Comments by "BigKandRtv" (@BigKandRtv) on "Pete Judo" channel.

  1. Science is a search for truth. If such discrepancies appeared in my work, rather than being offended I would want to learn why they are there, and what they mean. The off-hand, poorly thought out dismissals are concerning. Whenever someone seems to be saying “don’t look over there”, I have the overwhelming desire to look.
    25
  2.  @inthefade  Thanks for the laugh. 👍
    4
  3. If you are going to have an opinion, you need to know a LOT more about it.
    3
  4. Maybe my eyes are failing me. I thought that was an old white guy.
    3
  5.  @jespervalgreen6461  I respect the effort you put into educating your fellow man. But these types of people don't care, and won't read your post. They just want the opportunity to take a poke at the black man that lived in the White House.
    2
  6.  @climatebell  Woah! Great reply! I'm diving into it now. Thanks!
    2
  7.  @climatebell  1. "...several effects that control the global average temperature of the Earth other than greenhouse gases... The first major problem is they presume that the temperature change they claim is not flawed... they presume CO2 is the only cause in Earth's temperature rise..." Hopefully we all understand that GAT are not controlled exclusively by CO2 levels. I bet you have read more papers than I have, but I've never seen the claim that only CO2 affects GAT. I have always believed we are in agreement that it's the only factor we can hope to influence. As for the recorded temperature increase possibly being flawed, isn't that what peer review is for? NASA's Goddard Institute is on record claiming a 1.1 c increase since 1880. 3. "...with so many scientists working on it, their wide range of answers for such a basic question is in itself a problem..." There is no doubt that forecasting ranges from +1.0 to +6.0 c indicates disagreement of significant proportions. It is an indication that further work is needed. If for no other reason than the GAT increase we've seen, work will continue. I suspect that the correlation with the recorded increase and our CO2 production will spur that work. 5. Venus: "The high surface temperature is from its thick heavy atmosphere of CO2 and is from what is known as the lapse rate or adiabatic compression." A mole of CO2 weighs 44 grams, while a mole of nitrogen weighs 14 grams. The adiabatic compression Venus experiences on the 'night' side of the planet would be much less if it were nitrogen rather than carbon dioxide in that convection cycle. It stands to reason that we should be concerned about adiabatic compression heating here on Earth if we add significant amounts of heavy CO2 to our atmosphere. Did I miss your point on that one? If anything, this point about Venus makes me think we SHOULD be focused on controlling the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere.
    2
  8. It speaks to their assessment of those who will be reviewing the work, doesn't it? Some of those papers are more than a decade old, so...
    2
  9. I hope we HAVE a 250th anniversary.
    2
  10. Great question! It seems like something they would want to look into. But these 'errors' (potentially compression software glitches) should not be in the published paper - full stop. Add in this fellow's attempt to play victim, and this stinks. Pretending that negative results are irrelevant is something that no one falls for.
    1
  11. I think you may be missing the more important point here. I agree that the awarding of the Peace Prize to Obama seemed premature, but it’s irrelevant to the issue at hand. The Nobel foundation does not verify the findings of scientists. That is the job of other scientists. The appearance of meaningful discrepancies as well as the holy inappropriate response are the issues.
    1