....or the cutting and pasting unverifiable theories for fun and profit

Documenting climatology's fascination with regurgitation. Here is a popular example to get you started: Luterbacher and Jones borrow their text from the Mann.

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Orbach 2011 copies Airhart 2010




An interesting example of the standards of climatology. As noted by Bishop Hill, Ray Orbach published in Reports on Progress in Physics a laughable 'review' of matters climatological. Among many problems with this review, detailed here by Bishop Hill http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/10/12/this-is-science-this-is-progress.html, it is apparent that Orbach took much of his text from web writings by Airhart.

Orbach: 'In 1900, scientists published results of a laboratory experiment interpreted at the time to signify that all the long wavelength radiation emitted by Earth is absorbed by the atmosphere already, and that therefore, adding more CO2 could not possibly make a difference.'

Airhart: 'In 1900, scientists published results of a laboratory experiment interpreted at the time to signify that all of the long wavelength radiation emitted by Earth is absorbed by the atmosphere already, and that therefore, adding more CO2 couldn’t possibly make a difference.'

Would it not be simpler to prove the case rather than cutting and pasting nonsense?