125 responses to “From Lysenko Loonies to Climate Change Clowns”

1. 

   Douglas Keachie

   27 January 2012

   Your most recent post, double posted?

   LikeLike

2. 

   Russ Steele

   27 January 2012

   Well California is not listening the scientist, they are about to mandate more zero emission vehicles. Transportation accounts for 40% of California’s greenhouse gases.
   Today, California air regulators will likely approve a package of “Clean Car” standards that many are calling historic. But there’s nothing new about that, the Progressive tried it once before, before CARB had AB-32 and it failed. But, failure is not an indicator it will not work again, now that CARB has some AB-32 clout to force people to buy the kind of cars that Progressive would like us to buy. Why to save the planet from an imaginary threat of global warming.
   According to Dan Sperling, director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at UC Davis, and a member of California’s Air Resources Board.
   “Well the problem of oil and greenhouse gases is not really a California problem, it’s a global problem. So what California’s really doing with its climate policies generally, with the zero-emission-vehicle program, with the vehicle greenhouse gas standards…is creating a model for the rest of the country and the rest of the world. We are making a great effort to design the zero-emission-vehicle program…in such a way that they are easily replicated and easily coordinated by other states and by the federal government.”
   Damn the science, we Progressive are saving the world for a problem that does not exist.

   LikeLike

3. 

   Russ Steele

   27 January 2012

   In last nights Florida GOP presidential debate, in his closing statement, Rick Santorum gestured over to Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney and said very matter of factly:
   Cap-and-trade… both of them bought into the global warming hoax… cap-and-trade, top-down control of our energy and manufacturing policy…
   That is one of my issues with both Romeny and Gingrich, they are both scientifically illiterate.

   LikeLike

4. 

   Paul Emery

   27 January 2012

   Just a reminder that we went to war in Iraq based on “incontrovertible” evidence that later proved to be false. Where was this crowd when that decision was made?

   LikeLike

5. 

   Russ Steele

   27 January 2012

   Paul,
   The “incontrovertible” evidence was based on Saddam saying that he had WMDs and his deception efforts to convince the world that he truly had WMDs. The parallels with the global warming hoax are astounding. The warmers have constructed an elaborate deceptions effort to convince the world that humans are responsible for planetary warming. But, we know that it is just not possible, because you cannot warm the earth by a gas which is colder than the object it is suppose to be warming. It is clear there is no proven relationship between increasing CO2 and temperatures. If there was a relationship, temperature should be rising, as CO2 is increasing, and temperatures are flat or declining over the last 15 years.
   Paul if you disagree, please provide some proof that humans are responsible for increased global warming.

   LikeLike

6. 

   Gregory

   27 January 2012

   Let’s remember the ‘It’s a slam dunk, Mr. President’ that shut down Bush II’s concern about the slim evidence about WMDs was from Democrat, and Clinton appointee to be the head of the CIA, George Tenet.
   Russ just can’t shake the “hoax” idea, but it isn’t a hoax. Just very bad science complicated by the huge amount of money that has been made available for researchers getting the desired results. Physicist Nir Shaviv, the author of the paper that clinched it for me, has written that he saw one colleague’s paper rejected with a note that “any paper which doesn’t support the anthropogenic GHG theory is politically motivated, and therefore has to be rejected”. I’m sure that editor really thought that to be the case, with the usual lack of self-awareness of those deeply inculcated into the fashion of the day.
   The paper worth reading is “Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?” (2003) by astrophysicist Nir Shaviv and geochemist Jan Veizer, two scientists in very different fields who only came together when Shaviv discovered the only thing correlating with his plots of galactic cosmic ray flux was Veizer’s plot of ocean temperatures over the the last 500+ million years. And the correlation was striking.

   LikeLike

7. 

   Douglas Keachie

   27 January 2012

   “we know that it is just not possible, because you cannot warm the earth by a gas which is colder than the object it is suppose to be warming”
   If you think that is the argument being advanced, no wonder you are confused. Gases do not have inherent temperatures. Up the the point where the bonds between the atoms are broken, gases can be heated.
   Try looking at the CO2 as reflecting heat back to the earth’s surface. It matters not what temperature a mirror is, it will still reflect heat from elsewhere quite nicely.

