Not so new Skeptic

[dedmod]

I've been hanging out on Skeptic sites for better than 12 years. Most of the first part of it on one called Climate Change Debate or something like that . When Steve McIntyre started Climate Audit I moved there and have read about everything on that site. Lately I've been exploring some of the other skeptic sites and Derek posted something on CA (or was it Jeff ID's site) with a link here so I decided to register and see what's going on. I suspect I may not make a lot of friends here though I'll agree with people here on most topics. But I do have a problem with fellow skeptics who don't know the science well. So I may use this as a sounding board to try knocking sense in to some people who need it.

Dave Dardinger

[Derek]

Hello and Welcome Dave Dardinger.

"We" here look at things from a layman's point of view mostly, or
at least to explaining in an understandable manner to a layman.
"We" are trying to understand better, so welcome all points of view, put civilly of course.

Knocking people into shape, elsewhere I assume, is something "we" here would love to be able to help you with in any small way "we" can.
If indeed "we" are capable, as you are from CA you I have no doubt are very well informed.

Do you have specialist knowledge / areas with relevance to climate science. ?

[dedmod]

My undergraduate degree was in Chemistry (ACS version which required a lot of extra courses such as calculus through Diff E and 2 years of German. I got a Masters degree in biochemistry from Purdue (should have got PhD but I played too much Bridge & Chess and didn't spend enough time studying.) My name is one one peer-reviewed paper in Biochemistry which still gets some citations which is pretty good since it's over 35 years old. As far as climate science goes, Physical Chemistry is the most useful as it relied heavily on Thermodynamics. That's one problem with CA. Since Steve Mc isn't familiar with Thermo, he doesn't allow it to be discussed on the site, even when its really needed. But more on that later as a lot of skeptics get confused and misuse the second law when it comes to heat flow.

Dave

(04-17-2010 10:36 PM)Derek Wrote:  Hello and Welcome Dave Dardinger.

"We" here look at things from a layman's point of view mostly, or
at least to explaining in an understandable manner to a layman.
"We" are trying to understand better, so welcome all points of view, put civilly of course.

Knocking people into shape, elsewhere I assume, is something "we" here would love to be able to help you with in any small way "we" can.
If indeed "we" are capable, as you are from CA you I have no doubt are very well informed.

Do you have specialist knowledge / areas with relevance to climate science. ?

[Derek]

Thank you dedmod, an excellant and informative reply.
I really do look forward to future discussions here with you.
I am certain I am not alone in that view.

Please dive in. "We" here have been struggling with exactly that
the "physics" and chemistry especially in relation to the second law of thermodynamics.

I would hazard to guess that such discussions will resonate and radiate,
maybe even permeate......

OK, OK, so I'm working on my sense of humour.. lol

[Richard111]

Hello and welcome dedmod, looking forward to being enlightened.

You will get some idea of how backward I am in climate science by reading my posts in Layman Struggles. Just read post #57 should clue in.

Definitely need info and data about radiation through gases. But, at the end of the day I blog here for fun and learning especially if I can find putdowns for warmists who attempt to sermonise my way of life. (like government ministers and council twits).

[JohnWho]

Welcome to the board, dedmod.

The truth and the facts around what causes the climate to change either in a cooling or warming direction, is what it is.

The distortions about it certainly should continue to be revealed and discussed.

So, reveal away and enjoy the board.

[Sunsettommy]

Hello Dave D.

I have seen you in various places on the net since the late 1990's.Here is where you and others made comments at John Daly's site:

Hug & Barrett versus IPCC

Gosh it has been 9 years now.I read it then too and now I realize that Jack Barrett was in it too along with Richard Courtney who is a member here as well.

I have read some of your comments in the past,it is obvious that you are informed and educated to make good points in your replies.

I appreciate that you chose to join a layman caveman skeptic site.:cool:Where we are not bothered by AGW believers for some reason,that actually surprises me.

But I do wonder what your intentions are when you wrote this:

Quote:Lately I've been exploring some of the other skeptic sites and Derek posted something on CA (or was it Jeff ID's site) with a link here so I decided to register and see what's going on. I suspect I may not make a lot of friends here though I'll agree with people here on most topics. But I do have a problem with fellow skeptics who don't know the science well. So I may use this as a sounding board to try knocking sense in to some people who need it.

I had no problem tolerating people like Ferdinand Engelbeen who visited us over a year ago.Despite that Myself and especially Derek were not convinced by his arguments about the MLO and how much CO2 emissions have we actually contributed.

I have no problem with other scientists who have contributed here,despite that I have not been fully agreeable with what they believe is the best understanding of the topic at hand.

I am rather tolerant as long as the discussion is reasonable and civil.

You are welcome to provide helpful criticism here to anything anyone writes in the forum.But please try not to stuff us,since we are for the most part caveman laymen who have not been fooled by the strident doomsday message we have been pummeled every day.

Welcome aboard!