Puckerclust 10 PHYSICS FACTS OF AGW rebutted by Slayers.

[Sunsettommy]

I just realized that Mr.Puckerclust's 10 Physics facts has no sources to back up his statements.

Here is an example:

Quote:Why do I–a professional physicist and lifetime member of the American Physical Society–accept the reality of human-caused global warming? Because I accept the following top-ten list of physics facts, which have never been disputed in the scientific literature. This is also why the American Physical Society of 47,000 physicists says “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring”.

PHYSICS FACT #1: The atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased rapidly since the beginning of the industrial revolution, after being nearly constant for thousands of years.

PHYSICS FACT #2: The surplus carbon dioxide has an isotope composition that can only come from fossil fuels. The increase in concentration is not natural; it comes from human activities.

PHYSICS FACT #3: The radiative properties of carbon dioxide have been measured by physicists in the laboratory: It absorbs thermal infrared (heat) radiation.

Zero source cited.

This is a man who says he is a scientist.But makes his arguments with zero support for his words.

Quote him from the first paragraph:

Quote:Why do I–a professional physicist and lifetime member of the American Physical Society–accept the reality of human-caused global warming? Because I accept the following top-ten list of physics facts, which have never been disputed in the scientific literature.

He posted NOTHING factual.Just a bunch of words.

[Sunsettommy]

I went to his website and read his presentation:

Physics trumps right-wing ideology

Then after seeing that ALL of his replies to just a very few dissenting comment replies.Which by the way was also fact free,just words.He decided to institute a comment policy:

Denier spam and scientific gibberish

Quote:As it turns out many of the comments in response to “Physics trumps” amount to nothing more than denier spam and scientific gibberish

.

Apparently he is just another very thin skinned warmist blogger.This early in the game.He is already warning he is going to censor the hell of anything he arbitrarily claims is "gibberish"

What a sweet guy!

By the way BEFORE I saw that censorship policy he posted in the thread.I posted a comment,that is currently under moderation:

Quote:#

*
puckerclust says:
April 26, 2011 at 9:04 pm

And sue the American Physical Society while we are at it. Force them to change the laws of physics to be consistent with zero warming theory. Then change the name to the “American Pseudoscience Society” so Hal Lewis can re-join.
Reply

#
sunsettommy says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
April 29, 2011 at 3:39 pm

Hello sir,

Here is a response from this link : http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com/en/bl...d-straight

Can you please make some counterpoints?
Reply

Somehow I have this gut feeling he is going to delete it because he will rule it as "scientific gibberish".

[Goose52]

(04-29-2011 06:58 AM)Derek Wrote:  I know that I can safely say,
the Slayers know of here, and appreciate "what" this forum is doing.

I second this motion.

[Richard111]

(04-30-2011 11:19 AM)Goose52 Wrote:  

(04-29-2011 06:58 AM)Derek Wrote:  I know that I can safely say,
the Slayers know of here, and appreciate "what" this forum is doing.

I second this motion.

And I suggested to a Wikipedia editor that he should look in here.

[Derek]

THANK YOU Richard111. I cross my fingers this bears fruit.

SST - I hope you intend keeping on pressing Puckerclust.
This thread could be a good place to repeat postings,
so we can all see what Puckerclust has "moderated" and how.

I will in a few days time also, add my two pennies worth there, but my shifts intervene at present.

[Sunsettommy]

From When ideology rebuts physics

Mr. Puckerclust indicates that he had either read MY post

or,

my comment of two days ago he has not approved.See post # 22 in this thread.Of that comment I posted at his blog.

Where I pointed out that NONE of his 10 physics facts were supported by any source information.

Here is what he wrote:

Quote:I have received some requests asking me to respond to a supposed rebuttal by a blogger, Hans Schreuder, of the ten physics facts I listed last last week in my post, “Physics trumps right-wing ideology.” This “rebuttal” has been making the rounds on various denialist blogs, and is easy to find with your favorite search engine. Not one to be overly modest or equivocal in his rejection of the laws of physics, Schreuder calls the law of conservation of energy (discovered by Galileo) an “old superstition” and concludes by proclaiming, “Please note that we have refuted all ten of your points, not just one…”

One repeated criticism of my physics fact list is that I did not provide references.

He then goes on with his evasions.He has made it clear that he is a bigot and a snob all rolled in one.

He will not reply Mr. Schreuder's response.Preferring to call him and others names and ad homonyms instead.



Here is the newest comment I just made.Posted here in case he does NOT approve it:

Quote:2 Responses to When ideology rebuts physics

1.
Paul Braterman says:
April 30, 2011 at 4:07 pm

I chased up the Schreuder posting. It has exactly the same relationship to climate science that AnswersInGenesis has to evolution, and anyone who cites it stands self-convicted of Dunning-Kruger level ignorance.
Reply
2.
Scott Newman says:
April 30, 2011 at 6:21 pm

If a denialist fell in the woods and no one was there, I would deny he fell.
Reply
3.
sunsettommy says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
May 1, 2011 at 1:33 pm

Hello sir,

Your excuse is weak because Hans Schreuder is the one who made his reply to your blog presentation.Not one of those average “denialists” of the world.