   LikeLike

8. 

   George Rebane

   27 January 2012

   DougK 123pm – Your argument about the temperature of the reflecting gas (CO2) is correct, and the general circulation models account for it, albeit erroneously. This withstanding, the evidence against the predicted long term global warming and its various side effects is itself not affected and stands as presented by the various scientists and engineers.

   LikeLike

9. 

   Gregory

   27 January 2012

   While “because you cannot warm the earth by a gas which is colder than the object it is suppose to be warming” isn’t an argument I’d make, it’s much less idiotic than thinking of the “greenhouse effect” as a mirror.
   First, it isn’t about any “inherent temperature” of the gases in the atmosphere. It’s just the simple fact that the atmosphere is cooler than the ground. A lot cooler. The world average temp at 14000′ ranges from -19C to about -23C, and is currently lower than it’s been in the decade the satellite has been taking the measurement.
   CO2 or any other infrared absorptive gas doesn’t reflect heat. The molecule absorbs the IR and becomes more energetic. The energy is then, in effect, radiated back out in all directions, including into space. In fact, mostly towards space.

   LikeLike

10. 

    Douglas Keachie

    27 January 2012

    From NASA, Global Cimate Change:
    “Earth’s atmosphere does the same thing as the greenhouse. Gases in the atmosphere such as carbon dioxide do what the roof of a greenhouse does. During the day, the Sun shines through the atmosphere. Earth’s surface warms up in the sunlight. At night, Earth’s surface cools, releasing the heat back into the air. But some of the heat is trapped by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That’s what keeps our Earth a warm and cozy 59 degrees Fahrenheit, on average.”
    http://climate.nasa.gov/kids/bigQuestions/greenhouseEffect/
    So Greg, NASA is lying to our kids?

    LikeLike

11. 

    Gregory

    27 January 2012

    Atmospheric physics as presented to 3rd graders has limitations, Keach. What I wrote can be seen clearly in their graphics.

    LikeLike

12. 

    George Rebane

    27 January 2012

    And here’s the view from the (way) other side about how the corrupt Right is trying to brainwash our kids.
    http://www.truth-out.org/alec-behind-push-require-climate-denial-instruction-schools/1327678212
    Applying their arguments symmetrically and seeing that theirs are already in practice never occurs to these yokels.

    LikeLike

13. 

    Douglas Keachie

    27 January 2012

    “But some of the heat is trapped by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That’s what keeps our Earth a warm and cozy 59 degrees Fahrenheit, on average.”
    And none of that heat is reflected downwards, as if by a mirror? In case you didn’t get it, I was speaking metaphorically. I did not mean to imply that the CO2 became a giant glass globe with a silver surface each night.

    LikeLike

14. 

    Douglas Keachie

    27 January 2012

    “CO2 or any other infrared absorptive gas doesn’t reflect heat. The molecule absorbs the IR and becomes more energetic. The energy is then, in effect, radiated back out in all directions, including into space. In fact, mostly towards space.”
    “gas doesn’t reflect heat”
    “radiated back out in all directions”
    which to the layman is just about the same as reflecting, as the CO2 then becomes a measurable heat source. If the CO2 wasn’t there, there would be nothing to absorb the heat, and it would ALL keep on going right out into space.

    LikeLike

15. 

    George Rebane

    27 January 2012

    DougK 229pm – Physics teaches that ‘reflection’ is a complex subject area that differs from the micro (atomic) to the macro scales handling energies that arrive in the form of particles (mass) to waves. For the level of discussion here, and most certainly in the way that the general circulation models handle it, the simplified view of CO2 reflection applies. It is a physical process at a boundary layer that returns a specified portion of impinging energy and allows the remainder to pass through or be absorbed by the layer.

    LikeLike

16. 

    Douglas Keachie

    27 January 2012

    Thanks, George, that’s just the way one of my advanced students demonstrated it in a animation back in 1992. In addition to winning a sizable chunk of cash for the flic, made with Autodesk’s Animator, he went on to MIT.

    LikeLike

17. 

