I have no interest in BS from either side of the global warming debate.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
- Obliterating Bill Gates
- Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- The End Of Everything
- Harris To Win In A Blowout
- Election Results
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
- Glaciers Vs. The Hockey Stick
- CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Deadly Cyclones And Arctic Sea Ice
- What About The Middle Part?
- “filled with racist remarks”
- Defacing Art Can Prevent Floods
- The Worst Disaster Year In History
- Harris Wins Pennsylvania
- “politicians & shills bankrolled by the fossil fuel industry”
- UN : CO2 Killing Babies
- Patriotic Clapper Misspoke
- New York Times Headlines
- Settled Science At The New York Times
- “Teasing Out” Junk Science
Recent Comments
- Robertvd on Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
- Bob G on Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
- Greg in NZ on Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
- conrad ziefle on Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
- Margaret Smith on Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
- Bruce of Newcastle on Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- arn on Obliterating Bill Gates
- oeman50 on Harris To Win In A Blowout
- conrad ziefle on The End Of Everything
- arn on The End Of Everything
Since there is no global warming there’s nothing to talk about anyway
BS is a relative term. Who decides what is BS?
The landlord? Property rights, and stuff …
This blog is called Real Science for a reason. If you want junk science, pseudoscience, or science fraud, go to Real Climate and talk to Piltdown Mann, or Skeptical Science and talk to John Crook and Dana Nonsense Teller.
Okay, I get it. You choose piss poor wording in a post talking about clouds at night “heating” the surface (and very specifically at night), I point out in a few ways that “heating” means the temperature actually goes up, which would not happen at NIGHT outside of UHI areas, and instead of admitting the choice of wording in that post was not the best, you go off talking about straw men. If you want to mention retaining the heat of the day in the SPECIFIC POST people are discussing, that’s a whole different story.
As someone who puts considerable time into countering liberal bullshit, you should damn well know by now that words and phrasing matter. Genius Gruber’s inadvertent recent confessions bear that out. Speech codes bear that out also, as nearly all of them are liberal attempts to limit discourse and debate to their advantage.
If you really want to try and ram down skeptics throats a new definition of heating that also means less temperature drop, and also compare the ground at NIGHT with a live human body or other heat producing source in any way shape or form, by all means have at it.
Having read several hundred of your posts I can tell you we’re mostly in agreement on many issues. I can also tell you this line of attack on my posts and those of others who have a different definition of heating, and/or don’t care for the term “greenhouse” because they think it’s mostly part of liberals’ BS strategy, is NOT going to help your cause in any way, shape, or form.