2011-11-03 15:03:52We have another troll: CarbonSkeptic
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Kinda get the feeling he's just getting worked up:


  • CO2 – Some facts, figures and outcomes
    18, 20 & 21: I am not talking only about carbon emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. Plant life enhances the rate of photosynthetic sequestration, and thus a reduction in plant quantities will (other things being equal) reduce the amount of carbon dioxide taken from the atmosphere by plant photosynthesis. Fortunately, increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere enhances plant life such that photosynthetic sequestration is also enhanced. There are a number of papers but this will do for a start.

    My point in 18(b) is quantified in the literature referred to in this summary. There it is calculated that anthropogenic fossil fuel emissions account for only about 20% of the total anthropogenic contribution. Hence mankind should be focussing on planting forests more so than cutting fossil fuel emissions.

    Take it or leave it. In my view the carbon dioxide has no effect on warming anyway.
  • Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
    There is indeed a "case against human-caused global warming .. " namely the documentation of the 1909 experiment by Prof Wood in which he clearly showed that no trapping of radiation was causing any significant warming.

    This experiment is repeatable and has never been disproved in any such repeat.
  • CO2 – Some facts, figures and outcomes
    You say "The largest source of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere since 1850 is from the burning of fossil fuels ..."

    I ask what evidence you have that

    (a) such increases are larger than natural increases and

    (b) such increases are larger than increases due to deforestation which not only adds CO2 from burn-offs but also, far more so, from the resulting reduction in photosynthesis.
  • Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
    Prof Wood's experiment is indeed "a case against human caused global warming" if such warming is being blamed on carbon dioxide.

    Firstly, you seem to be dismissing a peer-reviewed (and repeatable and repeated) experiment purely on the basis of a non-peer-reviewed "in my opinion" comment which relates to his penultimate paragraph which in itself was clearly expressed as an opinion. In no way does anything here or elsewhere in the scientific literature prove that Prof Wood was wrong in his measurements which showed no significant difference in temperature caused by carbon dioxide.

    If you are going to prove Wood wrong in my scientific eyes I'm afraid you'll have to do better than that and produce, for example, a similar peer-reviewed experiment with contrary results.

    Again I say, if carbon dioxide does trap heat someone somewhere would have utilised this commercially. For example, your pool solar heating could be far more efficient if the pipes ran through an enclosure filled with carbon dioxide.

    I can assure you I have read plenty on your site and in the literature on climate change and am in no way a beginner in the field, being also well versed in physics.

    You have completely ignored Timothy Casey's explanation of the error made by Arrhenius, who was also debunked by Prof Woods and (this year) by Prof Nahle.

    My point in quoting the definition of science is that it has nothing to do with consensus opinion - only empirically proven facts.

    I challenge you once again to provide just one link to a scientific experiment which (somehow) comes up with the opposite result found by Woods - any experiment that actually shows that carbon dioxide (in similar proportions to that in the atmosphere) causes additional warming. You may also wish to clarify where you believe the additional thermal energy is stored - in the atmosphere, the surface and/or the oceans? Where does it go when the ocean, air and land all cool as winter approaches in a particular hemisphere?

    If cooling can occur then with all that carbon dioxide, how do we know the net annual effect will end up being one of warming? After all, the world has cooled in the past and there was some carbon dioxide, for example, at the end of World War II. If you acknowledge natural causes led to such prolonged cooling periods over 20 or more years, then how can you be sure we are not entering another such period right now?
  • Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
    Let me quote the Eleventh Edition of the Concise Oxford Dictionary:

    Science (noun) the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

    On this site there is plenty of discussion about the well known fact that temperatures rose last century, as did carbon dioxide levels, but there's not one reference to any scientific experiment providing evidence that carbon dioxide levels caused the warming. How do you know it wasn't, for example, 2,000 nuclear tests damaging the crust and allowing core heat to escape more easily? Or perhaps the same natural causes that have played around with temperatures over the last few million years?

    Maybe you all need to go and read (again) what Prof Wood found in 1909, a simple repeatable experiment which in fact has been repeated with the same results. I suggest this is pretty clear-cut empirical evidence that carbon dioxide has no effect on temperatures.

    http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html

    Timothy Casey sums up the Arrhenius fallacy quite accurately, and points out that Fourier had no part in supporting the assumption that carbon dioxide caused warming:

    “Conductive heat transfer, as defined by Fourier (1822), is only concerned with total heat flow and therefore describes the sum of both radiative and kinetic transfer without addressing either specifically. This differs markedly from the separation of radiative and kinetic transfer implicit in the ethereal model of heat transfer proposed by Tyndall and favoured by Arrhenius. This divergence of Arrhenius' idea of heat transfer from the facts of contemporary science forecasts a major error in Arrhenius' thermodynamics.”

    If carbon dioxide works the way it is claimed, just fill a tank with carbon dioxide, add a glass lid and harness the heat it traps in a far more efficient solar generator than conventional solar panels. You'll make millions!
2011-11-03 15:16:24
skywatcher

andycasely@hotmail...
122.107.164.176

Bah, feel free to delete my post on the "CO2, some facts and figures", thread, I fear I just fed a troll...

