onsdag 5 december 2012

Lukewarmist Psychology

Anthony Watts just asserted that

"The greenhouse effect exists, get over it. The only relevant questions are magnitude, sensitivities and feedbacks."

First of all I would like you to compare that to the following statement:

"The Holy Spirit exists, get over it. The only relevant question is about its actual involvement in the material world."

I guess the world is now slowly realizing the true nature of gentlemen like Anthony Watts. Carbon copies of Al Gore; Equally arrogant and bigoted. There is something that many skeptics don't seem to understand about the lukewarmers. They are not performing any scientific enquiry, they never have. What they are doing is defending a trademark, the Greenhouse Effect, dressed up as a scientific theory. The best way, of course, to make a scientific theory immune to attack is to make it devoid of scientific content. This is precisely what the entire lukewarmist project is about. But very few seem to realize this.

One of the main purposes of this blog have been to check the actual sources and content of the greenhouse gas hypothesis. The process has been like trying to solve a puzzle, since each of the different sources are either incomprehensible, incomplete or contaminated with error. One of the missing pieces is the so called no-feedback sensitivity upon a doubling of CO2. Why don't we ask Anthony Watts about the scientific references for this number, in all atmospheric layers. After all, if we are meant to discuss magnitude and feedbacks, this must be the place to start.

In other words. If you want to continue your efforts to communicate with Anthony Watts: Ask questions about the greenhouse effect. What is it that we are denying? Any attempt to convince him about your own pet theory of the atmosphere or your own pet criticism of the K-T cartoon is completely futile. 

That is the key. Make them define their scientific theory and the lukewarmist house of cards will fall apart. Either by its lack of content or by them slamming the door on our noses. I suspect the last scenario is the more probable.