Physics trumps right-wing ideology

Global warming deniers know as much about climate science as they do about brain surgery. Would you let them tell your doctor what to do about that tumor?

Why do I–a professional physicist and lifetime member of the American Physical Society–accept the reality of human-caused global warming? Because I accept the following top-ten list of physics facts, which have never been disputed in the scientific literature. This is also why the American Physical Society of 47,000 physicists says “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring”.

PHYSICS FACT #1: The atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased rapidly since the beginning of the industrial revolution, after being nearly constant for thousands of years.

PHYSICS FACT #2: The surplus carbon dioxide has an isotope composition that can only come from fossil fuels. The increase in concentration is not natural; it comes from human activities.

PHYSICS FACT #3: The radiative properties of carbon dioxide have been measured by physicists in the laboratory: It absorbs thermal infrared (heat) radiation.

PHYSICS FACT #4: Because carbon dioxide has this heat-absorbing physical property, the increase in its concentration has increased the infrared opacity of the Earth’s atmosphere and blocks the outward radiation of heat.

PHYSICS FACT #5: More net energy is now coming into the Earth’s atmosphere from sunlight than is going back out to space as heat radiation.

PHYSICS FACT #6: Conservation of energy is a fundamental law of physics. When more energy comes in than goes out of a system, it warms up.

PHYSICS FACT #7: The Earth’s temperature is increasing by an amount that is consistent with predictions, based on the laws of physics and the well known heat-absorbing properties of the excess carbon dioxide

PHYSICS FACT #8: Measurements show that night-time temperatures are increasing faster than daytime temperatures, just as physicists predicted. The excess carbon dioxide causes a warmer night-time sky which is the main source of heat at night, but does not affect the brightness of the sun, which is the main source of daytime heat.

PHYSICS FACT #9: Measurements show that the top of the atmosphere is getting colder, just as physicists predicted, because the excess carbon dioxide in the lower atmosphere is blocking the heat from below.

PHYSICS FACT #10: Heat-sensing instruments on satellites have measured a reduction in the amount of infrared radiation coming from the atmosphere, at the exact wavelengths predicted by physicists.

Anybody who calls themselves a “skeptic” must refute one or more of these physics facts by publishing the extraordinary evidence for their claim. Otherwise, it the word “denier” is appropriate.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate denialism. Bookmark the permalink.

60 Responses to Physics trumps right-wing ideology

  1. John Mashey says:

    As evidence in support of this, I observe that the silly 2009 petition to change APS’ position on climate, with much huffing and puffing, managed to attract less than 05.% of the APS membership.

    This is evidence that:
    1) For half a percent, ideology (or something) nullifies modern physics, as often taught in sophomore physics (I mean, most of this was in my 40-year-old Halliday&Resnick).
    If that half a percent is right, neither computers nor much else works.

    2) The overwhelming majority of physicists accept basic physics.
    Hence, computers and the Internet will continue to work, as well.

    2) But half a percent don’t, as ideology (or something) seems to nullify modern physics for them.

  2. Scott Mandia says:

    Excellent way to prove your point.

    As Dr. James Powell says:

    If increases in CO2 are not causing modern day global warming then two things must be true:

    1) Something unknown is suppressing the well-understood greenhouse effect (and doing so during massive increases in GHGs).

    2) Something unknown is causing the warming that mirrors the GHE.

    So we can accept what we know to be true (AGW) or we accept two unknowns.

    • John Mashey says:

      Scott: I think this is known as the
      1) gremlins
      and
      2) leprechauns

      theory, although I may have the roles mixed up.

  3. L Davies says:

    [Citation Needed] – ie. A list of ‘facts’ is useless without references. Ironic, given your blog’s claim to be shining a spotlight on ‘pseudoscholarship’.

  4. Oxford Kevin says:

    I think you need to add a couple of entries about the water vapour feedback as part of your list otherwise we will have the luke warmists coming along and saying that they don’t disagree with any of the above but the consequences are much less than the alarmists state. But this means they have to be in denial that either the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is not temperature dependent or that water vapour itself is not a greenhouse gas.

  5. Josie says:

    Just to be clear from the start, I am not a skeptic!

    But although I like where you are coming from, I think that this is over-simplifying and playing into their hands. They don’t need to disprove any of the above, they merely need to demonstrate that climate sensitivity is low (because, say, water vapour does not act as a positive feedback).

