Crying Cowboy’s Censorship Complaint Codswallop

Posted: February 4, 2019 by tallbloke in Accountability, Blog, censorship, flames, Gravity, humour, Thermodynamics, wind

Willis Eschenbach recently complained that I banned him from the talkshop. He makes this complaint, on average, annually. Usually in a comment attacking Dr Ned Nikolov and Dr Karl Zeller.

On the occasions I’ve bothered to respond, I’ve pointed out to Willis that in fact he banned himself from the talkshop, something he maintains is a lie. Below the break is the screenshot of his parting comment, made on the talkshop in mid-January 2012.

Every interaction I’ve had with Willis since has reminded me how fortunate we were that he decided to deprive us of his brilliance.

Comments
  1. pameladragon says:

    Sigh…Willis is not the brightest bulb on the tree but he sure has a high opinion of himself. He once warned me away from Niklas despite not knowing me at all. His reason was that, in his opinion, Niklas has a sketchy reputation and he didn’t want me to jeopardize my reputation! For a fisherman with very little scientific training, he sure likes to pretend he knows whereof he speaks and he is vicious about going after his betters!

  2. tallbloke says:

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    January 11, 2012 at 8:37 am

    Well there’s the thing, Willis. I didn’t boot Joel because of his claims. I booted him because he didn’t support them with any reasoned argument. I offered him the microphone and pointed the way to the stage: A post of all of his very own on the talkshop on which he could denounce Ned and Karl’s alleged misunderstanding of fundamental thermodynamics and back it up.

    He said he was too busy.

    Joel’s all mouth and no trousers, same as you, Willis.

  3. Ian says:

    The man likes to hear/read himself. Too often, unfortunately, his declaration
    is a bombastic rant devoid of scientific merit.

    Not exactly a plus for the WUWT herd.

  4. Bob Greene says:

    Problem 1. Willis is rather intolerant of anyone disagreeing with his opinions.
    Problem 2. Questioning his opinion requires reproducing his work in detail. Not many have that much time/interest.
    Problem 3. For “settled science” I am amazed by the range of discussions on how this AGW stuff works and what is used as evidence. If you follow “discussions” on twitter, it makes “Groundhog Day” seem like a straight line history without any benefits of learning from past failures.

    But then I’m a climate denier: one who denies there is a climate.

  5. Curious George says:

    Tallbloke, we need both you and Willis. It is sad to see you fighting ferociously over what I consider a minor disagreement. We don’t have to agree on absolutely everything, do we?

  6. tallbloke says:

    Here’s the thing, George.
    If Willis tells easily refuted lies about me, they’ll get refuted. I even waited 7 years to see if he’d desist. He’s like a dog gnawing away at an old bone he keeps digging up.

  7. Tallbloke, you assuredly banned me, although to begin with you banned Joel Shore. You now claim as follows:

    I didn’t boot Joel because of his claims. I booted him because he didn’t support them with any reasoned argument.

    Well … no. Here is exactly what you said at the time, and it had nothing to do with Joel not supporting his claims. This is the ban itself, where you said:

    … you’re not posting here unless and until you apologise to Nikolov and Zeller for spreading misinformation about conservation of energy in their theory all over the blogosphere and failing to correct it.

    Like I said, nothing to do with “reasoned argument”. He was banned until he would apologize for what he was saying about conservation of energy.

    Since I was spreading the exact same information about conservation of energy all over the blogosphere that Joel was spreading, I assumed that your ban applied to me as well. And I informed you of that. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander …

    I also pled with you and begged you to lift the ban on Joel, and by extension on myself, because censorship is anti-scientific … no joy.

    Now, I’ve never denied that to start with I banned myself from the Talkshop. So you are 100% incorrect when you claim above that:

    I’ve pointed out to Willis that in fact he banned himself from the talkshop, something he maintains is a lie

    No, I’ve NEVER said that is a lie, and you provide not one scrap of evidence to back up your fatuous claim.

