Thanks to all of you that responded to my query. As a result I sent my
friend a very long email compendium of articles and comments countering
Munckton's 'cookoo/junk science.' I have yet to find out if I was able
to convince my friend or whether he is still my friend :-\
Paul
Les Schaffer wrote:
Paul Phillips wrote:
I received this from a friend who is, as a result, a climate change
skeptic. I don't have the scientific knowledge to refute the claims
and have relied on the IPCC for my information. Does anyone know
where such a refutation of this specific attack can be found or is
anyone knowledgeable enough to compose a reply?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/cuckoo-science/
Why so large and crucial an exaggeration? Answer: the IPCC has
repealed the fundamental physical the Stefan-Boltzmann equation -
that converts radiant energy to temperature.
when i saw this line, i knew Munckton was not worth wasting time over.
but people like your friend are likely to be easily swayed by such a
casual remark.
Les
Without this equation, no meaningful calculation of the effect of
radiance on temperature can be done. Yet the 1,600 pages of the
IPCC's 2007 report do not mention it once.
Paul Phillips Professor Emertus, Economics University of Manitoba Home
and Office: 3806 - 36A st., Vernon BC, Canada. ViT 6E9 tel: 1 (250)
558-0830 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