    There is loads of evidence that climate sensitivity is NOT low – for one thing, we couldn’t explain the ice age cycles if it was, and water vapour levels ARE rising just after the temperature rises, just as climate modellers predicted. I recommend the first half hour of this video for a quick run-down of a few of the lines of evidence, explained so any layman can understand:

    But sadly, I don’t think that it is as simple as you are saying.

  6. puckerclust says:

    To L. Davies: Thank you for your concern about the lack of citations. I leave it as an exercise for the reader, as is customary for tutorials based on easily-accessible factual information. Let me know if you have trouble finding a reference to support, for example, “Conservation of energy is a fundamental law of physics,” and I’ll try to steer you in the right direction.

    • Tom says:

      This is a horrible reply! Obviously you know that L Davies isn’t referring to your fact #6, he’s referring to more or less all of the others. Have these claims all been published in credible journals? I’m not a professional physicist, and it really isn’t easy for me to find out.

      I realise that finding clear citations for each fact is a bore, but without them the post looks like empty rhetoric, preaching to the choir rather than the dithering congregation. With a good citation for each fact, the post would become an excellent resource – I haven’t seen the chain of argument and its confirmations laid out this clearly before.

  7. puckerclust says:

    To Oxford Kevin and Josie, I agree that that feedbacks and climate sensitivity are other aspects of global warming that are being denied for ideological reasons, but my post was aimed at those who deny the very existence of global warming.

  8. Warren O'Neill says:

    Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t it currently not known whether the increase in cloud cover due to an increase in evaporation caused by increasing global temperatures will provide a warming or cooling effect?
    I don’t see how you can be so certain when there is so many things we don’t understand about the climate system the above being just one example.

    • Warren O'Neill says:

      Sorry I wrote this without refreshing the page and someone already had made a similar sentiment.

    • puckerclust says:

      You are correct that most of the feedback uncertainty is associated with uncertainty in clouds, their nucleation and radiative properties, and how clouds are affected by global warming. But increased evaporation due to global warming also increases the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, and most of the positive feedback comes from water vapor (a strong greenhouse gas). There is little uncertainty is the IR opacity of water vapor, so we know this amplifies the warming.

      If we are lucky, clouds will partly cancel out the effect. If we are unlucky, they will make it worse than we can imagine. Sorta like playing Russian roulette and not knowing how many bullets are in the chamber. Do you feel lucky?

      • Peter Wilson says:

        Water vapour will only increase warming if there is an increased amount of it. But current research indicates water vapour levels have fallen about 4% since (If I recall) the 1950’s. Which does not agree with model predictions, and does not support the positive feedback hypothesis.

        Not to mention which, increased water vapour will likely lead to increased cloud formation, which can be warming at night, but is usually cooling during the day. The uncertainties in this area at present are huge, and not reducing appreciably.

      • puckerclust says:

        You should read what you write. First you say that the atmosphere is drying out, so there is nothing to worry about. Do you really think a dried-out atmosphere would a good thing? Then you say that increased water vapor would (likely) increase cloud formation. No matter what, everything is ok, according to you. If the “uncertainties in this area at present are huge,” as you say, then you can’t really be certain everything is going to be just fine, can you? If you run a red light it won’t matter. It’s late and nobody else is on the road. Everything will be ok. (Drunk Driver Fallacy).

      • Peter Wilson says:

        I didn’t say the atmosphere is drying out so there is nothing to worry about, I said that water vapour has decreased, whereas CAGW theory requires that it should increase in order to provide the positive feedback necessary to overheat the planet.

        If this is not happening, which it isn’t, this is a powerful falsification of the theory.

      • puckerclust says:

        I think you are confused about the definition of humidity. According to your theory–as stated by you–water vapor decreases. That is synonymous with the atmosphere drying out. In reality, a constant relative humidity requires a significant increase in specific humidity. We have already established the reality of anthropogenic global warming based on fundamental laws of physics, and the increase in specific humidity means that there is a strong positive feedback. The observational data support this.

        But back to your atmospheric drying theory. Do you really think global desiccation is preferable to global warming?

      • Peter Wilson says:

        I didn’t mention humidity at all, my comment mentioned total water vapour decreasing, which would imply a fall in both relative and absolute humidity, given the increase in surface air temperatures.

        And it’s not a question of whether I consider that, or any other observed phenomenon, a good thing, the climate doesn’t seek my approval. The point is that the reduction in water vapour in the atmosphere is the opposite of what is predicted by the GCM models. Many would call that falsification.

      • puckerclust says:

        It is very frustrating to try to explain physics to someone who fails to grasp elementary concepts like humidity.