    However, the story doesn’t end there. In a comment over at WUWT, I had said the following about you:

    “He is a good, honest, and decent man whose problem is that his mouth wrote a check that his science can’t cover.”

    In response to my saying that, you replied to me:

    tallbloke January 17, 2012 at 3:30 am

    So far, Willis has been under a self ban from the Talkshop. Now I’m telling him to stay away.

    So yes, Roger, you DID indeed ban me, there’s the evidence in black and white.

    Let me invite you to stop telling “easily refuted lies about me” …

    w.

    PS: It will be an interesting test of your honesty to see if you print this. I think you will, because as I said above, I do think that you are a good, decent and honest man.

  8. tallbloke says:

    Gnaw Gnaw. Lol.

    Roger, you DID indeed ban me

    Yet here you are, freely posting without going into moderation. Please don’t make a habit of it.

  9. ivan says:

    It might help if Willis actually said anything that has actual experimental scientific evidence behind it. In fact he is the reason I no longer read WUWT blog. His ill thought out ramblings and ‘my way or else’ attitude are not the way to a good discussion, in fact it is almost like DeSmogBlog.- shudder.

  10. Tallbloke says:
    February 4, 2019 at 9:26 pm

    Gnaw Gnaw. Lol.

    Roger, you DID indeed ban me

    Yet here you are, freely posting without going into moderation. Please don’t make a habit of it.

    Thanks for allowing my post, but you making a special exception to banning me is not the point.

    The point is that you did indeed ban me as I proved above, and now having misled all these good folks, you seem unwilling to admit it.

    And no, I have no intention of making a habit of posting here. I came here for a simple reason. I just couldn’t stand seeing you

    • spreading misinformation about not banning me,

    • spreading misinformation about why you banned Joel Shore, and

    • spreading misinformation claiming I lied about you banning me when I did no such thing.

    I’ve always said that at first I banned myself because I did exactly what got Joel Shore banned, and that later, YOU BANNED ME. Both of those are 100% true, as my quotes show.

    My best regards to you. I don’t think you’re a bad guy. I’ll leave the last words to you.

    w.

  11. poly says:

    mmmm, the opposite of “intellectual yet idiot”. Maybe “ignorant yet idiot”?

  12. stpaulchuck says:

    I don’t believe I wasted the time to read all that. No offense tallbloke. All that needed to be said I guess, but I kept looking for some actual logic or a citation of a paper he wrote about his claims against N&Z, or even someone else’s. Silly me.

  13. Phoenix44 says:

    He said, she said…Seems a storm in a teacup really. I dislike gaming anyone unless they are straight out abusive.

  14. Phoenix44 says:

    Oops, should say banning anyone.

  15. A C Osborn says:

    stpaulchuck says: February 5, 2019 at 3:39 am
    ” but I kept looking for some actual logic or a citation of a paper he wrote about his claims against N&Z”

    Of course he did, it was his (in)famous thought experiments, especially the magical Planet with a single Non GHG Gas for an Atmosphere surrounded by thousands of Suns.

    He still quotes it as “Proof” even though the “peer review” of his commentors disagree.

  16. Roger, do not know weather you saw the comments on the post at WUWT by Roy Spencer. I explained to Willis that N & Z equation came from dimensional analysis. Willis admitted that he had no idea about the engineering subject of dimensional analysis and the use of dimensionless variables but still held to his theme that his equation from curve fitting was better.(even though N&Z did not use Mercury which has no atmosphere and Europa). However, I also commented that the explanation by Niklov showed that he did not really understand heat transfer. The S-B equation applies to surfaces in a vacuum and can not be used with gases without some different consideration which have been outlined by Prof Hottel (using path lengths, partial pressures and emissivities of radiation emitting and absorbing gases). You may have read the section in Marks Mech Eng Handbook by Hottel.The emissivity of CO2 in earths atmosphere and of CH4 in Titan atmosphere are close to zero. When one multiplies a number by zero the answer will be zero.

