Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 Next
Comments 60351 to 60400:
-
jyyh at 15:26 PM on 6 April 2012Eocene Park: our experiment to recreate the atmosphere of an ancient hothouse climate
The fig.2 in Micheels & al. presents a vegetation proxy of miocene times and that looks like being a much wetter period than now for some large areas. It's a preprint, and I do not know if the paper has been published yet, anyway it refers to many earlier discussions on this. Could be interesting for readers to see. -
scaddenp at 14:32 PM on 6 April 2012James Hansen's Motivation
Thanks Tom, Chris concludes with: " it's worth mentioning that it is virtually impossible to trigger a true runaway greenhouse in the modern day by any practical means, at least in the sense that planetary scientists use the word to describe the loss of any liquid water on a planet." Hansen is saying that with all carbon burnt and presumably with rapid clathrate melt to CH4 not CO2, then it is possible to boil the ocean. While sobering if true, I would be fairly sure his motivation are mostly based on the very considerable damage that would result from far less CO2. I think we should be mostly worrying about the damage from burning the available economic coal. -
Tom Curtis at 14:09 PM on 6 April 2012James Hansen's Motivation
I should probably add, the theory is that there is an upper limit on the greenhouse effect which represents the effect of an atmosphere with the maximum saturation with H2O. If the outgoing longwave radiation for a fully saturated atmosphere is greater than the incoming solar energy, in the Earth's case 255 W/m^2 on current albedo, then temperatures will stabilize before full saturation is reached, and hence before the oceans boil away. As it happens, the outgoing limit is significantly greater than 255 W/m^2. Nakajima et al calculated an upper limit of 385 W/m^2, which is approximately 40 W/m^2 higher than the Earth would recieve with an albedo of 0, an unlikely condition with a water saturated atmosphere to say the least. There is some doubt as to the upper limit which must be calculated using models, but it is sufficiently high that it is unlikely that the Earth could reach a runaway greenhouse effect on current solar activity. Of course, if models are as unreliable as is suggested by deniers, then we can have no confidence that a runaway greenhouse effect is impossible. The price of denying science is uncertainty, and that price is paid logically by considering even the most extreme possibilities as on the cards if we continue the grand experiment with the atmosphere. Of course, that would require consistency from the deniers, which is too much to ask. -
Tom Curtis at 13:59 PM on 6 April 2012James Hansen's Motivation
scaddenp @16: A Study on the “Runaway Greenhouse Effect” with a One-Dimensional Radiative–Convective Equilibrium Model, by Nakajima, Hayashi, and Abe. Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, 1992. And here is a popular explanation by Chris Colose. -
evolutionarymicrobiologist at 13:07 PM on 6 April 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #13
I think this explains the problem to a tee. The REAL problem isn't that people are stupid, but that political agenda takes over. (-snip-), instead of just generating an alternative energy (which could have been done by now), proves my point as much as the right pretending that nothing is happening and looking for loopholes to ignore the science. I personally believe it will spell doom for our planet if we make carbon tax 1/5 or more of total government revenue. Then they will never have an incentive to find alternative energies.Moderator Response: [DB] Please refrain from making ideological statements (snipped) per the Comments Policy. -
Bob Loblaw at 12:57 PM on 6 April 2012Monckton Misleads California Lawmakers - Now It's Personal (Part 2)
The reference to Dr. Who reminded me of this old fortune quote I saved many moons ago:The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views ... which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering. -- Doctor Who, "Face of Evil"
I hope Monckton never gets to be powerful. -
scaddenp at 10:49 AM on 6 April 2012James Hansen's Motivation
Can anyone point me to any actual paper on whether we can get runaway greenhouse if used all the carbon? I'd like to see the math. -
actually thoughtful at 08:06 AM on 6 April 2012Eocene Park: our experiment to recreate the atmosphere of an ancient hothouse climate
Andy S - great article. I like this style of looking at the world, rather than the relentless focus on what incorrect thing so-and-so said (both are necessary). Very thought provoking. 200,000 times the natural rate - that is a number I will weave into "discussions" with deniers. -
newcrusader at 04:42 AM on 6 April 2012Eocene Park: our experiment to recreate the atmosphere of an ancient hothouse climate