    Russ Steele

    27 January 2012

    Gregory your 01:12,
    In reference to my use of the word hoax. That was my original thought when I first heard about human caused global warming, then I was chastised by intelligent people commenting on my blog and I stopped using the term. Then Climatgate I happened, and we learned about hiding data, using fudge factors in the climate models and that data was being adjusted to fit the models and finally scientist were refusing to share their data with reputable scientist to replicate their experiments and validate the result. It was clear if it was not a hoax then it was fraud.
    Again I was chastised for calling human caused global warming a fraud. Then Climategate II happened and we learned that Michael Mann admits in those emails that even he cannot replicate the experiment that produces the Hockey Stick, because he did not keep good notes and lost some of the data. In addition, we find there was a converted effort to deceive the public by a small group scientist that were IPCC climate assessment authors, and chapter editors. I find deception in the definition of both Fraud and Hoax. I think the general public has clear mental picture about hoaxes, as fraud is more complex, requiring more explanation. Thus, I am still using the word hoax to when referring to claims that human CO2 emissions are responsible for global warming.
    Fraud: fraudulence, cheating, swindling, embezzlement, deceit, deception, double-dealing, chicanery, sharp practice.
    Hoax: joke, jest, prank, trick; ruse, deception, fraud, bluff, confidence trick; informal con, spoof, scam, setup.
    I will now use deception, we were deceived by money grubbing climate whores.

    LikeLike

18. 

    Russ Steele

    27 January 2012

    Douglas your 02:04
    Yes NASA is lying to our children. NASA has been adjusting the raw temperature data take by the Weather Service to reflect their climate model. They are making up temperature reading where there have been no thermometers for 10 and some case 20 years, especially in the arctic. NASA claims the sea-level rise is accelerating, when their own satellites show they are not. I could go on and on, but if you visit Anthony Watt blog Watts Up With That you will find a reference page. See for you self if NASA is lying.

    LikeLike

19. 

    Gregory

    27 January 2012

    Russ, it remains that the likes of Mann and others aren’t trying to make anyone believe anything that they don’t already believe. They are so convinced they are right they discard the evidence to the contrary because they are so sure it’s wrong. That’s where the ‘scientific fraud’ lies.
    George, I think you are oversimplify the GSM far too much; I believe it’s much more a finite element analysis than a boundary value issue, most of the heat transfer is from convection, not radiation, and the biggest error is the decision of the IPCC to accept the very simplified and unverified model that a forcing (like a little more CO2 making it a tiny bit warmer) will cause more evaporation, but the added humidity will not result in more clouds that will reflect sunlight away.
    The greenhouse effect does not reflect the heat back, it just slows the transfer of it back into space.

    LikeLike

20. 

    Douglas Keachie

    27 January 2012

    “hey are making up temperature reading where there have been no thermometers for 10 and some case 20 years, especially in the arctic. ” When Greg’s school evaluating people do this, it is called “statistical analysis and interpolation.” Yup , I’d be inclined to cll LA teacher evaluations a hoax too.

    LikeLike

21. 

    Douglas Keachie

    27 January 2012

    In housing “The greenhouse effect does not reflect the heat back, it just slows the transfer of it back into space.” this is known as insulating. Yes, it traps heat for longer periods of time, which means the thermometer goes where, up or down, over that longer period of time. Greg is showing promise of becoming an aspiring politician.

    LikeLike

22. 

    George Rebane

    27 January 2012

    Gregory 437pm – not at all. It’s only a finite element analysis in the sense that they discretize the atmosphere and ground layer into homogenous hunks and, as you point out, solve the boundary layer problem. Nevertheless, in that they can account for all kinds of heat transfers and the models to compute them. I’ll bet a dinner that the top layers containing the greenhouse CO2 transfers use a simple reflection model for how much heat goes into space and how much is returned to the lower levels.
    But we know there are several ways to skin that cat and all of them have a knob on them that allows the user to adjust feedback gains.

    LikeLike

23. 

    Gregory

    27 January 2012

    George, unfortunately to really know I think one would need to be speaking to the architects of the 11 major GCM’s to get the details, but you’re making one of the usual mistakes… the radiation isn’t just up and down, but equally to the sides.
    If I thought there was a good way to adjudicate, I’d take the bet. In fact, if I had Romney’s money I might bet 10K… 😉

    LikeLike

24. 