        Please consider signing up for a course in physics at your local community college. After you understand the concepts we are discussing, I think you may become a bit more skeptical about the gibberish you’ve been reading on denialist blogs.

        Climate seeks nobody’s approval, but we scientists have an obligation to point out the possible negative effects of pollution. The global drying predicted by Lindzen and others has the potential of being much worse for humanity than global warming. Fortunately, there’s no evidence to support his predictions.

  9. Joe Prins says:

    Fact 5: Has this been otherwise at any time in history? In other words, when was heat radiation from earth more than the energy coming from the sun? That, spurious statement.
    Fact #7: Perhaps a talk with Dr. Roy Spencer may illuminate this subject for you.
    P.S. When was this prediction made? During the seventies ice age scare?
    Fact #8: As above, ice age scare disregarded for the moment, this is restating Fact #5 in a different way? Where are the temp. gauges, what is being measured? Asphalt? Buildings. No other possible explanation then Co2? Being a scientist means being myopic?
    Anyway, no point in commenting. Closing minds rarely display enough flexibility to make this excersize useful.

    • puckerclust says:

      Thanks. would be happy to talk about physics facts with Dr. Spencer if he cares.

      Wrt your comments re 5. not relevant.

      For prediction, see Broecker, W.S. “Climatic change; are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?” Science, v 189, n 4201, p 460-3, 8 Aug. 1975.

      wrt your theory that there was an “ice age scare” in the 1970s, see above.

      wrt your confusion about fact #8, see skepticalscience.com, leading science-based blog that covers this with references.

  10. Here’s a challenge for you, puckerclust, just show one record from any time period of any duration in which a CO2 increase precedes a temperature increase. The opposite claim that CO2 increase drives temperature increase is the main assumption in your failed greenhouse gas hypothesis. Not only does no example exist, but all records indicate the opposite. Why not stop deleting the comments posted by my learned colleagues and come out and debate us like a real scientist.

  11. Scott Mandia says:

    A good start for beginners on the human fingerprints of global warming can be found here:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Scientific-Guide-to-Global-Warming-Skepticism.html

  12. Wow! How illuminating!

  13. Why do you–a professional physicist and lifetime member of the American Physical Society–accept the reality of human-caused global warming?

    Because you accepted misinformation about:

    a.) The Sun’s origin
    b.) The Sun’s composition
    c.) The Sun’s source of energy, and
    d.) The Sun’s influence on Earth’s changing climate

    I will be happy to post a hyper-link to the data: “Neutron repulsion”, The APEIRON Journal, in press (20110) 19 pages: arxiv.1102.1499v1

    • puckerclust says:

      Thanks. I look forward to seeing a paper that has traveled backward in time so many years.

      • Thank you for your good humor.

        The paper is in fact a summary of experimental data that has accumulated over the past fifty years (1960-2010), data that indicate:

        a.) The Sun itself exploded 5 Gyr ago and gave birth to the solar system.

        b.) The Sun is the iron-rich remains that reformed on the collapsed SN core, a neutron star.

        c.) Neutron repulsion triggers the nuclear reactions that generate solar luminosity, solar neutrinos, and solar wind H and He as waste products.

        d.) Earth and the other planets are engulfed in these waste products (heliosphere). Earth’s constantly changing climate is induced primarily by cyclic changes in gravitational interactions of the Sun’s compact, energetic core with the orbiting planets.

        If you copy and paste this link, it should take you directly to the paper: “Neutron Repulsion,” The APEIRON Journal, in press (2011) 19 pages.

        arxiv.org/pdf/1102.1499v1/

  14. Peter Wilson says:

    It appears to me that one can agree with all of the propositions put forward, and still not be convinced that the warming resulting from co2 emissions is any cause for alarm whatever. I am somewhat dubious about the last 4, which are not as cut and dried as you make out (I would cite work by Lindzen and Choi, and Spencer , but I’m sure you are aware of it), but this makes no difference to the following argument.

    Your list makes no mention of any magnitude of the expected warming from additional co2, other than that it is ” an amount that is consistent with predictions”. The actual amount since Dickens was a boy may be as much as 0.8 degrees K, so I assume the particular predictions you refer to expect only this amount. If this is the case, then whatever you use as the basis for these predictions must also have a low sensitivity, as co2 levels have increased by over a third in that time. This is roughly in accord with what basic physics predicts from this increase in co2 levels, I agree.