I am fascinated by earths past climate. And this was excellent. There was something 41 million years ago called the Middle Eocene Climate Optimum Some 40 million years ago, the world experienced an extreme spike in global warming. The heat was so intense that deep sea temperatures rose by about 4 degrees Celsius. This enigmatic sultry period, known as the Middle Eocene Climatic Optimum (MECO), marked a 400,000-year-long heat wave in the midst of a long era of global cooling. -
Andy Skuce at 04:30 AM on 6 April 2012Eocene Park: our experiment to recreate the atmosphere of an ancient hothouse climate
jyyh: Thank you. No, I don't know enough about palaeo-oceanography to answer your question. Perhaps other readers do. -
John Russell at 04:01 AM on 6 April 2012Eocene Park: our experiment to recreate the atmosphere of an ancient hothouse climate
Good article. Of course as part of our irreversible experiment to recreate the Eocene we need to start selectively breeding all current mammals to be the size of small rodents -- oh, and that includes ourselves. It seems only small mammals can handle the heat. Reptiles on the other hand... Anyone know of any small rocks to hide under? -
JMurphy at 03:31 AM on 6 April 2012It's not bad
Agreed, and I look forward to any further information you may be able to obtain, particularly from Barnett. -
keithpickering at 03:16 AM on 6 April 2012Eocene Park: our experiment to recreate the atmosphere of an ancient hothouse climate
One of the most interesting (and important) posts I've read here. Many thanks. -
jyyh at 03:10 AM on 6 April 2012Eocene Park: our experiment to recreate the atmosphere of an ancient hothouse climate
Thanks, Andy. two remarks: At least the locations of continents are different today. It may take a little more rise in the concentration to melt the (whole) Antarctic ice sheet (however long it'll take). Do you know are there much differences in north Atlantic currents if one compares early Miocene (when there was a Panama Strait instead of a Channel)and Pleistocene/start of the Anthropocene? One would like to think the closing of that strait lead to cooler temps in the Arctic so it might be the concentration to melt GIS would also be higher than the last time. But by how much, I can't say. Might be even lower if the tropical Atlantic heats up by some mechanism induced by shifting atmopheric phenomena. -
mohyla103 at 02:18 AM on 6 April 2012It's not bad
"Even if that means accepting 49.1% as meaning the same as "as much as 50%", so be it." I can accept that, too, of course. The point was the missing word "snow". You raise an excellent point, though, sources within sources. As that was original research and measurement data being reported, and there was no discussion about snow vs. glacial melt, I hadn't thought of checking further sources regarding the snow vs. glacial melt amounts, but perhaps it is in there somewhere. Then again, probably not or it would have been discussed in the original paper. I will try digging deeper into the other sources and will indeed contact Barnett if still nothing turns up to support his statement. I don't expect an answer but as you say, I've got nothing to lose. Thanks for the discussion. I believe we've come as far as we can on this one. -
dana1981 at 01:18 AM on 6 April 2012Monckton Misleads California Lawmakers - Now It's Personal (Part 2)
cc @7 - very nice, thanks. John Russell @9 - Monckton also apparently has time to write posts defending his nonsense California claims on WUWT (see here). -
Dikran Marsupial at 01:15 AM on 6 April 2012Murry Salby finds CO2 rise is natural
@tompinlb That the rise in atmospheric CO2 is purely anthropogenic is easily established with a high degree of certainty. In order to put an end to this common climate myth, I wrote a paper on the subject, read about it here. I sent a pre-print of the paper to Prof. Salby, but I didn't receive a reply. Sadly Prof. Salby is simply incorrect on this one, and I strongly suspect that the journal paper he referred to in hs talk may have been withdrawn. I would be happy to go through the mass balance argument with you, it really is surprisingly very simple. -
jzk at 21:19 PM on 5 April 2012James Hansen's Motivation
Daniel @14, Notice that Hansen begins his talk with "if we allow emissions to continue at a high rate..." Then he gets to talking about losing every species on Earth, and boiling the Oceans. Since all signs point to emissions rates increasing from where they are now (China and India), then according to Hansen these outcomes are real possibilities. This thread is entitled "James Hansen's motivation" and I was responding to a post that stated "I accept all that Hansen says." So how could my post possibly be off topic?Moderator Response:[DB] "So how could my post possibly be off topic?"