  17. tallbloke says:

    Good move Cementafriend, let’s get back to the science.

    Dr Roy Spencer said:
    Willis pointed out that if atmospheric pressure is instead what raises the temperature above the S-B value, as the Zeller-Nikolov theory claims, the rate of energy loss by infrared radiation will then go up (for the same reason a hotter fire feels hotter on your skin at a distance). But now the energy loss by the surface is greater than the energy gained, and energy is no longer conserved. Thus, warming cannot occur from increasing pressure alone.

    This where Willis and Roy get it wrong. What matters for the overall energy balance of the planet is the amount of energy being lost to space, not the amount of energy transferred from the surface into the atmosphere. Willis has baffled Roy into thinking it’s the surface balance that ‘proves’ the alleged ‘greenhouse effect’ of radiatively active gases:

    In other words, without the inclusion of the greenhouse effect (which has downward IR emission by the atmosphere reducing the net loss of IR by the surface), the atmospheric pressure hypothesis of Zeller-Nikolov cannot explain surface temperatures above the Stefan-Boltzmann value without violation of the fundamental 1st Law of Thermodynamics: Conservation of Energy.

    This is bad logic. So long as the radiatively active gases high in the atmosphere are losing the same amount of energy to space as the Sun is supplying, there’s nothing to stop the surface getting warm enough to radiate at more than 240W/m^2 due to the effects of pressure impeding evaporation and conduction. Indeed the surface is forced to 288K before it can be in equilibrium with the pressurised overlying atmosphere.

    The sparse density of the upper troposphere makes it easy for water vapour and co2 to do their job of losing heat to space efficiently. The very short mean free path length in the dense lower troposphere makes the ‘downwelling radiation impeding energy loss’ meme a non starter. If radiation was an efficient way of moving energy around in the near surface atmosphere, convection wouldn’t occur. According to the NASA energy budget diagram, twice as much net energy is moved from surface to atmosphere by conduction/convection and the latent heat of evaporation than by radiation. The primary role of radiatively active gases is to COOL the planet to space, not to WARM its surface.

    The reason for the upper troposphere being of low density and the near surface atmosphere being of high density is of course the action of gravity on atmospheric mass, generating the pressure gradient which impedes evaporation and conduction at the surface, and which also enables buoyancy and thus convection.

  18. pochas94 says:

    Tallbloke, I very reluctantly enter this fray once again, to try to explain that, while N&Z theory makes a nice graph with a Y axis spanning hundreds of degrees it lacks the sophistication to deal with a meme where two degrees is supposed to spell the end of humanity. Water vapor is the medium that sends the radiation from the sun off into space. It does that from an altitude where the individual molecules can “see” space and that is the order of tens of thousands of feet near the equator, well below the top of the troposphere. That altitude depends on the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, which varies from the equator to almost zero at the poles, to say nothing about seasonal and orbital parameters. Because of the short mean free path of IR photons in the lower atmosphere the temperature profile below the water vapor interface follows the lapse rate which of course varies with the water vapor concentration. Although N&Z theory makes a nice chart where the Y axis spans hundreds of degrees it is inadequate to deal with Greenhouse theory where a temperature rise of 5 degrees is supposed to mean the end of Humanity. I really don’t think it’s possible to claim that the presence or absence of water vapor has no effect on surface temperature. I apologize for the oversimplifications in my arguments, and I regret they are necessary to present a concise explanation of the shortcomings of N&Z theory.

  19. tallbloke says:

    Pochas: I really don’t think it’s possible to claim that the presence or absence of water vapor has no effect on surface temperature.

    I agree. That’s why I didn’t.

    a concise explanation of the shortcomings of N&Z theory.

    N&Z don’t need a fine resolution on the Y-axis of their graph to deal with the few degrees C of the ‘enhanced greenhouse effect’, because their analysis of solar-system wide empirical data shows that the entire C19th greenhouse theoretical conjecture is fundamentally wrong.

