Climategate

[Ultraprene]

Actually, there were news stories in the US as well, including the scientific newsletters. It is true that a few of the thousands of scientists participating in the IPCC were sloppy in their methods. Shame on them. Still, their errors do not overthrow the fundamental science. There are dishonest or sloppy people in every profession but it does not mean that everything coming from that profession is false. I bet there are even people writing on climate change in this Forum who can't even describe the Planck-Boltzmann theory, or do a thermodynamic calculation, or explain the infrared absorption properties of carbon dioxide. But they still run off at the mouth.

[Thorne]

I bet there are even people writing on climate change in this Forum who can't even describe the Planck-Boltzmann theory, or do a thermodynamic calculation, or explain the infrared absorption properties of carbon dioxide. But they still run off at the mouth.

I've done thermodynamic calculations in the past, and I've measured infrared absorption, as well as UV absorption, of many compounds, including carbon dioxide. Not familiar with the Planck-Boltzmann theory, theory, though. A quick search comes up with the Fokker-Planck-Boltzmann equation, which at first blush does not appear to have any direct bearing on climate research, though it does deal with the relationship between energy and temperature. The math is way over my head.

So, does this mean it's okay for me to comment on Climate change?