2011-11-03 16:06:37
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Even though he has a differnt IP, his lat/long of his ISP are identical to those of Doug Cotton...

-33.867139  151.207114     121.217.229.89     @ozbargains.com

-33.867139  151.207114     120.146.94.47       @ozbargains.com

Coincidence?  I fear not...

2011-11-03 16:09:32
skywatcher

andycasely@hotmail...
122.107.164.176

let alone the pet theory apparent in his postings...

2011-11-03 16:13:11
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
198.53.65.169

Is there a rule about using sock puppets at the same blog?  Surely he should be banned for good.  He is clearly trolling, he is also D-K to boot.

2011-11-03 16:17:12
KR

k-ryan@comcast...
69.138.165.234

A question about the sock puppets - are there any attempts to email these guys, point out that they've been identified as sock puppeteers, and ask what the heck they think they're doing? I would be curious as to the responses...

Not that it has a lot to do with blocking them, mind you. Just curious.

2011-11-03 16:24:00
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

He has pretty clearly postioned himself to be taken as Timothy Casey, an Australian dissembler & denier.  See my reply to his nonsense here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=780#66769

2011-11-03 16:25:04
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Anyone who is banned who then comes back under a different ID is banned as quickly as I can identify them.  No tolerance for sock puppetry.

2011-11-03 17:07:42
e
Ed
eu.junk@gmail...
174.51.111.181

FYI, CarbonSkeptic identified himself as Doug Cotton in his last post. I deleted the comment but the account should be banned per your zero tolerance sock-puppetry policy.

2011-11-03 21:29:22
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Thanks, e.  I'd finally gone to bed & missed that.  Set as spammer; emailed details to John for the IP block.

Perhaps he's figured out the trick of resetting his IP; if so, he'll be back.

 

@ e (again):  You mentioned my zero-tolerance for sock puppetry; I'm open to discussing the subject if you (or anyone else) wishes to.  I was just maintaing the stance that if someone had earned banishment, their simply coming back under a different guise did not make them not being banned.  There are avenues to come back properly from banishment; some indeed have.

2011-11-04 00:58:37Suggestion for Troll Detection
Sphaerica

Bob@Lacatena...
76.28.5.93

Suggestion... it will take a bit of programming, but there are a few things you can do to identify individual computers, regardless of IP address.

If you write a Java applet to run on their computer I believe it can pull the MAC address of the machine (a unique number given to pieces of hardware).  I don't recommend this because Java applets are a pain.

You could also deposit a harmless, permanent cookie on every visitor's computer with a unique number and the list of user IDs used on that computer.  You would need to update this cookie whenever they register a new ID or log in.

On both the login and registration pages you could read this cookie and send the contents (i.e .the list of user IDs that have ever been used on that computer) with the login and registration information.

I would suggest then simply logging that information, and having a nightly (or on demand) program that reads that log looking for banned IDs and telling you the aliases used (i.e new registration or old IDs).

This method can be defeated if he clears his cookies (either for SkS or for all sites), but he has to realize how you're doing it and explicitly do so.  This is unlikely unless you tip your hand by, for instance, overtly rejecting the new registration with an instant response ("We know you're Doug Cotton!   Go away!").  That's why I recommend using a simple log-and-review process.  Then he can't know how you figured him out, and will probably assume that it's by IP address.

This method can also be defeated, purposely or accidentally, simply by using different computers, but few people do so, and even if they do, it will be with limited computers.  In particular, you might wait a few days before deleting new accounts, to give him a chance to visit all of the machines he normally uses (say, a desktop PC at work and a laptop on the road and a different desktop PC at home).  This would let the cookies be updated on all machines before his account is banned.

If you want to discuss the details of this, e-mail me.  But I think it would be pretty effective for all but the most savvy of trolls.

2011-11-04 12:12:21Big brother
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
130.102.158.12

One thing - if this cookie process is discovered (which seems inevitable considering the level of scrutiny we now endure), would this lead to cries of outrage from the denialosphere - SkS spying on deniers, persecution, inquisition, etc? 

2011-11-04 13:56:23
Sphaerica

Bob@Lacatena...
76.28.5.93

No.  I would encrypt the contents of the cookie, so no one could possibly know what it was for... mainly so that users wouldn't recognize it for what it was and so defeat the function by deleting or editing the cookie.  But many systems record user IDs in cookies for the purposes of autofilling log in boxes (although most browsers handle that for you now anyway, so it's not needed unless you're using a non-form-based, atypical logon process).

But the user would only be able to see something like:

skepticalscience.com     uc1    $lj2334#[%#jjlheoxu[*

The domain name, the name of the cookie (which we can make anything at all, I made it "uc1" here), and a string of characters which is in fact the encrypted list of user IDs that have been used on that box.

They could riddle out the purpose by looking at the code if you do everything in Javascript (you probably wouldn't, you'd do it on the PHP side, partly because it would be harder to do the encryption in Javascript) and if you didn't bother to obfuscate the Javascript code.

All in all, no... no chance they'd figure it out, and even if they did... it's just a list of their user IDs, which they got through SkS.  They'd probably never realize that you were using that list to match previously banned users with their new user IDs.  And it would be done for all users (how could you possibly know who will turn out to be a banned troll?).