    George Rebane

    27 January 2012

    Gregory 943pm – I made no mistake in that. Of course the secondary radiation also has a lateral component – it may even be isotropic, although I doubt it. All of that does not change the modeling of it as having an effective and measurable fraction that returns downward, thereby acting as if it had been specularly reflected. (The actual downward component is the result of an exponentially decaying number of subsequent ‘collisions’.)
    Now tell me again, what is the bet you want to make, maybe I can help.

    LikeLike

25. 

    Douglas Keachie

    28 January 2012

    “radiation isn’t just up and down, but equally to the sides. ”
    Comical!
    Greg visualizes particles as cubes.
    I think most reputable physicists would view them as spheres.
    If radiation goes out equally in all directions from the center, and the CO2 concentrates close to the ground, unlike the ozone layer which is up in the stratosphere, then nearly 180 degrees of the radiation is headed back to earth, and at least some of the upwards bound radiation will also hit yet more molecules and be sent downwards again. The earth is quite a huge target, when considering most of the CO2 is not more than 500 meters off the ground.
    In Greg’s cubist universe, I guess he counts on 270 degrees of radiation not returning to the planet. He’s a funny guy…

    LikeLike

26. 

    Gregory

    28 January 2012

    “Greg visualizes particles as cubes.”
    No Keach, you’re way behind and not thinking. Again.
    This isn’t about the shape of “particles” which, as far as the atmosphere is concerned are things called “molecules” that are definitely not thought of as “spheres”. I am rarely shocked at how little you really know but this one is up there.
    Regarding my earlier comments, that’s how the General Circulation Models visualize the atmosphere, diced up into boxes(a simplification) of a couple hundred kilometers on a side on the surface, stacked up maybe 25 deep. And yes, the IPCC conclusions are based on simulations that crude.

    LikeLike

27. 

    Gregory

    28 January 2012

    George, no, I very much doubt the GCM would just “reflect” a portion of the heat to make things easy, nor could we agree on a referee for a bet.

    LikeLike

28. 

    Douglas Keachie

    28 January 2012

    Well Greg, yes I kinda wondered about your use of the terminology from the the GCM’s that you professed to having such a distaste for. I’ve known the differences between atoms and molecules since 7th grade. And no, you still haven’t learned when I’m deliberately pulling your chain. When dealing with an object the size of a planet, the limiting factor in accuracy is the computer, and they are getting bigger and faster every year, so I would expect modifications to previous semi-predictions to improve with time.
    I remember well a discussion about predicting local weather at LLNL, in 1991, when they said they could predict tomorrow’s weather perfectly, but that it would take two days of super computer time to do it.

    LikeLike

29. 

    George Rebane

    28 January 2012

    Gregory 734am – Given the scale of the computations required in such discretized models, there is no doubt that the ‘reflection’ approach I outlined is used. The inclusion of the more detailed scattering models into each cell and through its interface is simply prohibitive, even at today’s computer speeds. And the reason that I’m certain of such simplification for CO2 is that science does not yet know what is called the Earth’s carbon cycle (another reason why long range climate predictions are fiction). Therefore, inserting tremendous complexity and precision into one small part of the carbon cycle in the GCMs doesn’t make sense to those of us who have made their living dealing in large scale simulations and error propagation.
    Greg, you appear to be a man with a technical background sufficient to check this out for yourself. And I take you to be a man of honor. So I will have no problem with you being the adjudicator of such a bet.
    BTW, besides having been a designer of large scale simulation models, I have looked at certain modules of a NOAA GCM model (for political reasons the entire models are monsters, their operation not known to any single person, and best kept close to their vest to prevent peals of laughter from the peers) in connection with some work on ozone measurements and reporting in the Sierra (google ‘ozone, rebane’). There you will also find links to some pretty high-falootin’ atmospheric modeling papers that cite my research in learning Bayes nets (google ‘Rebane-Pearl algorithm’). E.g. ‘Learning Structure from Data and its Application to Ozone Prediction’, L.E.Sucar, et.al.
    I could go on, but this is already getting too long.
    In sum, GCMs take advantage of modeling individual atmospheric energy exchange process, not through application of detailed physical simulations of atomic level process, but instead appeal to higher level and generalized ‘regression models’ whose states, in the large, have no mathematical relationship to the state spaces in the underlying physics (e.g. modules embodying Bayes nets as reported by Sucar). The process information is passed through datasets of observations. And specifically, I maintain that such an approach is used in the GCMs for CO2’s contribution to the so-called greenhouse effect.

