Raymond Martin may be right about us living in the Stupid Age if his inane comments about climate change are any indication.

How many courses have you taken that qualify you to be an expert on climate science, Raymond? Your comments about high pressure make no sense whatsoever.  Any chance that you can refer us to reputable research that proves that high pressure is the culprit instead of increased greenhouse gases in our atmosphere? Your opinion does not constitute proof.

Why would any sane person be willing to bet the future of our planet and our children on the off chance that 97 percent of climatologists are wrong? If there was a 97 percent chance of getting cancer if you don’t forgo some bad habit, the smart person changes his lifestyle.

Martin scoffs at the predicting ability of meteorologists, but when they predict the path of a hurricane, I bet he plays close attention. If 97 percent of the computer models predicted a hurricane landfall at Baytown, I wonder if Raymond would bet his beach house on the 3 percent chance of a miss.

The good thing about science is that its approach to truth is self-correcting. Theories (and models) proposed by one scientist are tested by other scientists and those theories are then confirmed, modified, or discarded.  Raymond claims that “numerous” climate science studies have been shown to be bogus. Which ones, and how many, Raymond? What about the vast majority that aren’t bogus?  Do we just ignore them? 

The methods of science are the only way to discover fundamental truth. To ignore the findings of science is to disregard reality and wallow in ignorance.  That ignorance might be blissful for some, but it remains ignorance.

If his orange idol proposes that the moon is made of blue cheese, support for that idea would be the subject of Raymond’s next letter to the Sun. 

 

 

 

(7) comments

baytownbert

Out of general curiosity, how many courses have you taken that qualify you to be an expert on climate science, Frank? You are obviously an expert by the amount of negative comments you made in observation of Mr. Martin’s letter. Whispering in your ear: By the way, his explanation made sense.
According to the redundant and vicious letters of character assassination you submit, you always think anyone to the right of you is a total moron and their opinion is so disturbingly wrong to you that you feel attacking their person is a justifiable load of buckshot.
So, please post an extensive list of your science education. I will be honest and admit after about the third time you wrote the paper, I lumped you in with Alan Hudgins, the Baytown curmudgeon. Are you also a curmudgeon Frank who can’t see the sun in your yard because there is a cloud over Asia?
For once I would love to see one of you two liberals post anything positive about anything. Maybe a suggestion to relieve traffic, or abate litter as a couple possible subjects. They are good topics that would help all. And of course, I am always here as a proof reader for you so you are no so acidic and offensive. Heck, I’ll even extend senior rates for you if you qualify.
Thank you.

Frank

Baytown Bert, I am not a climatologist, but I am smart enough to defer to those who are educated as climatologists. It seems to me that all of us would benefit from that approach.

I am educated as a scientist with a bachelors degree in chemistry from UT, and a masters degree in physics education from the College of William and Mary. I have done additional course work in physics education at Princeton, University of Maryland, SUNY at New Paltz, Northern Arizona University, Montana State University, and Texas A&M. The Woodrow Wilson Foundation employed me to be part of a team that conducted workshops across the country for under-prepared physics teachers. How about your science background?

For the record, I had a tacit agreement with Raymond Martin to not send any more political letters to the Sun. Since then Raymond has sent in 4 letters. I bit my tongue for the first 3, but cannot let his ridiculous opinions go unchallenged. In fairness, maybe you should also suggest to Raymond that he should quit writing letters to the Sun. Or do you only object to letters that are in opposition to your worldview?

Am I a curmudgeon? Probably so. Do I come across as arrogant? Probably. But the far more important question is – Am I right? Are my opinions based on facts? You and Raymond want to sweep 10,000 lies under the rug, ignore attacks on the free press and our justice system and pretend that Russian interference was a hoax. I see a country whose democratic processes are in peril, and the least I can do is challenge the ignorance.

Since you agree with Raymond’s theory about high pressure being the basic cause of climate change, I have a few questions for you.

(1) When a norther comes through, it is followed by very cold weather under a high pressure area. Does high pressure also cause cold?
(2) If we assume that more high pressure causes global warming, the question becomes – What causes more high pressure? Your theory cannot be taken seriously until that question is answered.

rmartin

Yes Frankie a front from the north will bring high pressure. Since the earth obsoletes on it's axis it will be a cold front from the north during winter months. Does one of your master degrees mention this? Barometric pressure has a bearing on everything weather wise. Hurricane intensity is determined by low barometric pressure or low millibars. The lower the stronger. Pilots take off and land according to atmospheric pressure (air density). See Frankie barometric pressure is very important. I happen to tune my racecar by atmospheric conditions so winning a lot of races and being in the Drag Racing Hall of Fame kind of qualifies me to know the pros and cons of barometric pressure.

Frank

The earth OBSOLETES on its axis. I don’t even know what that means. Obsolete = outdated, old-fashioned, archaic. Anyone who thinks the earth obsoletes on its axis is disqualified from having his global warming theories taken seriously.

N/A, you are still avoiding (as usual) important questions:

1. Can you point to any reputable research that supports your view that high pressure is the culprit for global warming instead of increased greenhouse gases in our atmosphere? Your opinion does not constitute proof. Can you even reference any studies that measure worldwide barometric pressures? You do realize that scientific theories are based on real data, not just guesswork, don’t you?
2. If I were to abandon all common sense and accept your hypothesis that more high pressure is causing global warming, then you still have to explain what is causing more high pressure. In your theory, what is causing more high pressure? If you can’t answer that question, your hypothesis is worthless.
3. Are you suggesting that drag racers know more about climate science than climatologists because they are good at tuning their engines? Wow.

If you think your theory is valid, your next step is to write a paper and submit it to scientific journals for publication. I won’t hold my breath waiting for that to happen.


Frank

N/A, Baytown Bert admonished me to be more positive, so at least this one time I will. Your induction into the NHRA South Central Division 4 Hall of Fame is a huge accomplishment. You clearly have a great talent in this field, and I congratulate you. However, I still contend that drag racing talent does not make a person an expert in climatology.

rmartin

Hey Frankie, I've submitted a response to your obvious ignorance. Since Global Warming/Climate Change doesn't exist as being man made it's going to be difficult for you to understand. Nobody said high pressure is causing global warming. Barometric pressure differences causing weather patterns. It's has squat to do with your sheepish claim of global warming/climate change.

Frank

Of course you had to write another letter. Be sure to include your explanation of how the earth is "obsoleting" on its axis.

Differences in barometric pressure influence weather patterns. Duh, yes. But that has exactly "squat" to do with explaining global warming. Try again.

Answer these questions, I dare you:

(1) Is carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas?
(2) Is the amount of carbon dioxide increasing in our atmosphere? (look it up.)
(3) Where is this buildup of carbon dioxide coming from?


Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.