A reply to Vonk: Radiative Physics Simplified II

A reply to Vonk: Radiative Physics Simplified II. Denialist Jeff Id from “the Air Vent” tries to explain to the more enthusiastic followers of Anthony Watts’ blog why they shouldn’t make themselves look foolish defending Tom Vonk’s recent imaginative foray into radiative physics.

My statement is – CO2 does create a warming effect in the lower atmosphere.

Horrors! But the usual escape hatch is attached:

Before that makes you scream at the monitor, I’ve not said anything about the magnitude or danger or even measurability of the effect. I only assert that the effect is real, is provable, it’s basic physics and it does exist.

Lasers and canisters of CO2 explain it all. Source: WUWT figure 7.

After some simple-minded talk about lasers and canisters of gases Jeff declares that “NONE of this should create any alarm” and says that perhaps “CO2 then, can be considered nothing but plant food”. And of course we all must be reminded why the “true and high quality results from Anthony’s surfacestations project [is] so critically important.”

A note about boundaries

A note about boundaries“. I said I’d start covering Anthony Watts posts on WUWT again tomorrow, but this post by Anthony was too ironic to pass over. Anthony is complaining that a critic intruded into his personal life! Oh, the hypocrisy.

I certainly support the principle that people’s personal lives are private. I am without question a very small fish in a large pond, but already in the short life of this website I’ve experienced intrusive activity by denialists that could be characterized as attempts to intimidate or discredit me (OMG, I have a facebook account! With friends!). Unless the topic is religion, for example, a person’s religious convictions are irrelevant. Does it really matter how big Al Gore’s house is?

If Anthony’s description of this particular person’s behavior is accurate (a big if) then they’ve definitely crossed the line. Challenging a denialist in a public forum, whether online or at a relevant public event, is legitimate (that if fact is the purpose of this website) but accosting them outside of that context is not.

Unfortunately Anthony Watts has made a habit of prying into the lives of his opponents and “researching” people making critical comments on his blog. He’s also been quick to publish e-mail and postal addresses of scientists or journalists he doesn’t like to enable his followers to harass them. It seems to me that Anthony’s own comfort with skipping over the line when it suits him diminishes the legitimacy of his protestations about privacy.

Every Silver Lining Has A Cloud

Every Silver Lining Has A Cloud“. Willis Eschenbach takes the opportunity to mock funding that billionaire Bill Gates has provided to the Silver Lining Project to investigate cloud-generating technologies.

Isn’t this kind of wildly optimistic geo-engineering one of the distractions that denialists like to try on when “it’s not happening” crumbles again?

In Defense Of The Met Office

In Defense Of The Met Office“. A moment of rationality from a denialist. Steven Goddard knows just enough about volcanoes to know that they are unpredictable. So flying near them is a bad idea, especially in the middle of an ocean with no safety options. He supports the UK’s Met Office decision to close their airspace until now. Get a load of this quote from Steven (italics mine):

The modelers and the people in charge of decision making have to be conservative.

Wouldn’t it be interesting if he applied the same thought process to climate change? Sadly, I don’t think that will ever happen.