeptics vs. alarmists talking point.
3 replies 8 retweets 19 likes -
Replying to @Tony__Heller @SteveSGoddard and
"No serious skeptic doubts the existence of the greenhouse effect." Except for a significant portion of contrarians commenting online. Apparently this got Mr. Goddard to unblock me... how are you.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.