2011-09-04 22:09:09Convection and Conduction


It's really gotten bad. Doug Cotton, Norman, Rosco... they keep coming out of the woodwork.

Their big argument seems to repeatedly be that convection and conduction do it all (two processes that people are very familiar with and believe they can "see" because you can see wind and clouds).

It's almost as if there is a planned, concerted effort to undermine threads and the science on this site at a very low level with nonsense.  It's almost like a strategy to appeal to what the ignorant man wants to believe.  Yes, we're right, but they're converting more "believers" to their side by appealing to the common man's kitchen science.  And they just keep at it and at it, ignoring every argument and replying with "I think" followed by utter drivel.

2011-09-05 10:58:08


Hmm, science of Doom has another interesting article touching on some of this..



But you cant get these posters to actually read anything.


Surely the whole Rosco thread in Venus should be moved elsewhere ("falsification of GHE??"). Anyone interested in the Venus question would rapidly lose interest.

2011-09-05 11:36:01Phil
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey

Rosco was already given that direction and has ignored it (13 more off-topic comments since then and counting):

  • Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
    I give in. I seem to be breaching the commentary policy by arguing that the basis for determining the energy input to a planetary atmosphere is important in determining the topic discussed here.

    I guess you will always oppose my point of view adn I will continue to oppose the factor of 4 reduction of insolation.

    But remember - energy cannot be created or destroyed merely transformed.

    Think about it.

    [DB] The point that you are not grasping is that this thread is about Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect.

    You have given no indication of talking about that topic, despite able advice from others.  Other threads (nearly 5,000 in number) exist here at SkS on every subject imaginable that pertain to climate science.  Using the seach function in the upper left corner of every page here at SkS, search for that topic you want to hang your hat on and place a comment there (for example Has the greenhouse effect been falsified?).

    Dozens of regular participants here are ready to help you gain a better understanding of climate science.  So the choice stands before you:

    1. Continue in your present path of not listening to others and continuing to be off-topic, with the expected result of forcing the moderators to intervene
    2. Or follow the path outlined above

    Think about it.

2011-09-05 13:07:18Rosco's teacher
Dan Friedman

Following the email prefix 'roscomac' that appears on Deleted Comments, roscomac appears here.  His one comment:  'why is solar radiation divided by 4?'  Follow the link there to a blog post about the moon.  Roscomac didn't learn much from this guy either.