    LikeLike

30. 

    Gregory

    28 January 2012

    “Well Greg, yes I kinda wondered about your use of the terminology from the the GCM’s that you professed to having such a distaste for.”
    -Keachie, 28 January 2012 at 08:51 AM
    If you had a clue about finite element analysis, what the adults were talking about, you’d have known.
    “I’ve known the differences between atoms and molecules since 7th grade.”
    I’m sure that’s a use of the word “known” of which I was previously unaware.
    “And no, you still haven’t learned when I’m deliberately pulling your chain.”
    I feel no need to divine when you’re being a ignorant jerk naturally, as opposed to when you’re trying hard to be the ignorant jerk. Why not try growing up? You might even be missed when your vision fails completely.

    LikeLike

31. 

    Gregory

    28 January 2012

    George, since the amount of the “reflection” would have to change with the temperatures in each direction, especially down, I can’t see why you are so wedded to it unless you’d actually read something to that effect. Have you a reference?

    LikeLike

32. 

    George Rebane

    28 January 2012

    Gregory 647pm – there is no problem whatsoever of creating the kind of models I describe that have the directional intensity of ‘reflection’ depend on multiple input/environment parameters that include temperature as one of them. In fact I’d be surprised if they didn’t contain such environmental vectors as part of the input. But all of that can be incorporated in the regression surfaces from either data or the offline running of the detailed physics models. The point is that when it comes to running the GCM based on a gazillion atmospheric and surface cells, you don’t want to be doing that kind of physics for each cell.
    I’m not “wedded” to this approach Greg, it’s the only computationally feasible one to use. In large scale models (including complex aircraft autopilots and missile controllers) we use these kinds of approximating surfaces all the time. The things that make them work is the correct feedback links that don’t let the system exceed such models’ approximation error bounds.
    And no, I don’t have a reference other than my own training and experience. Otherwise I would have been sandbagging you on the offer to bet. Mom taught me not to be like that.

    LikeLike

33. 

    Douglas Keachie

    28 January 2012

    There are an awful lot of things you are unaware of, Greg, and good manners I think tops the list.

    LikeLike

34. 

    Gregory

    28 January 2012

    Keach, you have been defaming me for years. I am not playing games and have never been playing games. I have nothing but contempt for you (you’ve earned it) and will be happy when you are no longer playing these games. I’d prefer for you to manage to exert enough self control to be an adult in the blogosphere, but if I have to wait for a physical infirmity to slow you down enough for you to just go away, so be it. You will not be missed.

    LikeLike

35. 

    Douglas Keachie

    28 January 2012

    You’ve been an arrogant clown and real pill from day one, on NCCN.net, and you are so tied up with your “math-y-er than thou” attitude you couldn’t see your game if it was painted on a hanger door. It won’t take too much luck for me to outlive you, longevity runs in the family. I guess among other things that you do not know about is the ability for the blind to read screens via audio. I guess it will take developing your own infirmities AND developing a warm heart before you will have any understanding. Probably developing the former will completely preclude the latter from ever occurring.
    You’d make a lot more friends if you could learn to teach others about their errors in math, rather than berating them, all the while crowing about what a superior being you are. Is this the Claremont Vision your professors and fellow students tried to teach you, or did the real thing fail to take?

    LikeLike

36. 

    Russ Steele

    29 January 2012

    Burt Rutan who signed the WSJ Letter responds to one of his fan who took umbrage with his signing the letter. More details: http://2012nevadacounty.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/a-burt-rutan-fan-disappointed-he-signed-wsj-article-denying-agw/

    LikeLike

37. 

    Gregory

    29 January 2012

    “all the while crowing about what a superior being you are”
    Never happened, Keach. That’s you just reacting badly to being shown to be wrong on math and physical science topics, again and again.
    I feel for your Stanford BSEE brother.

    LikeLike

38. 