Again, reading my comment it is clear that I was referring to the individual factors Hansen discusses, like a methane/clathrate release. Those are best discussed further on individual threads devoted to them (Search function). Please desist in looking to quote-mine and take things out of context.
-
Daniel Bailey at 21:14 PM on 5 April 2012James Hansen's Motivation
Jzk, the operative word Hansen uses is "can" (and please refer to the video in its entirety for context, not a solitary quote-mine). This is predicated on many variables also occurring, like first burning all the coal and then exploiting all the tar sands and shale oil extraction technologies and a methane/clathrate permafrost release. Note that the likelihood of this last is sharply confirmed here. Further discussion of those factors belongs on one of the many more relevant threads devoted to those topics, rather than this one. -
jzk at 20:58 PM on 5 April 2012James Hansen's Motivation
John @12, "I accept all that Hansen says." How about when he says that our Oceans will begin to boil? "you can get to a situation where, it just, the Oceans will begin to boil..." http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1uxfiuKB_R8#! @2:05. -
Lionel A at 20:37 PM on 5 April 2012Monckton Misleads California Lawmakers - Now It's Personal (Part 2)
some impressive pseudo-science babble here; - link CORRECTED I note that Motl has joined in too which demonstrates that even very clever people can be 'not even wrong'. -
John Russell at 19:44 PM on 5 April 2012Monckton Misleads California Lawmakers - Now It's Personal (Part 2)
Monckton appeared overnight with some impressive pseudo-science babble here; if anyone wants to take him on. As someone in the thread says: he's no time to answer Potholer but he's got time to comment there. -
John Russell at 18:22 PM on 5 April 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
Comment on the 5 scientists' critique on Carbon Brief, which seems to have attracted some major league contrarians in defence of Lindzen -- including Monckton. -
citizenschallenge at 15:21 PM on 5 April 2012Monckton Misleads California Lawmakers - Now It's Personal (Part 2)
boy that sounds like a dumb question. excuse me it's late, just that it's a new feature... I think. -
citizenschallenge at 15:19 PM on 5 April 2012Monckton Misleads California Lawmakers - Now It's Personal (Part 2)
Excellent Post. Considering that turkey lord has been causing me heartburn for a long time: http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2010/08/unauthorized-sorting-of-lord-chris.html I appreciate Dana's point by point take-down. So much so that I've added it to my collection. Dana, John that "copy embed code" is a kick! Check out what I did with it: http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2012/04/lord-chris-monckton-update-april-2012.html Hope you like it. cheers ~ ~ ~ Incidentally, where could learn more about that "copy embed code" thing? What it's about, what to do with? -
dana1981 at 14:07 PM on 5 April 2012Monckton Misleads California Lawmakers - Now It's Personal (Part 1)
Oh geez, I didn't notice the V&T estimate is $182 billion annually. What a freaking joke. I just can't believe anyone takes this nonsense seriously. But yes, as I recall Monckton did say $450 billion by 2020 (which is 8 years, not 10). -
scaddenp at 13:06 PM on 5 April 2012Murry Salby finds CO2 rise is natural
tompinlb - also are you aware that a very rough "rock weathering thermostat" is postulated operating in geological time scales. CO2 absorption by ocean is limited by Ca ion release. As temperatures go up, so does weathering rate, eventually pulling CO2 from atmosphere and cooling temperatures. More detail here. -
Bernard J. at 12:50 PM on 5 April 2012Why David Archibald is wrong about solar cycles driving sea levels (Part 1)
Bill and jmsully. Yes, amusing all 'round... It was revealing to see how Archibald dropped the ball once someone other than the cheer-squad started to ask some questions. I had plenty more to put to him, but the closing of the WWWT thread put paid to that, and Alex's post here (and, I anticipate, his next one in the series) has more than taken much of the wind from my sails. I am still curious though to have answers to my queries over there, so if anyone ever happens to come across Archibald, please ask him to address the specifics of the (at least) 20 questions. He appears to have made many methodological blunders quite separate from his mangling of physics, and if he intends to stand by that WWWT post as a 'credible' effort he must clarify the points that were raised. -
DSL at 12:43 PM on 5 April 2012Murry Salby finds CO2 rise is natural