    That altitude depends on the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, which varies from the equator to almost zero at the poles, to say nothing about seasonal and orbital parameters.

    N&Z’s analysis concerns the baseline global temperature which is a multiyear, multilatitude average. It does not deal with seasonal variation, or equator pole gradients (though a forthcoming paper will).

  20. Skeptikal says:

    Yes, it’s the science which is important.

    While the Nikolov & Zeller theory may be considered to be on the fringe by some people, and just plain wrong by some other people… what’s important to remember is that this theory is challenging the current mainstream theory. I should now point out the obvious; the currently accepted theory (the GHG theory) is nothing more than a theory itself. Of course, people who believe in the GHG theory will be hostile to any other theories.

    It is probably also worth pointing out that humanity has a rich history of vilifying theories which challenge the prevailing ‘consensus’…. which in many cases those same theories went on to become what is now accepted science.

  21. tallbloke says:

    Skeptikal said: the Nikolov & Zeller theory

    Ned Nikolov said: Dr. Spencer incorrectly referred to our main finding as a “theory” when, in fact, it is a discovery based on vetted NASA data extracted from numerous published studies. This empirical pressure-temperature (P-T) function emerged from reported NASA measurements in the process of Dimensional Analysis, which is an objective technique employed in classical physics to derive/extract physically meaningful relationships from observed data.

    Skeptikal said: considered to be on the fringe by some people, and just plain wrong by some other people

    Well they’d better consider what they’re calling out, because the NASA data is the NASA data.

  22. Skeptikal says:

    tallbloke,

    Ned Nikolov did make a ‘discovery’, but the discovery is only a correlation. The theory formed around this correlation is just a theory. The discovery itself is indisputable, but does the correlation validate the theory?

    I’m not saying that their theory is wrong, I think it’s more probable than the GHG theory… but I think that any theory needs thorough testing. Dimensional Analysis creates the relationship, it doesn’t test it.

  23. pochas94 says:

    Tallbloke: “It does not deal with seasonal variation, or equator pole gradients (though a forthcoming paper will).”

    Meanwhile, let’s not kid ourselves that N&Z have dealt with the Greenhouse Effect.

  24. tallbloke says:

    If you have scientific arguments to advance, then bring it on.
    If you’re just offering empty rhetoric, put a sock in it.

  25. tallbloke says:

    Skeptikal: Dimensional Analysis creates the relationship, it doesn’t test it.

    The dimensional analysis uncovered the pressure-temperature relationship. The way the scientific method should proceed is to now use the regression derived equation which fits the data to make predictions to test the hypothesis that pressure, not composition sets surface temperature. If you read their paper, you’ll discover that this is exactly what they’ve done. We now await the data from NASA missions to Mercury and other solar system bodies N&Z have made predictions for.

  26. Well said Roger. Willis E, Roy Spencer and some others here do not understand dimensional analysis. Dimensional Analysis is explained in simple terms in the Chemical Engineering Handbook because Chemical Engineers use so many dimensionless numbers in heat transfer such as the Nusselt number, in mass transfer such as the Schmidt No. (which Gavin Schmidt admitted that he did not know about its use) and the Reynolds No. in Fluid Dynamics. I suggest that Professional Engineers who have had a lot of practical experience are the only ones qualified to assess atmospheric conditions and relationships in climate and changes in climate I have yet to note one scientist (particularly physicists) who has come close to any understanding. That Pochas bloke demonstrates his ignorance. He should read some engineering texts.

  27. tallbloke says:

    Cementafriend. I spent a long time at Leeds Metropolitan University studying engineering science including fluid dynamics and heat transfer, so I know what you’re saying is true.

    I sent this email to Roy Spencer this morning. Let’s see if it gets a response.

