Global warming scam?

Heretic · 10-14-08, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BmanMcfly

And you are still confusing the 'cause-effect' relationship... you are telling me, that the EFFECT IS the CAUSE!! The FUNDAMENTAL ARGUMENT for this is based on a confused cause-effect relationship.

I don't know how else to explain it... can water boil before you apply heat to it?? NO, because the heat causes the effect of water boiling. Global warming 'alarmists' are trying to sell the idea that the water boiling causes the heat.

Dammit. I was so rooting for you...

denialism blog : Crank HOWTO

Quote:

Who wants to know how to be an effective crank?

Well, I've outlined what I think are the critical components of successful crankiness. Ideally, this will serve as a guide to those of you who want to come up with a stupid idea, and then defend it against all evidence to the contrary.

. . .

Step three: (Not) Responding to Criticism
All great minds will be criticized by peon scientists who have grown fat and bloated with public grant funds. They've been feeding at the public coffers for so long, they wouldn't know an original idea if it fell out of the ether and struck them on their thick skulls. Here are some simple responses to common criticisms:

Accusation: "You don't have solid proof"
Response: Either restate what you said already, restate it slightly differently, call your accuser a name, or suggest they are part of the conspiracy to hide the truth. Compare yourself to Galileo.

Accusation: "Because of X, Y and Z, you are wrong"
Response: If they fail to call you an idiot, there are a few ways to respond to this. Either nitpick an aspect of their argument so that you can ignore the rest while diverting the discussion into a meaningless tangent. Or cut and paste large sections of print or references to papers that may or may not agree with you (the exhaustion strategy). Finally, it's always a good idea to just ignore them and restate your original argument. Alternatively demand they provide you with *scientific* evidence that their theory is the correct one. If they do, ignore it and restate your original argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BmanMcfly

I'm not saying I'm smarter than professionals... actually, I've stated at least twice that I don't KNOW myself, I'm repeating what other 'experts' have said before me.

We know. But they're still wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BmanMcfly

Not to mention that many of the 'experts' that Al Gore claimed supported his campaign... simply put, were fraudulantly added.

That's a new one. I'd be interested to see what evidence you have to support that statement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BmanMcfly

I'm definately not smarter than the scientists, but I can smell BS from a mile away.

No, your support of the TGGWS leads me to believe that you cannot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BmanMcfly

So even with a shorter 'half-life' there is ALWAYS going to be more water in the atmosphere than CO2... and since CO2 has already been acknowledged as an EFFECT of climate, any further discussion of CO2 as the enemy is really a waste of time... since any further argument would be based on a flawed assumption.

Unfortunately, water vapor is not forcing agent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BmanMcfly

The scene of an episode of South Park sums it best; after a guy describes using global warming to 'kill people from the future'.
"Even if global warming were really caused by humans, which the majority of scientists don't believe, how will that kill the future?'
'With ice ages or something... look, I'm just trying to help."
"well, you should help yourself to a f***'n science book cause yer sounding like a f***'n retard."

What episode was that?

Heretic · 10-14-08, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BmanMcfly

Right, so... 2 peer reviewed studies with opposing view points, which one is right??

That's easy: the one that has the evidence backing it up. Besides, you weren't referencing a peer reviewed study. You were referring to a book and a magazine, neither one of which is peer reviewed. This reinforces my point, that you, like most skeptics, have a really hard time distinguishing between valid peer reviewed and supported science and useless propaganda.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BmanMcfly

Gah... we're back at the cause / effect thing again... an effect is caused, causes are not effects.

Yes, because you're still wrong, as I pointed out way back in this post. But that's okay. It's been explained a few times since then, but keep ignoring it:
Step three: (Not) Responding to Criticism

Quote:

Originally Posted by BmanMcfly

Ok, ya... if you are in the garage with the car running, the carbon monoxide will kill you faster than the carbon dioxide. TREES breath CO2 and exhale oxygen... a balance that might not have been affected nearly as much if we weren't clearcutting rainforests in the area of acres per day... The real solution to 'human cuased global warming' is to put say 10 million dollars into replanting all lost areas of forests from the past 50 years, and make ALL paper from hemp.

That would more or less cancel out human produced CO2 (even tho it wouldn't stop all the environmental destruction... cause by focusing on this little molecule of the problem you become trapped and unable to see the mass of REAL destruction going on that should be looked at and changed.)

I do not see how or why acknowledging the fact that AGW is real means you have to deny the existence of other environmental problems. A debate on the proposed solutions to AGW is a distinct and separate one from a debate on its existence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BmanMcfly

Really??? ok... funny how my grade school science class told me essentially the opposite of that...

Your grade school science class told you orbital variations of Pluto cause warming on Earth? Now that explains everything... Your science teacher was a loon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BmanMcfly

Even the farmers almanac takes solar activity + interstellar activity in its predictions...although it's nowhere near 'accurate' in it's day to day predictions, it's generally accurate on trends.

Which explains why they're so similar.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BmanMcfly

Right... now you're getting into the distinction : The extent that humans have an affect on the environment vs the red herring (CO2).

So... humans can negatively effect the planet but human produced CO2 cannot? What a weird and wacky world you live in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BmanMcfly

I thought I would double check, so I googled 'CCD organic bees' and the ENTIRE PAGE OF LINKS say 1 common thread : CCD DOES NOT affect organic bee colonies. They are IMMUNE.

Immune or just hadn't been exposed to IAVD?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BmanMcfly

Since you did neglect to mention WHY the bees got sick.