tompinlb, did you read the article? Do you understand the mass balance argument? The natural world must achieve a rough equilibrium over geologic time scales, or else CO2 would disappear or supersaturate the atmosphere. The geologic record shows the development of the carbon equilibrium, and it has been in rough balance during most of the course of the latest interglacial. Suddenly, atmospheric carbon rockets upward. It's just coincident with massive human industrialization? Uhhhh . . . No. Humans have been dumping CO2 into the atmosphere faster than the historically developed (and developing) natural cycle can take it out. Eventually, there will be another point of rough equilibrium. Eventually. The isotope bit is just another line of evidence. -
Tom Curtis at 12:40 PM on 5 April 2012Murry Salby finds CO2 rise is natural
tompinlb @1: 1) CO2 concentrations over the holocene show little variation prior to the industrial era showing that the net natural CO2 flux is close to zero. Even the small 0.003 ppmv flux over the 7000 years prior to the industrial revolution is probably due to land use changes, partly from the desertification of the Sahara, but primarily due to human agriculture, particularly the cultivation of rice. The supposition that natural fluxes should increase 150 fold (conservatively estimated) by stange coincidence at exactly the time when humans started burning fossil fuels at a rate approximately double that which is required to explain the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere strains credulity, both in requiring human emissions to magically not effect atmospheric concentrations, and by requiring the vastly larger natural emissions from an undiscoverable source to magically coincide with the curiously ineffective human emissions.
So, to explain it for you, long term means over the period of the Holocene.
2) Not only do you require your magical natural source to have a peculiar sensitivity to the onset of industrialization, it must also be an aquatic organic source. Organic because only organic sources have the right C12/C13 ratio. Aquatic because only ocean sources and fossil fuels would deplete C14 ratios (as occurred prior to the onset of atmospheric nuclear explosions), and also because land vegetation is known to be increasing in mass. This depletion of organic matter in the ocean has to march in lock step with industrial emissions which, of course mysteriously continue to vanish without a trace.
-
jmsully at 12:11 PM on 5 April 2012Why David Archibald is wrong about solar cycles driving sea levels (Part 1)
Bernard J., I did like the last comment in that thread: it must be the great and powerful PDO! -
tompinlb at 11:36 AM on 5 April 2012Murry Salby finds CO2 rise is natural
What is the basis for your statement that the natural flux of CO2 "balances out in the long term?" What do you mean by long term, and what evidence do you have for this assertion? In What the science says, you state that multiple lines of evidence make it very clear that the rise in co2 is due to human emissions. If you are basing this on analysis of c12/c13 isotope ratios! This is precisely one of the arguments that Salby takes apart. You do not address Salby's argument, but instead appear to appeal to authority. -
actually thoughtful at 10:38 AM on 5 April 2012Why David Archibald is wrong about solar cycles driving sea levels (Part 1)
MuonCounter - that is what I ask the deniers every day where is the cooling! Resounding silence is the answer. -
Tom Curtis at 10:34 AM on 5 April 2012Monckton Misleads California Lawmakers - Now It's Personal (Part 1)
dana1981 @24, being fair to Monckton he now claims that the figure he gives is for the losses over a decade, and that he obtained the figure by multiplying the annual losses a estimated by Varshney & Tootelian, 2012 by 2.5, which would indeed by a conservative assumption based on a flawed study. There is a reasonable question as to whether he made it clear that he was discussing decadal costs at the state legislature. More disturbing to my mind is his estimate of the benefits of the carbon tax. He claims to use a cost of 1.5% of GDP in 2100 for the harm from global warming. Purportedly this is a generous assumption, based on the Stern Report. In fact, however, the Stern Report estimates a cost of 5% of GDP, "each and every year, now and forever" which is reducible to 1% per annum by mitigation. So Monckton understates the costs of unmitigated climate change over the coming century by a factor of 240. A simple calculation shows that, on the simplifying assumption that California's carbon intensity equals the world average, and using the Stern Report figures, California's mitigation efforts will save it 800 billion in costs over 10 years. (I have also assumed that growth in GDP will be the inverse of the discount rate, ie, a discount rate equal to the pure rate of investment in California.) Finally, Monckton refers to California's "frankly Marxist legislature". Anybody who can refer to any legislature as Marxist shows that their words are so divorced from reality, whether by intent or insanity, as to be worthless. -