    Dear Roy,

    I’ve been considering your post about Willis Eschenbach’s thought experiments and Ned Nikolov’s response to it. I think I can assist in clarifying a fundamental issue which will hopefully help bridge the schism developing between climate sceptics over the questions around radiative and adiabatic phenomena.

    In your post you said:
    “Significantly, Willis pointed out that if atmospheric pressure is instead what raises the temperature above the S-B value, as the Zeller-Nikolov theory claims, the rate of energy loss by infrared radiation will then go up (for the same reason a hotter fire feels hotter on your skin at a distance). But now the energy loss by the surface is greater than the energy gained, and energy is no longer conserved. Thus, warming cannot occur from increasing pressure alone.

    “In other words, without the inclusion of the greenhouse effect (which has downward IR emission by the atmosphere reducing the net loss of IR by the surface), the atmospheric pressure hypothesis of Zeller-Nikolov cannot explain surface temperatures above the Stefan-Boltzmann value without violation of the fundamental 1st Law of Thermodynamics: Conservation of Energy.

    “This is a simple and elegant proof that radiation from the atmosphere does indeed warm the surface above the S-B value. This will be my first go-to argument from now on when asked about the no-greenhouse theory.”

    Energy is conserved provided that the same amount of energy is emitted back to space as arrives from the Sun. It’s the incoming Solar and outgoing TOA radiation which determines that fundamental energy balance to which the conservation law applies, not the surface emission/temperature.

    All the solar system bodies with significant atmospheres contain radiatively active condensing gases. The primary role they play in enabling the surface under the atmosphere to rise to a higher temperature than the TOA emission temperature is to cool the planet’s atmosphere to space from altitude.

    However, emission to space from altitude by radiatively active gases is not “proof that (downward IR emission) from the atmosphere does indeed warm the surface” . In logic speak, emission to space from altitude by radiatively active gases only provides the necessary, but not necessarily the sufficient conditions for the “higher than SB” surface temperatures observed on these bodies.

    We can leave open the question of which processes actually do cause the surface to be at that “higher than SB” surface temperature for now, but I’d like to leave you with a couple of thoughts on the matter which might lead towards a more complete answer.

    You pointed out that “downward IR emission by the atmosphere reduc[es] the net loss of IR by the surface”

    I’ll add two more processes to this:

    1) Downward pressure by the atmosphere reduces the net loss of latent heat by the surface (by impeding the rate of evaporation). [1]

    2) Downward moving air rises in temperature adiabatically and impedes the rate of loss of heat conducted to air by the surface (by reducing the temperature differential).

    If we can agree the reality of these processes, we can discuss how me might perform empirical observations and measurements of them in order to determine their relative magnitudes.

    I hope you’ll consider a further post to explore these possibilities. Constructive debate has to be a better option for all of us climate sceptics together than the current entrenchments lobbing verbal bombs at each other from separate blogs!

    Best regards

    Roger Tallbloke

    [1] https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2014/pdf/2060.pdf

    This experiment found that 25ml in a 250ml beaker of water at 20C evaporated in ~150 minutes when air pressure was reduced to ~2.86 Torr (381.2952Pa). This is ~266 times lower than Earth’s surface air pressure.

    I don’t have a 250ml beaker to hand or the controlled conditions to maintain it at 20C, but I think we all know that it would take days rather than 2.5 hours for the water to evaporate at sea level pressure in the same fairly still conditions (say, out of a cup in our home with central heating running at 20C).

    Water evaporating takes quite a lot of heat away — 540 calories per gram — when it evaporates.
    https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1440&t=water-evaporation-rate

  28. Skeptikal says:

    “Constructive debate has to be a better option for all of us climate sceptics together than the current entrenchments lobbing verbal bombs at each other from separate blogs!”

    Tallbloke, regardless of how Roy responds to this…. you’re showing a willingness to put the science above petty bickering, and I applaud you for that.