He has a science degree and access to those science papers you showed.Therefore it is to HIM you can make a reply to.Why not make your counterpoint as part of your claim that you think he is wrong.

Instead of just lobbing name calling and ad homonyms at him?
Reply

He sure likes to hurl a lot of name calling at skeptics in general.But will not engage them in the effort to present his case that they are wrong.

While Hans made a credible counterpoint presentation and provided sources as well. Mr. Puckerclust has used the escape route by calling him names and hurl ad homonyms in his response.

I am not impressed at all to read of such behavior.

By the way my other comment is still awaiting moderation limbo.It is obvious that he will not approve it.

[Sunsettommy]

Well now,

Mr. Puckerlust has approved my second comment HERE.

I will post his reply as well here:

Quote:sunsettommy says:
May 1, 2011 at 1:33 pm

Hello sir,

Your excuse is weak because Hans Schreuder is the one who made his reply to your blog presentation.Not one of those average “denialists” of the world.

He has a science degree and access to those science papers you showed.Therefore it is to HIM you can make a reply to.Why not make your counterpoint as part of your claim that you think he is wrong.

Instead of just lobbing name calling and ad homonyms at him?
Reply

*
puckerclust says:
May 1, 2011 at 2:51 pm

First of all, you are the one who lobbed a homonym, even though it appears to have been by accident. But if Mr. Schreuder convinced you that he is a scientist, he is probably shrewder than you are. OK, now you can accuse me of lobbing homonyms.
Reply

bwahahahahahahaha!!!

Notice that he completely sidesteps my request that he make a counterpoint to Schreuders presentation.

Here is my reply,that needs moderator approval:

Quote:#

*
puckerclust says:
May 1, 2011 at 2:51 pm

First of all, you are the one who lobbed a homonym, even though it appears to have been by accident. But if Mr. Schreuder convinced you that he is a scientist, he is probably shrewder than you are. OK, now you can accuse me of lobbing homonyms.
Reply

#
sunsettommy says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
May 1, 2011 at 3:31 pm

Like these,Mr. Puckerclust?:

“However, it is worth drawing attention to the fact that Shreuder’s “rebuttal” supports my contention that such anti-science denialism is ideologically-driven.”

and,

“A quick search on his name reveals that he has a blog called “I love my carbon dioxide” with a logo “I (heart) CO2 — love it”. The home page contains lots of bright colors, exclamation points, and links in ALL CAPS that shout things like “The TRUE POWER of CARBON DIOXIDE” and “THIS SITE NEEDS YOUR SUPPORT PLEASE — even just ONE dollar”.”

and,

“Having a website that gives the appearance of snake-oil hucksterism probably doesn’t help, either.”

It is amusing that you spent most of your time attacking him and his website he runs,with insults and ad homonyms.Than to just answer his rebuttal that made clear you do not agree with.

Since it is clear that you will not answer his counterpoints,why not drop it and ignore him.?
Reply

I wonder if he realize that his overt bigotry is damaging his credibility?

He is obviously reluctant to answer Mr. Schreuder's counterpoints.

[Goose52]

I love it when members here get out there and slug it out with these people.

[Climate Realist]

Hans Schreuder has the right idea about "back radiation", that it cannot warm the surface of the earth- as I have detailed in a previous thread, it is impossible as the ground is already sufficiently excited by visible solar radiation to be emitting at those IR wavelengths. Therefore the cooler atmosphere cannot warm the hotter ground with "back IR" that the ground is already emitting. That goes against the laws of thermodynamics.

Many Climate Realism Denialists are now claiming the greenhouse effect is purely in the atmosphere and not the earths surface. I am trying to piece this one together as well.

[Derek]

If I may make a quick point, the pdf rebutting Puckerclust was by the Slayers Team, not just Hans.
Hans did all the donkey work, excellently obviously, in preparing and compiling the pdf and the answers / rebuttals to Mr "P".

(05-02-2011 05:31 AM)Climate Realist Wrote:  Many Climate Realism Denialists are now claiming the greenhouse effect is purely in the atmosphere and not the earths surface. I am trying to piece this one together as well.

I think you will find "they" are trying to get out of Claes Johnson's maths by avoiding the surface..
(Nasif Nahle's recent papers, especially mean free path length of a photon, show "back radiation" from clouds could not / does not reach the surface)
Or, maybe it's Joe Postma's works as well...
Whilst all along "they" so obviously are ignoring / dismissing surface heating, retention, and varying later release.
There is also the rather ENORMOUS omission / ignoring of the latent heat of water vapourisation...

Either way, they are trying to redefine the so far not agreed definition of the greenhouse effect.
(Seriously there is no agreed definition of what the Greenhouse effect "theory" actually all agree is...)
In other words, they are squirming / obfusicating / preparing a clear as mud, non-sense defense of GH, and therefore by default AGW.

