Replies

There are only a small handful of people I've ever had run-ins with on talk.origins or anywhere else who I could categorize as outright liars and propagandists, and Tim Thompson is one of them. Thompson's original argument against the claim I make on this one was that we needed to take all measurements of albedo for Venus going back to the time of Kublai Khan and average them in with the good measurement from close orbit by Pioneer Venus in 1978 (to try to get the numbers closer to the .76 figure). Brilliant guy....

There are only a small handful of people I've ever had run-ins with on talk.origins or anywhere else who I could categorize as outright liars and propagandists, and Tim Thompson is one of them.

You always dismiss, for whatever reason, and never correct or drop ridiculous arguments. In this case, you simply add the guy who posted the data to your list of liars and propagandists.

It is the data that impeach you.

This kind of thing, for instance:

Any objective view of these observations, extensively reviewed in Hunten et al. (1983), does not show any such an imbalance [of heat out versus heat in]. However, here on talk.origins, Ted Holden has expressed his own opinion on the matter, in no uncertain words, on numerous occasions. For instance:

From: medved@access1.digex.net (Ted Holden)
Subject: Venus: Another piece of the big picture
Date: 6 Aug 1994 22:52:47 -0400
[ ... ]
I claim that empirical evidence involving Venus is being doctored and falsified at every turn because it does not fit with scientists' pre-conceived ideas involving the age of our solar system, and because it does not match any of the logical requirements of Carl Sagan's "super-greenhouse" theory.

Why is it necessary to postulate that some large amount of empirical evidence is being falsified by what would have to be a world-wide conspiracy? This would have to have been done even during the Cold War, when East-West cooperation was low at many points.

You're just evidence-proof.