  29. oldbrew says:

    T / (P/D) is a constant in the ‘ideal’ atmosphere.

    https://www.digitaldutch.com/atmoscalc/tableatmosphere.htm

  30. tallbloke says:

    I won’t publish Roy’s entire email in public, but here’s the response I’ve sent to his reply.

    Roy,
    thanks for taking the time to reply. You said:

    > those who believe the pressure-warming hypothesis claim the atmosphere does not emit/absorb IR energy.

    I’ve never made that claim. Nor have Ned and Karl. Who specifically has made this claim? We’ve contend that radiation levels at various altitudes are due to the temperature the radiating masses are at, rather than the other way round as radiative greenhouse proponents appear to assume. But that doesn’t mean we claim there’s no emission/absorption.

    > we put the relevant energy flows into a multi-layer, energy-conserving model. Downward IR energy flow reduces the net upward loss of IR energy, thus causing warming. There is no other explanation.

    I need to know the description and specification for this model. Does it couple convection? Latent heat? If it’s a radiative only model, it’s no surprise it’ll provide a radiative only answer. Please link a description of the model so we can study it.

    > the higher the atmospheric pressure, the greater (not lesser) the potential evaporation at the surface. This follows from the bulk aerodynamic formula of evaporation from a water surface.

    The experiment done at the University of Illinois I linked found that a 250ml beaker containing 25ml of water in a 20C environment at 2.88 Torr evaporated in 150 minutes. I suggest you put 25ml of water in a cup in your office and check it a couple of hours later. This will inform you of the applicability of the bulk aerodynamic formula to radically different surface pressure. Empirical data from actual experimentation takes precedence over the extrapolation of heuristic meteorological formulae developed in and for use near STP.

    > all sinking air that is warming adiabatically must be matched by an equal amount of rising air, at the same level, which is adiabatically cooling. There is no net global effect on surface temperature from this process by itself.

    I agree that only considering the rising and falling air by itself won’t reveal the effect on surface T, because that ignores the effect on conduction rate from surface to air.

    Best regards

    Roger

  31. Skeptikal says:

    I’m glad to see you and Roy engaging in civil dialogue.

  32. ptolemy2 says:

    Skeptical
    tallbloke,

    Ned Nikolov did make a ‘discovery’, but the discovery is only a correlation. The theory formed around this correlation is just a theory. The discovery itself is indisputable, but does the correlation validate the theory?

    That’s exactly the point I made on WUWT when Roy Spencer’s homage to WE was reposted. N&Z (or was that V&R ? 🙂 made an observation about the arrangement of the planets in the phase space of insolation, gravitational acceleration and atmospheric mass. All the criticism including that of WE has been attacks on straw man “explanations” of this phase space arrangement that are not N&Z’s but their own.

    WE is a great data analyst but when he gets a head of steam the wheels fall off his epistemology and logic. If he were to learn from the likes of Aristotle, Hume and Popper, this might be fixed and a true scientist and philosopher might emerge. But as Michel de Montaigne said: “He who establishes his argument by noise and command shows that his reason is weak.”

  33. tallbloke says:

    Ptolemy, yes. It was also notable that in Roy Spencer’s reply to me (he hasn’t replied to my response), his first ‘point’ was that the pressure proponents “claim the atmosphere does not emit/absorb IR energy.” Not a great entree for ongoing discussion (not that there is any).

  34. ptolemy2 says:

    N&Z comment that radiation emitted by gases in the atmosphere is the effect of temperature, not the cause of it. This is a highly thought-provoking suggestion. It reminds me of Steven Weinberg’s book on the Big Bang, “The First Three Minutes” where he discusses the early light-dominated epoch followed by recombination and the matter epoch. From 10 seconds to 380,000 years radiation was dominant and atoms could not form. At this time matter particles (plasma) had no temperature of their own but were forced willy-nilly to take the temperature of the surrounding radiation. Only at recombination, at the end of the light epoch at 380,000 years, did atoms form and matter could determine its own temperature independently of radiation. Radiation ceased to dominate temperature of matter.