It would be so much simpler if they just held their hands up and openly admitted,
"We were wrong".
But as Puckerclust so clearly shows in his responses to Sunsettommy,
they will not, on principle, not reason/s.

[Sunsettommy]

From HERE

Mr. Puckerclust did it again.He continues to hem and haw and avoid a direct counterpoint presentation.

Quote:I’m not sure how accurately describing and quoting a website is an attack, but I agree that ignoring him is the appropriate next step. Good advice.

and,

Quote:At least he loves his CO2. Quite the statement of unbiased, disinterested science.

That was in reply to John O'Sullivan's comment:

Quote:Hans Schreuder (Holland)
Retired analytical chemist and technical contractor Hans Schreuder has long been a staunch and highly regarded critic of the greenhouse gas theory and a leading commentator, using his website as a publishing hub for fellow scientists critical of the theory.

Hans also co-authored the groundbreaking paper, ‘A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon?’ with Alan Siddons and Dr. Martin Hertzberg. He is also a member of Mensa.

Well there it is.

A man who is being exposed as a bigot and seemingly oblivious of it.

Here is my latest comment subject to moderation approval:

Quote:#
puckerclust says:
May 2, 2011 at 6:58 pm

I fully admit that I’m an intellectual lightweight compared Galileo and the other scientists who did the original research I listed in my list of facts that were “debunked” by Mr. Schrewder. You might remember that Galileo has been “debunked” before.
#
sunsettommy says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
May 2, 2011 at 8:55 pm

Mr. Puckerclust,

I submit that you have failed to defend your position.Your confidence in your bare bones presentation was apparently too shaken.His replies are too hard for you to answer.

“However, it is worth drawing attention to the fact that Shreuder’s “rebuttal” supports my contention that such anti-science denialism is ideologically-driven.”

This the best you can do?

EPIC FAIL!

My contention is that you are afraid to carry on the tradition of science skepticism.You rather be snobbish,than answer another scientist’s counterpoints.

That is how I am seeing it.

Good day sir.

[Richard111]

Weird! The GE is caused by gravity. Compressed air is warmer than less compressed air. This is the dry aidiabatic lapse rate of -9.8C per kilometre up the atmospheric column. Add warming from the sun and the surface temperature changes, BUT NOT THE LAPSE RATE. Deserts at over +30C, poles at under -30C and elsewhere all temperatures inbetween.

Now add water vapour in quantities sufficient to reach dew point at any temperature and then the lapse rate changes. The most quoted figure is -5.6C per kilometre up the air column for the WET aidiabatic lapse rate.

The rate of temperature change up the air column REDUCES with the addition of water vapour but the rate of energy transfer INCREASES. Huge energy transitions occur in the atmosphere when water vapour changes state from gas to liquid to solid and back again. Most of these state changes occur high up in the atmosphere where IR radiation has an easier escape path to space than back to the surface.

CO2 has no state changes in the atmosphere. Ever seen a CO2 cloud? Water, in all its different phases controls the climate on this planet.

Just what is so difficult to understand about that?

[Climate Realist]

(05-02-2011 11:23 AM)Derek Wrote:  If I may make a quick point, the pdf rebutting Puckerclust was by the Slayers Team, not just Hans.
Hans did all the donkey work, excellently obviously, in preparing and compiling the pdf and the answers / rebuttals to Mr "P".

(05-02-2011 05:31 AM)Climate Realist Wrote:  Many Climate Realism Denialists are now claiming the greenhouse effect is purely in the atmosphere and not the earths surface. I am trying to piece this one together as well.

I think you will find "they" are trying to get out of Claes Johnson's maths by avoiding the surface..
(Nasif Nahle's recent papers, especially mean free path length of a photon, show "back radiation" from clouds could not / does not reach the surface)
Or, maybe it's Joe Postma's works as well...
Whilst all along "they" so obviously are ignoring / dismissing surface heating, retention, and varying later release.
There is also the rather ENORMOUS omission / ignoring of the latent heat of water vapourisation...

Either way, they are trying to redefine the so far not agreed definition of the greenhouse effect.
(Seriously there is no agreed definition of what the Greenhouse effect "theory" actually all agree is...)
In other words, they are squirming / obfusicating / preparing a clear as mud, non-sense defense of GH, and therefore by default AGW.

It would be so much simpler if they just held their hands up and openly admitted,
"We were wrong".
But as Puckerclust so clearly shows in his responses to Sunsettommy,
they will not, on principle, not reason/s.

You are right- they cannot get away from Claes Johnson's maths because that is the maths of the laws of thermodynamics. These laws cannot be broken as they are the laws of physics. As Scotty on the Starship Enterprise says "yea canny change the laws of physics captain....".

That is why they have shifted the goal posts from the surface to the atmosphere, suddenly denying that it was ever the surface in the first place (despite what is shown in the K+T diagram on the IPCC reports).

If the Climate Realists can now show that the CO2 warming in the atmosphere is a red herring as well, then the Greenhouse Effect from back radiation due to CO2 has nowhere to go! And we will have conclusively won the argument.