bill at 10:22 AM on 5 April 2012Why David Archibald is wrong about solar cycles driving sea levels (Part 1)
Bernard J @11 That's a great exchange! I must say I think there's a very strong degree of causation here indeed; between your asking very detailed and uncomfortable questions, David Archibald's suddenly discovering he left the gas on, and dear old Anthony equally suddenly closing the thread. I think it's fair to say that the pristine beauty of certain ideas is best preserved from searing exposure to harsh realities... -
dana1981 at 09:22 AM on 5 April 2012Monckton Misleads California Lawmakers - Now It's Personal (Part 1)
To be clear here - I discussed why Monckton's economic analysis was wrong with Anthony Watts via email and offered him a version of the above post for WUWT. Not only did Watts decline to publish "the other side" (i.e. reality), but now he goes as far as to give Monckton a platform to further advertise his trumped-up nonsense economic alarmism, which Watts knows very well is wrong. In short, Watts publishes Monckton's nonsense, I inform Watts exactly why it's nonsense, and then Watts proceeds to publish a second Monckton post saying his nonsense was actually too conservative. So much for skepticism on WUWT. -
dana1981 at 09:15 AM on 5 April 2012Monckton Misleads California Lawmakers - Now It's Personal (Part 1)
Unbelievable - Monckton has doubled-down on this nonsense (on WUWT, naturally), claiming his $450 billion figure is an underestimate. His arguments, as usual, make no sense whatsoever. He basically argues that since he multiplied the trumped-up V&T figure by an arbitrary factor of 2.5 instead of an arbitrary factor of 10, he's being conservative! And WUWT slips another step further into lunacy. -
JMurphy at 05:43 AM on 5 April 2012New research from last week 13/2012
I'm sure these papers will appear here next week : How carbon dioxide melted the world Global data set shows that rising greenhouse-gas levels drove the end of the last ice age Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation -
heijdensejan at 04:43 AM on 5 April 2012Yes Happer and Spencer, Global Warming Continues
no it is still there but only on WUWT..... http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/04/roy-spencers-uah-report-for-march/#comments -
Robert Murphy at 04:40 AM on 5 April 2012Why David Archibald is wrong about solar cycles driving sea levels (Part 1)
"And if all these natural factors lead to cooling, why is it still warming?" It's a Catch-22. That's the best there is. -
muoncounter at 04:09 AM on 5 April 2012Why David Archibald is wrong about solar cycles driving sea levels (Part 1)
Spoke too soon. If the frequency of volcanic eruptions increase during solar minima, the next step would be to drag in the cosmic ray increase during solar minima. Et voila: Ebisuzaki 2011: The strong negative correlation observed between the timing of silica-rich eruptions and solar activity can be explained by variations in cosmic-ray flux arising from solar modulation. ... such magma exists ... relatively close to the surface, within the penetration range of cosmic-ray muons (1–10 GeV). These muons can contribute to nucleation in supersaturated magma ... . This radiation-induced nucleation can lead to the pre-eruptive exsolution of H2O in the silica-rich magma. We note the possibility that the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption was triggered by the same mechanism: an increase in cosmic-ray flux triggered by Typhoon Yunya, as a decrease in atmospheric pressure results in an increase in cosmic-ray flux. Staggering. Low point in the solar cycle has increased cosmic ray flux, which supposedly triggers explosive volcanic eruptions. Such eruptions lead to cooling. But low solar supposedly also leads to cooling. And typhoons trigger volcanoes (more cooling). If warming oceans lead to more vigorous typhoons, then does warming actually lead inexorably to cooling? And if all these natural factors lead to cooling, why is it still warming? -
muoncounter at 03:56 AM on 5 April 2012Why David Archibald is wrong about solar cycles driving sea levels (Part 1)
actually thoughtful, The solar-volcanic correlation is weak, but not random and it's been known for a while. From Stothers 1989: The historical record of large volcanic eruptions from 1500 to 1980, ... is subjected to detailed time series analysis. Two weak, but probably statistically significant, periodicities of ~11 and ~80 years are detected. Both cycles appear to correlate with well-known cycles of solar activity; the phasing is such that the frequency of volcanic eruptions increases (decreases) slightly around the times of solar minimum (maximum). Speculate about a causal relationship at your own peril! -
