...Hurricane Felix Yet another Category 5.

On Sep 2, 10:50 pm, Bill Ward wrote:
On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 19:02:03 -0700, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Sep 2, 6:43 pm, Al Bedo wrote: [ . . . ]
Second, AGW is modeled to DECREASE the lapse rate in the tropics,
stabilizing the atmosphere and suppressing convection.

Could you please give a source for this statement?

Roger, you are in no position to ask for a source for anything. You have
thoroughly discredited and dishonored yourself by deliberately lying to
the group, then trying to run and hide rather than doing the right
thing and apologizing to the group. Why should anyone give you any
attention, respect or credibility at all? You deserve none.

Even in a Usenet group, honesty is required to maintain credibility. You
have no place to run, your lies are undeniable, they are a matter of
record:

Roger's initial claim is he
Message-ID:
.com

Downthread you'll find in:

.com

begin repost





On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 18:13:24 -0700, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Aug 28, 4:49 pm, Bill Ward wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:00:31 -0700, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Aug 28, 2:29 pm, Bill Ward wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 07:56:21 -0700, Roger Coppock wrote:
[ . . . ]
The energy non-equilibrium, 0,85+0.15 W/m^2 more in than out, and
response time, ~50 years, are both measured quantities, Rheims of
calculations will not change the measurements. PLease see:

Hansen, J. et al. 2005b Earth's energy imbalance: confirmation and
implications. Science 308, 1431-1435.
(doi:10.1126/science.1110252)
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

It's from a model, not directly measured.
NOPE! You're just plain wrong.
First three words of the abstract are, "Our climate model".

It pays to read beyond the first three words, Bill. It will keep the
egg of your face.

Of course I did, Roger. Exactly where does it say the energy was
directly measured? Some ocean temperatures were sampled, and an energy
estimate was made using models. In fact he specifically mentions "an
artifact of incomplete sampling" at the top of the second column of
page 2.

The egg is all yours. Enjoy.

Spin, spin, spin! Spin and dance.

Spin all you want. You didn't read the paper and now you look like a
fool.

Either point out exactly where the paper says the energy was directly
measured, or admit you're the one that's "just plain wrong".

No extra credit for dancing.
end repost

Then he writes:

.com

begin repost
Poor, poor Bill.
He lost a debate and now he's going to troll this newsgroup endlessly
posting a fictional transcript he's written. end repost

Roger, not reading the paper you linked to is perhaps excusable. Lying
about a "fictional transcript", which is publicly archived, is excusable
only if you can show a mental condition in which you are not responsible
for your actions. If that's the case, any credibility you may have had is
gone.

So which is it, Roger, lack of honor, or lack of mental responsibility?

You know what you did. You can't hide from yourself.

I can be quite patient if necessary. You are not getting away with it
this time. You must apologize to the group.


Roger - Please apologize to Bill Ward; really get down and grovel and
beg his forgiveness, because he is really upset. He's so upset, in
fact, that he now identifies himself with "the Group," which may be a
sign of incipient schizoid tendencies.

Humor him, Roger, won't you?