    It seems the CAGW narrative is bizarrely assuming that we are somehow back in the light epoch with the temperature of matter in the atmosphere being dominated by IR radiation. N&Z bring some sanity to this by reminding us that the universe is significantly older than 380,000 years and that matter, not radiation, now dominate temperature. Radiation fluxes in the atmosphere are the result, not the cause, of atmospheric temperature.

  35. tallbloke says:

    Nicely put!
    I’ve been saying for a long time that we should remember what we learned in school all those years ago:
    Everything radiates according to its temperature. Not the other way round.

  36. Ned Nikolov says:

    ptolemy2:

    Our conclusion that IR radiative transfer within the atmosphere is a result (or byproduct) of the atmospheric thermal effect (i.e. of air temperature), which is set by pressure and solar radiation, is based on 2 observations:

    1. The prediction of long-term global planetary temperatures across a broad range of conditions in the Solar System does not require knowledge about the internal LW radiative fluxes or the amount of IR radiation emitted by a planet to Space;

    2. The down-welling IR radiation (a.k.a. “greenhouse” radiation) significantly exceeds the total solar radiation absorbed by the entire planet-atmosphere system. On Earth, the absorbed solar flux is ~240 W m-2, while the the measured down-welling IR flux is ~342 W m-2, or ~42% more. On Venus, this discrepancy reaches an extreme, i.e. ~65 W m-2 absorbed solar flux vs. more than 15,500 W m-2 of down-welling long-wave radiation! So, trying to explain the down-welling IR flux through a wavelength transformation of the absorbed solar flux as attempted by the “Greenhouse” theory violates the energy conservation law, because the kinetic energy of a gas system cannot increase by internal absorption and re-emission of radiation. Therefore, the “greenhouse” explanation of the atmospheric thermal effect being caused by downwelling IR radiation must be WRONG!

    We provide a good discussion of this topic in our 2017 paper, which apparently only a few people have read & understood:
    https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf

  37. Willis E. believed he could simply shy off the Dimensional Analysis part of N&Z – because he had already “disproved” their Equation 8 to be saying that Ts=Ts.

    I don’t think Willis ever took the trouble of reading, and checking, Nikolov’s straightforward step-by-step rebuttal of his (Willis’) mathematical faux pas. https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/nikolov-zeller-reply-eschenbach/ But he should. He still should do so. Even seven years later.

    I still wonder how many people understand that with mathematics, it is not a matter of opinion as to the right answer, the right answer is right because the mathematical logic shows it to be so, as much as if you have three apples and remove one, you will then have two apples. There is no room for “opinion” when the maths is done correctly. It is always checkable, and those who take the time to check can see this for themselves. That is the scientific method.

    The only caveat is that one has the humility to do one’s best, to check when challenged, and to admit error. I personally think that Scientific Method now needs such things to be stated. I am filled with horror at the way children are being frightened with junk CO2 science.

    Taking the time to check is essential, if Science is not to become the Religion of Scientism. Taking time, especially with the mathematical keys.

  38. Brett Keane says:

    Lucy and Ned, Thank you. Roger also, for sticking with it. Brett from NZ

  39. Here are some choice quotes from Galileo, no less true now than then:

    “In the long run my observations have convinced me that some men, reasoning preposterously, first establish some conclusion in their minds which, either because of its being their own or because of their having received it from some person who has their entire confidence, impresses them so deeply that one finds it impossible ever to get it out of their heads.”

    “In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual . . . There are those who reason well, but they are greatly outnumbered by those who reason badly.”

    “The laws of nature are written by the hand of God in the language of mathematics.”

    “The greatest wisdom is to get to know oneself.”

    “The vain presumption of understanding everything can have no other basis than never having understood anything. For anyone who had ever experienced just once the perfect understanding of one single thing, and had truly tasted how knowledge is accomplished, would recognize that of the infinity of other truths he understands nothing.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s