Heat Pump.

davezawadi (David Stone): 
 

Peter, several times you have been asked to provide evidence for your assertion of dangerous “climate change”, that you are obviously considering to be warming.

I have given it, many times. Start out with the recent IPCC WG1 TS. If that is too much, try John Houghton's textbook (Fifth Edition, 2015). For less intense reading, try the Nobel Commitee's commentary on the 2021 Nobel Prize awarded to Manabe and Hasselmann.

 I have posted a very well-respected Professor of Physics telling you why you are wrong on another thread. 

I have my own colleagues who are “very well-respected Professor[s] of Physics”. I don't think any of them think global warming caused by anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions is not taking place. There is even one in Hamburg (not an acquaintance, though) who just one the Nobel Prize for work that others have used to “prove” (the Nobel Committee's word) that such change is taking place.

 

I would like you to tell us where he is wrong, which piece of physics is incorrect and why the basis of thermodynamics is being misunderstood. If you are unable to do this I suggest you provide an apology to the other posters, because the “Guff” is from you and not us. 

That is, unless I do what you say, it somehow follows that I am talking Guff. That is a non sequitur.

You made a long series of statements that (I take it) you consider show AGW due to anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions (AGGE) not to be occurring. I called those “Guff”. You mentioned the Mauna Loa measurements twice, and suggested they should be showing a reduction in CO2 in 2020. I asked you straight out what you think that reduction should be. 

Now, that is a piece of actual climate science. You haven't answered. I conclude that that is because you can't. (I can.)

What you appear to be good at is finding contrarian videos and WWW sites and saying “look at this!" “and this!" “and this!”. You are farming these WWW sites for statements that you think show that AGW due to AGGE is not happening. 

And then, you use what I call the “football fan” style of argument to try to suggest that these statements you pick up are right, and the IPCC WG1 TS/Houghton/Nobel committee are wrong. That style of argument doesn't convince me. 

You tried to lecture me on “Scientific Method”. You even tried to lecture me on the Standard Model of particle physics. What you decline to do is discuss climate science. 

I am thus lacking any indication that you are at all competent to discuss climate science. You are welcome to carry on cheering your “team”, but until you can get into discussing climate science, I don't see that I have much more to say.

davezawadi (David Stone): 
 

Peter, several times you have been asked to provide evidence for your assertion of dangerous “climate change”, that you are obviously considering to be warming.

I have given it, many times. Start out with the recent IPCC WG1 TS. If that is too much, try John Houghton's textbook (Fifth Edition, 2015). For less intense reading, try the Nobel Commitee's commentary on the 2021 Nobel Prize awarded to Manabe and Hasselmann.

 I have posted a very well-respected Professor of Physics telling you why you are wrong on another thread. 

I have my own colleagues who are “very well-respected Professor[s] of Physics”. I don't think any of them think global warming caused by anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions is not taking place. There is even one in Hamburg (not an acquaintance, though) who just one the Nobel Prize for work that others have used to “prove” (the Nobel Committee's word) that such change is taking place.

 

I would like you to tell us where he is wrong, which piece of physics is incorrect and why the basis of thermodynamics is being misunderstood. If you are unable to do this I suggest you provide an apology to the other posters, because the “Guff” is from you and not us. 

That is, unless I do what you say, it somehow follows that I am talking Guff. That is a non sequitur.

You made a long series of statements that (I take it) you consider show AGW due to anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions (AGGE) not to be occurring. I called those “Guff”. You mentioned the Mauna Loa measurements twice, and suggested they should be showing a reduction in CO2 in 2020. I asked you straight out what you think that reduction should be. 

Now, that is a piece of actual climate science. You haven't answered. I conclude that that is because you can't. (I can.)

What you appear to be good at is finding contrarian videos and WWW sites and saying “look at this!" “and this!" “and this!”. You are farming these WWW sites for statements that you think show that AGW due to AGGE is not happening. 

And then, you use what I call the “football fan” style of argument to try to suggest that these statements you pick up are right, and the IPCC WG1 TS/Houghton/Nobel committee are wrong. That style of argument doesn't convince me. 

You tried to lecture me on “Scientific Method”. You even tried to lecture me on the Standard Model of particle physics. What you decline to do is discuss climate science. 

I am thus lacking any indication that you are at all competent to discuss climate science. You are welcome to carry on cheering your “team”, but until you can get into discussing climate science, I don't see that I have much more to say.