The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Rock star-scientist Brian Cox confused on more than global temperatures > Comments

Rock star-scientist Brian Cox confused on more than global temperatures : Comments

By Jennifer Marohasy, published 18/8/2016

Richard Horton, the current editor of the medical journal, The Lancet, recently stated that, 'The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.'

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 59
  7. 60
  8. 61
  9. Page 62
  10. 63
  11. All
bigmouth says:” Physics tells us that an empty vessel makes the most noise.”
Good point, bigmouth, I will in future address you as “bigmouth empty-head”.
I was slow in posting this, but his particularly stupid post today, reminded me.
Posted by Leo Lane, Saturday, 17 September 2016 9:32:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo

You set yourself up as knowing about science, but, when challenged to provide anything, you are unable to do so.

I have provided an example of an experiment incorporating CO2 and natural light.

The example being:

http://vimeo.com/32056574

I have asked you to provide an experiment to support what you say. Till so far you have not been able to do so.

It is a science challenge, not a challenge to provide verbal diarrhoea. Please provide an experiment/s to support your views.

In my case, I can provide examples of other experiments.

For example, already in 1856; Eunice Foote, was using very simple experiments to show the greenhouse effect.
Posted by ant, Sunday, 18 September 2016 6:57:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ant,

During about 1856 did Eunice Foote show greenhouse gas causing sea surface temperature increase?
Posted by JF Aus, Sunday, 18 September 2016 8:13:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JF Aus

You ask:

"During about 1856 did Eunice Foote show greenhouse gas causing sea surface temperature increase?"

Eunice Foote used water vapour, air, and CO2 in her experiments.

Please provide experiments that show forcing in the atmosphere of CO2 and light create no warmth.

You provide opinion; JF, but can supply no experiment to debunk CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

I'm able to provide experiments increasing in sophistication to give credence to the fundamental premise of climate science; those who deny can not provide experimental support.
Posted by ant, Sunday, 18 September 2016 9:11:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ant,

I do not deny CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but to what level of impact it may or may not have I am not at all sure.
And so I question temperature measurements in AGW science, as Jennifer Marohasy is.

Full scientific certainty is not always possible, even in AGW science that cannot (or will not) show experimental evidence for SST measurement being an anomaly in AGW - CO2 science.
Surely if there is increase in global warmth that increase would be detectable in sea surface temperatures and there should be no such anomaly

Here you are, ant, held sitting at your keyboard by gravity while you yourself cannot provide experimental support showing experiment how gravity is formed and how gravity holds down your flesh and bones.

Does present lack of experiment evidence of gravity mean you are a denier of gravity?

Sea surface temperature measurements are presented as part of AGW associated science but those SST measurements are an anomaly in AGW-CO2 science.
Why is that so?
Posted by JF Aus, Sunday, 18 September 2016 11:41:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The flea is making his baseless comment on the wrong thread. It has already been dealt with, and the flea is unable to justify his position.
the flea has a tactic of lying about what I have said, and then pointing out that I cannot verify what I have not said, but has been concocted, and falsely asserted as my comment, by the flea.
He has made an even bigger fool of himself than usual, and has adopted his usual tactic of refusing to answer., so that he does not prove himself a liar. He prefers that I prove him a liar, which I have already done
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 18 September 2016 12:26:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 59
  7. 60
  8. 61
  9. Page 62
  10. 63
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy