Showing posts with label comments. Show all posts
Showing posts with label comments. Show all posts

Thursday, May 5, 2011

Comments policy

For those readers who may not have noticed, I have updated my comments policy:

Comments will be moderated randomly. There will be very long stretches between moderation making conversation continuity virtually impossible. Additionally, comments on each thread will be switched off arbitrarily within 24 hours. While comments that are racist, bigoted, prejudiced, inflammatory, intolerant or chauvinistic will of course be allowed, comments that think they catch me out may be removed.

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Still not worried

Sometimes it only takes one comment on my blog to bring out an outpouring of scientific insight. Take the thread below; in response to critic AS the other commenters really put his so-called paleoclimate perspective in its place. I bet AS feels a fool.

Its certainly worth taking the time to read some of the knowledge this blog unearths and so I've highlighted some of the best comments in red after the jump.

AS
Wed 20 Apr 11 (08:05am)
.
Thank you for helping delay any meaningful action. Far better for the probelem to be infinetly larger and possibly insurmountable at some point in the future - out of sight , out of mind.
We’ve almost guaranteed a 2 degree post-industrial temperature rise. The last time this happened - over 2 million years ago - sea level was eventually 25 metres higher. 250 million people and a trillion dollars of infrastructure are within just a 1 metre rise.
The problem is that the temperature numbers seems so small that people don’t grasp their significance.
During the last mini-ice age the temperature of the globe averaged over the seasons was only 1/2 of a degree lower. And when the planet was 5 degree cooler there was a kilometre thick ice sheet over New York.
If we aren’t able to contain our present temperature rise - which we are measurably the cause of - to within 2 degrees then any number of positive feedbacks kick in and we may well be on the way to a 4 degrees or more and the limits for human adaptation are likely to be exceeded in many parts of the world.
Bye bye humans… thanks Mr Clot.



Monday, April 18, 2011

More Great Comment

Everyday I'm pleasantly surpised by the insight of the commenters on this blog. Take this one for example;
Why don't you put all this spare time to use? [...] - do what a lefty should do; help the poor or help a disabled person...even plant a tree.

Ooooh thats right - you're on welfare (sorry), you types just talk about it whilst relying on the people who you hate so much - you know the workers.
 Within two short sentences, anonymous has really got all the bases covered. Can there be anyone left who doubts that the Right are all over these issues? I think not.

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Great comment

Often it is only in the comments section of blogs that you gain an insight into real science.

Take, for example, this comment from a popular blog;

1)no such thing as a ghgas....the ghe does not apply to the atmosphere,all gases absorb heat and all heated gases radiate heat (infrared light) in close proportion to their temperature.
2) temp lapse rate-change in temp with height as determined by gravity. 3) temp gradient is a term that refers to change in temp with height. note 2/3 are different entities,and you fail to grasp it is the sun that drives our warmth,not a gas.

So on the moon-....how does it get so hot?i mean -is it the sun by any chance? or shouldn’t the moon according to your belief...stated repeatedely-without any GHGases..be a cold rock?..

isobar (Reply)
Fri 19 Nov 10 (12:31am)

 Now as you can see, "isobar" really has all bases covered.

To the untrained eye it may seem contradictory that there is "no such thing as a (greenhouse)gas" and yet "all gases absorb heat and all heated gases radiate heat". But isn't that exactly the flexibility that is missing in the so-called "peer reviewed" literature. Cohesion is just small thinking. What is wrong with holding two completely contradictory ideas at the same time?

And "isobar" follows on with some pretty cutting observations about the moon. Indeed, as he notes, "shouldn't the moon according to your belief [...] without any GHGases..be a cold rock?" I wouldn't want to be on the other side of those comments, after all there are plenty of rocks that are colder than -153°C.