dana1981 at 01:21 AM on 5 April 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
Thanks John Russell, some very good points in that critique. -
Eric (skeptic) at 01:02 AM on 5 April 2012Yes Happer and Spencer, Global Warming Continues
Roy Spencer's March update is out with the unlabeled sinusoid overlay: http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ I assume that means it is no longer entertainment but a prediction. What is interesting is that the initial downward part of the curve was mainly a blip from the two volcanic eruptions. Perhaps Dr Spencer is predicting more volcanic eruptions? -
Composer99 at 23:32 PM on 4 April 2012Monckton Misleads California Lawmakers - Now It's Personal (Part 2)
... OK, cliked "Submit" at the wrong time. Anyway, between all those, it's a shame anyone will still find his presentations at all convincing. -
Composer99 at 23:31 PM on 4 April 2012Monckton Misleads California Lawmakers - Now It's Personal (Part 2)
Between the various deconstructions of his nonsense by the Skeptical Science team, John Abraham, and Peter Hadfield (too bad Watts closed down their online debate, allowing Monckton to play the brave Sir Robin). -
Fran Barlow at 22:34 PM on 4 April 2012Monckton Misleads California Lawmakers - Now It's Personal (Part 2)
he has plotted them at 5:1 rather than 3:1. Get your rulers out and see for yourself!
Well he had to leave space for the text on the "credibility gap". That was much more important than minor matters such as having different years in different places, assuming that ceteris paribus applies and certainly the gradient in a trend. Semantic note: If something is "blinding" can it still be "obvious"? Surely if one is blinded, nothing is obvious, except perhaps that one is blinded. -
macoles at 21:53 PM on 4 April 2012Monckton Misleads California Lawmakers - Now It's Personal (Part 2)
Monckton's Credibility Gap (figure 1) is absolutely laughable. The lines are described as having 3K/century and 1K/century slopes, but he has plotted them at 5:1 rather than 3:1. Get your rulers out and see for yourself! So not only can he instantaneously time travel between 1950 and 2000 at the chart's origin, but it seams that he can warp the entire 2D space as well! -
John Russell at 21:40 PM on 4 April 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
A very detailed critique of Lindzen's Feb 22nd London lecture has now been published. The authors are B. Hoskins; J. Mitchel; T. Palmer; K. Shine & E. Wolff. It's well worth a read. The conclusion is interesting:"A pervasive aspect of RSL’s presentation was the conflation of uncertainty with ignorance; in his view, because we are uncertain about some aspect, we therefore know nothing about it and any estimate of it is mere guesswork. In this way we believe RSL does a disservice to the scientific method, which seeks to develop understanding in the face of inevitable uncertainties in our knowledge of the world in which we live. The scientific method has served society well for many hundreds of years, and we see no reason to doubt its validity for trying to quantify the risk of climate change and its impacts on society this century. On this basis we reassert that there is a substantial risk of human-induced climate change considerably larger than 1oC in global average this century and beyond. There is nothing in RSL’s talk to cast doubt on the existence of this risk. It is up to policy makers, not scientists, to decide whether governments should take concerted mitigating action to try to reduce this risk."
Let's hope all the attendees are sent a copy! -
John Russell at 20:16 PM on 4 April 2012Monckton Misleads California Lawmakers - Now It's Personal (Part 2)
@Doug H I think you're dead right about Monckton's rhetoric and his lawyerly debating ability. Winning an argument, for him, is about verbal skill and tactics -- not about seeking truth. One of Monckton's favourite phrases is, "...it's blindingly obvious...". I would suggest this sums up his approach. He looks at elements of climate science right up to the point where his limited understanding tells him what he wants to read and then stops. Sometimes he gets no further than the title of a paper or article, sometimes he has to dig deeper, but either way he finds a point which, superficially, appears to support his view and then he extracts and uses it. In that sense he's like a lawyer representing a client: cherry-picking the positive and avoiding reference to the negative. Science must seem very strange to him: I mean why would you consider aspects of the case -- sorry, 'subject' -- that don't support your argument? One thing I will say for him; his slides are highly coloured -- in more ways than one!
Prev 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 Next
