On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:50:42 -0800, Dawlish wrote:

On Dec 11, 7:37Â*pm, Bill Ward wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:42:57 -0800, Dawlish wrote:

Repost deleted context

[BW]
Failure to understand is not a credible rebuttal.- Hide quoted text -


[D]
- Show quoted text -

Bill, I could say exactly the same. You feel that you are the only one
that really understands and you show that through your occasional
writings in this newsgroup. Over the last century so many physicists
have looked at this and the basic physics have not changed. CO2 absorbs
IR radiation - OK, a complex spectrum (though not as complex as H2O) -
but it absorbs energy, re-radiating it, in all directions, to warm the
atmosphere. You seem to have a different solution and you'd like to
dismiss anyone who doesn't talk the same language as you do.

OK, all you need to do is point out the errors in my explanation. Using
the language of physics makes it easier to understand, but you can explain
your position however you want. The concepts involved, however, are not
mine alone. They describe well-known principles of physics, and you
either need to accept them, or show why they're wrong.

I can't be an expert on everything and I don't claim to be. Nor can
anyone else. Nor are you. I read papers by others better qualified than
me. You do too. However, I am good at assessing probablilities and
likelihoods. The probability of you being correct and almost all other
scientists that have been involved in atmospheric physics being wrong is
highly unlikely.

The first part of your above paragraph disqualifies the second part. How
can you assign probabilities to things you don't understand? Why should
anyone care what you think if you can't explain why you think it? Appeal
to authority is not thinking, it is an excuse for not understanding.

If you can't see that, it shows that you are a long way from having any
kind of understanding of probability. Hence, it is highly likely that
you are wrong and thus highly likely that the view held by the vast
majority is correct. (Never, ever, would I call your views outright
wrong, though the likelihood is that they are).

pause reinserting deleted text

[BW]

So exactly why should I care what you think? Â*You seem to avoid any
thinking that would enable you to understand what I'm saying. Â*If
you're not even going to try, why should I waste my time on you?

[D]

Why try when even if I talked pure physics, you'd continue to believe
what you do? You know you are right Bill, even though generations of
physicists would disagree with you. You also appear to "waste your time"
with an awful lot of people who you don't feel understand as much as you
do.......

[BW]
First of all, it's a losing game for you to simply snip items you can't
address. As you can see, it's too easy for me to just reinsert the part
you dodged, for everyone to review.

Second, you apparently think you can read my thoughts and predict my
actions. If so, that's a sign of serious mental disease, and you should
seek psychiatric help.

Third, only I choose which posts to respond to, that's out of your
control. If you don't like what I say, you always have the option of
keeping your mouth shut, even if it makes people think you may be a
fool. That's far better than responding and proving yourself one.

[D]
Unfortunately the outcomes, in terms of rising Global temperatures, are
leaving you behind.

[BW]
Temperatures have been, are, and always will be, rising and falling. The
problem you have is explaining and defending the mechanism by which CO2
could significantly affect that fact.

But you need to learn some physics to do that. Too bad there's no royal
road.

[resume reinserting deleted text]

[D]

I'm still not seeing any decent explanation of why the atmosphere is not
colder, given that the oft-quoted "natural cycles" are presently in a
state which ought to mean that it should *be* colder at present and not
the last 6 months sitting on the record as being extremely warm compared
to the last 130 years (and remember, my original analysis of monthly
temps went back 5 years - 30% of months being in the top 2 warmest in
180 years - and I could extend that back 30-50 years, and show similar
results - that's why the graph of temp against time curves upwards).

[BW]

If you ever get to a point where you can present a coherent, logical
explanation of your hypothesis, let us know. Until then, this may help:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hph.html

end reinsertion of deleted text