    But this minor degree of warming, or the expectation that it may be repeated, is no cause for alarm, and it is not the story that is being told. In the IPCC case, the increase in temperatures will be greatly amplified by myriad positive feedbacks (despite positive feedbacks being exceedingly rare in nature). There is nothing at all in your list of “facts” to in any way preclude a far lower sensitivity than the IPCC predicts, and a good deal of observational evidence (including that noted above), to indicate that the sensitivity of the climate to increases in co 2 levels, at the current concentration levels, is low enough to be distinctly un-alarming.

    Therefore I submit that it is not necessary to refute ANY 0f your propositions to nevertheless maintain a sceptical position in regard to the imminence of catastrophic global warming

    • puckerclust says:

      This is a logical fallacy I like to call the “Drunk Driver Fallacy.” Like global warming deniers, drunks tend to deny the risks associated with their behavior. They say things like “what’s the worst thing that can happen?” and “don’t worry, everything will be fine.” They don’t deny that alcohol affects behavior, but they insist that they aren’t very sensitive to it, and that there is no cause for alarm. They can drive home just fine. They will be the last to admit they are wrong and that they are behaving in a dangerous way.

      • Peter Wilson says:

        My comment was about global warming – why is your reply about drunken driving? I fail too see any logical similarity between the arguments at all.

        My point is that none of the physics facts you refer to necessarily imply any degree of dangerous warming, or any warming effect that can be discerned above the noise of natural variation, and are all entirely consistent with the view that warming is likely to be modest and benign. Your statement that “Anybody who calls themselves a “skeptic” must refute one or more of these physics facts ” is therefore not a valid logical conclusion.

        Have you any response that actually deals with the climate, rather than trying to psychoanalyse my motives?

      • puckerclust says:

        Most people are quick to see the analogy. I’ll try to explain it again for you. It is human nature for people who engage in dangerous activities to deny that what they are doing could possibly be dangerous, whether it is drunk driving, or polluting the atmosphere with greenhouse gases. They cling to any uncertainty in the outcome of their actions. Unless they are sociopaths, drunk drivers have to downplay the potential consequences of their actions. Otherwise they would have to live with the burden of knowing that they are recklessly putting human lives in danger. The same is true for many global warming deniers.

        I identified the logical fallacy of your argument as the “Drunk Driver fallacy” but that doesn’t mean I am trying to psychoanalyse you. I will leave that task to your psychologist.

      • Peter Wilson says:

        Your fact #7 in particular gives a lot of wiggle room – an awful lot of contradictory predictions have been made, such that the models relied on by the IPCC differ in the amount of warming they expect by a factor of 6. Depending on your definition of “consistent with”, anything short of a new ice age could be within the kind of error bars climate scientists allow themselves.

        In fact, the actual warming recorded is pretty mild, a mere 0.7 K or so, despite a 35% increase in CO2 levels, and a good deal of that warming occurred before CO2 levels really started to rise in the mid twentieth century. Even if ALL of that warming were caused by our CO2 emissions – (and thats a huge if), and given the logarithmic nature of the greenhouse response to CO2 – also basic physics- it is not obvious that there is anythng to be alarmed about.

      • puckerclust says:

        I think you are confusing the IPCC scenarios with predictions. Nothing you say refutes the laws of physics and the inevitable consequence.

        “is not obvious that there is anythng to be alarmed about” is what a drunk driver would say. Everything is ok. I can drive. I’ve never been in a wreck or killed anybody.

      • Peter Wilson says:

        The fundamental flaw with your analogy is that drunken driving is a well known risk, which actually has killed thousands (millions probably) of people. So ignoring or denying the risk exists is unjustified.

        Whereas CAGW is an hypothesis, in which the claim of risk is both remote and subject to massive uncertainty, and which to date has harmed noone. Doubting the reality of this threat is well justified in my view.

        All your analogies are rather trite variations on the precautionary principal. The fallacy here is that you count only the risks of inaction over climate, but take no account of the very serious risks associated with the CO2 reductions you advocate. I am sure that you are a fine physicist, but you are not an economist (I am, by education if not vocation). You therefore probably have little insight into the massive economic dislocation and wealth destruction certain to result from a program of massive decarbonisation, especially if it is undertaken before workable alternatives are economically available, and that looks to be a long way off from now. The impact of denying the worlds poor access to affordable energy will surely cause billions to suffer unnecessary poverty, suffering and death – just look at the food price spike currently, due mainly to the AGW driven demand for grain for bio fuels, for a slight foretaste of what is to come should your energy prescription be adopted.

