2011-06-07 10:12:39RW1 on the 2nd Law thread
Tom Curtis

t.r.curtis@gmail...
112.213.157.35

has surely done enough to be considered a troll.  I doubt anyone capable of tying their shoe laces and, having actually read the Trenberth et al 2009 could be so seriously confused as he presents himself as being.  Unfortunately, a casual reader who does not bother reading the original paper may be confused by him.

2011-06-07 11:06:31
e
Ed
eu.junk@gmail...
76.25.197.227

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." The fact that these types of posts get just as much attention on denier sites tells me that these guys are probably not trolls, just idiots. Like most of the crackpots arguing on that thread, he has an image in his head about how things work, and is trying to force the very simple Trenberth diagram into that framework. All that is required for his understanding is to step back a minute and realize he has no clue what he's talking about, but that will never happen.

Anyways you're right this discussion is just sowing confusion. "Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." I shouldn't moderate that conversation since I participated, so if any other mods want to reign it in please go ahead.

2011-06-07 12:08:19
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

I think you guys are doing a phenomenal job (while I'm not mystified by the Trenberth diagram I could never have explained its inner workings to another person).

I'd be happy to step in as a moderator but would need some actionable reason to do so.  The last time I tried to explain something to RW, he said that he "wasn't here to learn anything".  The takeaway I left with was that he was here on false pretenses & was performing a form of spamming.  Like Damorbel and LJ Ryan and Gilles: purposefully wasting your time.

While he was confined to the 2nd Law thread I considered him a nuisance.  His branching out to other threads lately & perpetuating his brand of spamming is indeed irritating.

I welcome anyone's advice on how to move forward.

2011-06-07 14:31:19
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

As a partial solution, I've cranked up the moderation level on the 2nd Law thread.  If the comment adds nothing new to the 1059 comments already in the can and/or disagrees with established 2nd Law theory without any supporting peer-reviewed material to base it on...it's gone.