Raymond, climate

Sam Liddicott sam at liddicott.com
Fri Dec 4 08:36:59 UTC 2009

* Carsten Agger wrote, On 04/12/09 08:12:
 > On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 07:51 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
 >> The link I posted (http://www.abv.org.uk/node/47) contains references
 >> about the NASA fakery. I gave up in frustration to find any debunking
 >> attempt based on anything more than fuzzy feeling, and the debunking
 >> of the leaks is just was weak. Maybe you have some good debunking of
 >> the NASA fakery that will convince a skeptic?
 > The reference in your link is to this posting:
 > http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2964
 > I believe there's a good round-up of this sort of criticism here,
 > although it doesn't address this specific article:
 > Seriously, the notion that NASA would be faking its temperature data to
 > achieve (what?) political ends require a conspiracy of the magnitude of
 > 9/11.
 > (The physical laws which would dictate that a substantial increase of
 > greenhouse gases like CO2 leads to higher temperatures are really very
 > simple: The Planck radiation law, the Stefan Boltzmann equation and the
 > notion of emissivity as influenced by the presence of greenhouse gases.
 > Global warming  basically follows from the discoveries of John Tyndall
 > (1820-1893) and Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927), but I suppose they were in
 > on the conspiracy too?).
 > best regards,

I thank you for this; I don't intend to repeat my long time observations 
on this forum; but I note that I did not propose a conspiracy, you did, 
and for just long enough to knock it down. The choice is not between AGW 
and John Tyndal & Stefan Boltzmann, and it is not constructive to 
present it as such.

Your scientific points are not disputed but their application in the AGW 
debate is.

However I think this debate is being carried out elsewhere by very 
interested parties, I merely spoke up with Max to equal the numbers and 
to defend Raymond so that it may not be said that he is making "a 
complete and utter fool of himself" on this list without defence.

And to be honest, that "complete and utter fool of himself" is the sort 
of response I keep finding from the AGW proponents, and the latest leak 
just shows they were being paid to act like that. I'm really interested 
in anything credible the AGW fans have to say, but always when they are 
pushed it comes down to name calling, and I don't expect a discussion on 
this forum to be more fruitful just because we have a different common 

best regards,


More information about the Discussion mailing list