        Think of the children!

      • puckerclust says:

        The reason my analogy is appropriate is because the person denying he is endangering people has never, personally, killed anyone (yet). So the risk is purely theoretical, from his point of view. Nobody can predict the precise circumstances of the accident that will kill someone, but lack of detailed prediction capability does not negate the risk.

        Nobody has produced evidence that catastrophic climate change risk is remote. The massive uncertainty that you cite includes massive risk. Doubting the reality of the threat is no different than a drunk driver doubting the reality of the risk he is taking (and imposing on others).

        With regard to your economic theories, I am dubious. I don’t know anybody who thinks economists know more about economics than physicists know about physics. It seems logical that lowering our dependence on fossil fuel and reducing the energy intensity of the economy would be a good thing. But this is a different subject. The physics stands uncontested. How to deal with it is not a physics problem.

      • Peter Wilson says:

        I am referring to the IPCC scenarios, which I agree are not predictions, but are almost universally represented as such. Your fact # 7 specifically says that “The Earth’s temperature is increasing by an amount that is consistent with predictions,”, so I am curious as to which predictions you are referring to.

      • puckerclust says:

        Ahhrenius, 1896; Broecker, 1975; Hansen et al., 1988. All bold and remarkably accurate predictions. Deniers have never successfully predicted anything.

      • Peter Wilson says:

        Seriously? Thats your “predictions base on physics? OMG, Arrhenius predicted a 6 degree C warming for CO2 doubling in 1896, which he revised downwards to 1.6 degrees in 1906 – much closer to what has actually happened the second time around!.

        And if you regards Hansen 88 as accurate, you must have a different definition from the one I use – even “consistent” is a stretch, take a look at his prediction v observations.
        http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/hansen20.gif – the red line represents 1.5%pa growth in emissions, which is close to whats actually happened.

        Not that close, and not getting any closer as time passes. (Hansen argues we should be looking at scenario B, but even then, not that good)

        Forgive me if I am unimpressed by your idea of an accurate prediction based on physics. Tell me, which prediction was it that foresaw there being no significant warming between 1998 and 2010?

      • puckerclust says:

        The predictions I cited are widely regarded by scientists as highly successful and convincing. Non-scientists with political axes to grind–like the “Climate Audit” bloggers–have done their best distract their followers from the essence of these successful predictions. Picking at the minor deviations associated with natural variability is not a flaw in these remarkable predictions. It is a shame that Climate Audit feels the need to resort to misrepresentations and tricks to hide the rise (like omitting the last two years of data in the graph you linked). Frankly, you’ve been had by Climate Audit.

        I recommend that you arm yourself against this sort of misinformation by educating yourself in science and the scientific method. One thing that Climate Audit will never tell you is that climate is a multi-year average. The climatological global mean surface temperature has increased for any 12-year period you can name, even intervals that are cherry-picked to start at an anomalously hot year like 1998.

        Another good way to develop your BS detector is to read books by scientific skeptics like Sagan and Feynman. Skeptical Inquirer is a great resource for helping lay people distinguish between science and pseudoscience. Learn the difference between scientific skepticism and knee-jerk denial and you will not be quite so gullible in the future.

      • Peter Wilson says:

        I would also point out that “deniers” dont have to predict anything, the burden of proof is on those making predictions. Many skeptics take the view that the climate is inherently chaotic on all timescales, and prediction is therefore impossible. All those questioning them have do is show that the predictions do not match reality. Surely as a scientist you understand this?

        If you design a perpetual motion machine, and I criticize your design, I do not have to produce my own perpetual motion machine for my criticism to be effective.

      • puckerclust says:

        Your statement that deniers don’t have to predict anything is really an acknowledgment of the fact that global warming denial is a faith-based belief with no scientific basis. In science, prediction is everything, and if you can’t make predictions your ideas are not scientific.

        Global warming denial is an extraordinary claim that violates the energy conservation laws of physics, just like perpetual motion (good luck finding a reputable scientist who doesn’t put the burden of proof on the party whose ideas contradict established physical laws). We physicists understand this, which is why members of our professional society (APS) overwhelmingly support our position statement supporting the findings of mainstream climate science.

        Anybody who thinks that “climate is inherently chaotic on all timescales and prediction is therefore impossible” doesn’t understand the difference between weather and climate, and clearly doesn’t understand the concept of chaos.

        I suggest that you do some reading and learn the definitions of chaos, weather, and climate. I hope you have an open mind and are willing to change your mind once you know what these words mean.