    Gregory

    29 January 2012

    Russ, Rutan has impressed many in the aviation community with his presentation on problems with AGW science, speaking not as a scientist but as an engineer with long experience evaluating complex data. He was perhaps the scientifically weakest of the WSJ signatories (I’d say Shaviv and Lindzen are the strongest) but he’s done a good job of covering the problem. It is all about the theorized positive feedbacks from the water cycle; in the GCM, CO2 and those positive feedbacks were used to account for heat that was in fact from other natural causes the modelers did no know about, like oceanic temperature cycles and solar-magnetic interactions with the climate.
    The good news is that the natural fluctuations have gone in the other direction before the CO2 demonization was made complete.

    LikeLike

39. 

    Douglas Keachie

    29 January 2012

    Greg, I will simplify this for you, my brother, four years my senior, has earned at BSEE work, about 1/10th of what I earned in my lifetime so far, as a teacher. Sometimes BSEE’s and mental health don’t go together so well, which is why I wonder about you too.

    LikeLike

40. 

    Gregory

    29 January 2012

    Yes, simplification is good.
    Mental illness tends to run in families, Keach. There is none in mine that I know of, and I’ve been declared normal by the only counselor I’ve gone to, back when I was caring for my dying first wife and our young son. Mental illness would also disqualify me for my flight medical certificate; as I jumped to help the aged mother of my Flight Medical Examiner out of their airplane yesterday, I doubt you could convince him of that cold hearted nature you think I have.
    Keach, you are very probably more like your brother than you care to believe.
    The folks I know who have met you that I’ve asked have all considered you to be a very peculiar guy. A loose screw somewhere.
    Arrogant clown? Keachie is projecting.

    LikeLike

41. 

    Gregory

    29 January 2012

    Oh, and I forgot,
    “Sometimes BSEE’s and mental health don’t go together so well, which is why I wonder about you too.”
    Wrong again, Keach. I don’t have a BSEE.

    LikeLike

42. 

    Douglas Keachie

    29 January 2012

    Too bad you are so literal all the time, or do you deny that you have any sort of engineering degree at all? And, again, you are unclear as to when I am pulling your chain.
    I had no trouble getting my flight medical certificate either, so I guess we are both sane.
    And the only person I know who has had direct contact with you described you, long after we had locked horns, as being very much in person, like I have found you, and then described you, on line.
    Being different is not a crime, often an improvement, over the norm.

    LikeLike

43. 

    Gregory

    29 January 2012

    “Sometimes BSEE’s and mental health don’t go together so well, which is why I wonder about you too.”
    Bigotry pure and simple. And brotherly hate to boot. Something else, too, thanks for the clue, Keach. You claim to have at least at one time had an FAA medical certificate, but apparently never any pilot certificate or you’d show up in the FAA database. However, your brother Steve, the guy with the BSEE you often seem to have me confused with, has commercial and instructor certificates for gliders, and is the registered owner of three sailplanes. So he managed to get through flight training and testing, and you didn’t. LOL!
    “And the only person I know who has had direct contact with you described you, long after we had locked horns, as being very much in person, like I have found you, and then described you, on line.”
    That is one of the most non-specific, rambling attempts at a failed insult I’ve ever seen. Let’s narrow down this one… have you paid this person large sums, hundreds or even thousands of dollars, for their services?

    LikeLike

44. 

    Douglas Keachie

    29 January 2012

    Paid them nothing for their services, acquaintance via The Union commenters, and that is your last clue. It wasn’t intended as an insult. It was a description of reality, or at least the virtual reality you presented to me, as I perceive it.
    Washed out? Noooo. I got a job as a lineman at Flightways Aviation by way of my brother (whom I pity far more than dislike) It was about the time of my first marriage, and I got a student’s license with intent to learn to fly, but it was a minimum wage job, and as soon as I had my degree, I went on to my first professional job, as a research associate for a Title I project in the Richmond School District. as wifey Poo the First “wanted house , children, everything, the full catastrophe” ~ Zorba the Greek ~ getting the license went by the wayside. Besides, skiing is still king for sensations when it comes to gravity sports, and it is healthier, and somewhat more forgiving of lapse in attention. (Go ahead, it’s a free shot, compliments of the management.)
    All three gliders still exist, but none of the are or have been airworthy for over 30 years. He keeps moving them from rented space to rented space, and won’t sell them to collectors who would restore them. I’m not sure if any of his certificates are still valid.
    I know you have unbounded faith in databases and the government, so I propose a bet. $100 says I still have the certificate, and George Rebane can hold the stakes. Oh, I’ll be happy to raise that amount 10 fold, but I’m trying to be polite. Could it be possible that Gregory Goodknight is WRONG? END OF THE WORLD!