  15. Pingback: http://puckerclust.wordpress.com/2011/04/17/physics-trumps-right-wing-ideology/ « Environmentandthethirdsector's Blog

  16. Adam says:

    You know, as an engineer, I used to be interested in the science behind global warming (true or not).

    After having kids though, all I really want is for my sons to have clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and clean outdoors to enjoy.

    This has changed my life and actions and choices more than any of the science.

    In my opinion, only this on a large scale will change the demand for the things that harm us…and our children.

  17. NikFromNYC says:

    I have direct refutation here:

    http://i49.tinypic.com/rc93fa.jpg

    They show HISTORICALLY VERY LONG single-site thermometer records which demonstrate that there is NO TREND CHANGE WHATSOEVER in the modern era.

    Not even the global average shows any upswing in trend in the high emissions postwar era:

    http://i49.tinypic.com/2mpg0tz.jpg

    You’ve LEFT SOMETHING OUT in your utterly pedantic attempt to preach to the choir and convince yourself too in the process: The MAGNITUDE and even the SIGN of water vapor feedback. The word water doesn’t even appear in your proof format essay, yet that alone is the big white elephant in the room that all the climate models rely upon for their alarmist predictions. Ah, but physics is not up to predicting complex feedbacks is it? No it is not. Without water vapor feedback that is HIGHLY POSITIVE you don’t *get* multi-degree boosts in temperature. If water vapor forms more CLOUDS which are the type that have a VERY strong cooling effect (as anybody on a picnic can attest!), then feedback is in fact negative.

    You have tried to reduce a complex system of feedbacks, many of them non-linear, to basic physics. That’s just like trying to argue that women should sleep with physicists due you this or that proof of desirability, when in fact, physicists do not in fact attract women very much at all. In fact they repulse them, on average, Brian Greene being the rare exception, as was Feynman, and even Einstein. But visit a department of physics conference and mostly these dudes have NO GAME.

    You want clean healthy air? Stop wasting research money on more and more SKY IS FALLING “research” and use it instead to support real open-ended research into all manner of breakthrough quality, actually-useful science.

    You also left out that “measurements show” that back scatter IR towards Earth is ALSO DECREASING in #10 and that THERE IS NO PREDICTED HOT SPOT in the upper atmosphere in #9 as is required by climate models. What they did instead was to merely change the COLOR of the plot so neutral heating was plotted as red! This site seems pretty cultist so I wont even bother to dig up the links.

    • puckerclust says:

      Sorry, your temperature records don’t refute the laws of physics. I would also like to remind you that the “G” in AGW stands for “global”.

      Sorry to hear you are having trouble meeting women.

  18. NikFromNYC says:

    Sorry, Ceclia was posted twice. I meant to link to Anastacia towards the end:

    http://oi55.tinypic.com/i297ar.jpg

    It’s a delight to think that you might actually, maybe just, not moderate this out. What I mean is can I, pretty please, link to this recent video interview by an utter leftist/Marxist sort of dude who has come out *against* “global warming” activism?:

    You seem to be a very good judge of character. I’d like your opinion on this wily scoundrel.

    • puckerclust says:

      I’m not sure I’m a good judge of character, but I can recognize ignorant drivel when I see it. Mr. Cockburn’s comments demonstrate that physics also trumps *left* wing ideology.

  19. puckerclust says:

    In an effort to elevate the quality of discussion and prevent deniers from using this blog as a soapbox for their debunked arguments, I have adopted a comment policy intended to eliminate future instances of the spam and scientific gibberish that unfortunately permeated this comments section. Please see the above comment by Greenfyre for links to rebuttals of the denialist myths that were subsequently posted.

    For the new comment policy, please see the post: “Denier spam and scientific gibberish.”

  20. Pingback: Judith Curry’s disingenuous blame game « Greenfyre’s

  21. Pingback: Adapting to Climate Change Now « Greenfyre’s

  22. Elle says:

    Only problem is your facts are not actually facts are they? I think you need to sue your school. lol

    • puckerclust says:

      And sue the American Physical Society while we are at it. Force them to change the laws of physics to be consistent with zero warming theory. Then change the name to the “American Pseudoscience Society” so Hal Lewis can re-join.

  23. Pingback: When ideology rebuts physics | puckerclust

  24. Pingback: Physics trumps right-wing ideology (via puckerclust) « EnviroTechGuru

  25. Pingback: Climate Change Statement

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s