    LikeLike

45. 

    Gregory

    30 January 2012

    Anna Haynes isn’t a great judge of character, Keach, though you are birds of a feather. The ultimate gravity sport is flying sailplanes, talk to Steve about that. Getting a launch is even cheaper than an all day lift pass.
    Yes, Keach, your bro’s pilot commercial and instructor certificates are still valid, and he wouldn’t need a current med cert to fly a sailplane himself, not giving instruction, though he would have to self certify his health to a point. The student pilot certificate is just a form of the medical certificate, Keach, and it expired two or three years after it was issued. It was issued by the medical examiner, not the FAA central office.

    LikeLike

46. 

    Gregory

    30 January 2012

    “I know you have unbounded faith in databases and the government”
    Wow, another pure Keachie fabrication, a shot made at 90 degrees to Reality.

    LikeLike

47. 

    Douglas Keachie

    30 January 2012

    Greg, freefall experienced during a jump is I guess something you’ve never experienced at any sizable height, and the adrenalin rush of doing 70 mph with your head two feet off the ground, beats the crap out of anything I ever experienced in my brother’s sailplanes or in the Citabrias of Flightways aviation with demos of everything it could do at 8,000 feet out around Mt. Diablo. Now a shuttle launch I could get into….maybe there is a reason to elect Gingrich after all?

    LikeLike

48. 

    Douglas Keachie

    30 January 2012

    Sorry Greg. You are still wrong. I’m still hoping your obstinacy will increase my wealth by $100 dollars. You may take me to court, and the judge can read it for himself, and then you will get billed for both lawyers, and for wasting my time. You claim that, “but apparently never any pilot certificate” I do indeed have a student pilot certificate, and you are 100% wrong about my not having it. If you had left out the word “any” you’d be in great shape, but you didn’t, so you are getting precisely what you deserve. $100 please, or just admit that even you can screw up from time to time. And please tone down the insults, you don’t own this blog, and George has asked you politely several times. Besides, it show exactly whose blood pressure is headed in what direction.

    LikeLike

49. 

    Gregory

    30 January 2012

    No Keach, you do not have a Student Pilot Certificate. The combo certificate you used to hold expired two years after you got it, and if you never got a CFI’s endorsement it was never even used.
    If anyone is interested in what this thing is, here’s the application. It is the only medical certificate you can get from the FAA if you don’t have a pilot certificate. If your student/medical expires before you earn a Private certificate, you get another combo student/medical.
    Here’s the application for an FAA medical certificate. Note it’s the same app for the combo student/medical cert:
    http://www.aopa.org/members/files/medical/8500-8.pdf
    Keach, I make plenty of mistakes. Someday you might even find one.

    LikeLike

50. 

    Douglas Keachie

    30 January 2012

    This link, in Firefox, comes up to a blank document http://www.aopa.org/members/files/medical/8500-8.pdf
    I have a couple of old dollar bills, which used to be called silver certificates. I doubt I can redeem them for silver any more. Would you deny the writing on them?
    I still have a certificate that says, and I quote, ” Medical Certificate Third Class AND Student Pilot Certificate. Your statement was and still is:
    “Something else, too, thanks for the clue, Keach. You claim to have at least at one time had an FAA medical certificate, but apparently never any pilot certificate or you’d show up in the FAA database.”
    That was in response to:
    “I had no trouble getting my flight medical certificate either, so I guess we are both sane.”
    Since you started to make such a big deal of it, I dug it out, and lo and behold, it is both a medical flight certificate and a student pilot certificate. You said, as plain as day,
    “apparent never had ANY pilot certificate”
    “any” is the killer here, I do indeed have a student pilot certificate. All the things you say about it may be true, but it is a Federal document, and it is labeled “Student Pilot Certificate” and I rest my case, you are wrong.
    The statement you were looking for was: “apparent never had A pilot certificate” You missed it, bent prop award of the day, case dismissed.

    LikeLike