You didn't ask. Environmental factors made them more susceptible. Can we please stay focused on AGW?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BmanMcfly

Umm... you didn't see the movie linked?? The entire movie is all university profs speaking on the flawed science involved in the debate...

I saw the TGGWS when it came out years ago. It's still crap. Please... do your homework: (Anthropogenic Global Warming 101)Anthropogenic Global Warming 101

Quote:

Originally Posted by BmanMcfly

It does make me sad sometime that they will inherit a police state, where they are taxed on everything, even their right to BREATHE... where even the smallest slip can mean years in prison.

Listen, I'll go as far as conceding that the issue is still in the stage of fierce debate.... there are so many factors that affect our daily/seasonal/yearly weather trends... and I'm not disagreeing that CO2 has a correlation in this, the ecosystem is far more intricate than even our most powerful supercomputers can figure out.

My overall point is that REGARDLESS of this effect, environmentalism is being used to further a much more nefarious agenda... and that is the agenda of the global elites that seek nothing more than further power over mankind as a whole.

Much like feminism has turned a generation of men into ... well.... pussies in comparaison to our forefathers that conquered the land. Where equality of the sexes is a goal to be strived for... but all that was meant to do was to 'double the workforce', turn women into sluts and turn men into 'metrosexuals'. hell, a guy can be now arrested for sexual harassment for looking at a woman longer than 3 seconds... Again, the people in power that tug on those strings are MASTERS (if not better) in the art of 'spin'.

This is the same type of mechanism that's being used to corrupt a worthy goal... REGARDLESS of the outcome of the climate change debate.

I think that tin foil hat is starting to cut off circulation to your brain...

Heretic · 10-14-08, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BmanMcfly

Noone seems to get past the FACT that when the earth heats the CO2 goes up with +/- a 700 year delay. And when it's cooler, there is a reduction of CO2... +/- a 700 year delay.

Bottom line, CO2 is NOT RUNNING the climate, it is a RESULT of the climate.
CO2 is the EFFECT NOT the CAUSE!!! It's really as simple as putting the cart before the horse.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BmanMcfly

Unless you take into consideration a) the sun's activity, b) cosmic rays and c) global cloud cover you're not going to get the full picture.

Been there. Done that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BmanMcfly

I've repeated myself about 10 times now, and everyone ignores the fact that the ENTIRE FUNDAMENTAL ASSUMPTION of 'CO2 run climate change' is FLAWED.

Only as much as we have. And there's nothing quite as funny as rejecting an entire discipline of science.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BmanMcfly

When you get a flawed assumption in science that passes as truth, then EVERY FURTHER advancement is based on bad science, and eventually you must come to terms, and adjust. Instead what you see is one group claiming 'the debate is over, if you deny climate change you should be treated like a holocaust denier.'

Considering that the entire scientific community disagrees with you, I'd wager it's far more likely that you are the only one with the flawed assumption.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BmanMcfly

Since you'd rather brush me off, attack me personally, or call my sources BS propaganda... all without dealing with my main argument... and that is the confusion in the cause-effect relationship CO2 has with the climate. Well, I'm going to end the debate here before I'm tempted to sink to the same level.

Step four: Get Persecuted!

Quote:

You haven't graduated to being a full crank until you've been persecuted. Here are some suggestions:

1. If you are faculty at a university, make sure to write a book about your crank idea. When the other members at the department decide to deny you tenure because of your moronic ideas or call you an idiot claim persecution!
2. If you work at an office, make sure you spend your time promoting your crank idea. Tell everybody about it. Send mass emails about it. Leave copies of your "monograph" where your boss and others can find it - like the breakroom. If you're fired for pursuing your crankery on the job claim persecution!
3. If someone shows up at your website or forum and points out the flaws in your argument claim persecution!
4. If anyone calls you an idiot, a moron, a pseudoscientist, a crank, or denialist claim persecution!
5. If people don't immediately accept your idea upon hearing it claim persecution!
6. If they won't teach your idea in public schools as fact claim persecution!
7. If they won't teach the controversy over your ideas in public schools claim persecution!
8. If people criticize journals for publishing your papers claim persecution!
9. If people circulate petitions against teaching your ideas claim persecution!
10. If a journalists covers only the scientific side and doesn't cover yours claim persecution!
11. If no one visits your site or listens to you claim persecution!
12. If no one persecutes you claim persecution!

Quote:

Originally Posted by BmanMcfly

No matter how many facts and figures you put up after that is going to matter because your main assumption to get to the moon was based wrongly....

Yeah... There's nothing that will identify you as a crank faster than admitting any and all contradictory evidence will be summarily dismissed. "I reject your fossil evidence because it's based on the false assumption that dinosaurs were real and the Earth is more than 6000 yrs old. Wheeee!!!"

Heretic · 10-14-08, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BmanMcfly

So, how come from 1945 - 1970's did we see the temperatures drop, when the CO2 production was growing exponentially, then once the recession hit and things slowed down that we started seeing the warming of the past few decades???

As Frank Talk pointed out, aerosols were blocking some of the suns radiation. Once those started clearing up, temps starting rising again. There was a brief increase in surface temps in North American in the days after 9/11 when all the aircraft were grounded.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BmanMcfly

This explains (like the documentary I've used as main source (there were more sources but I've lost them)) that greenhouse gases heat the atmosphere more than the surface (heating from the top down)... which, is the opposite of what we've been observing (Over 20 years, there hasn't been a trend in the atmospheric temperatures, yet the surface has been steadily warming.) therefore, this warming HAS NOT been due to the 'greenhouse effect'.

Greenhouse gases do not heat anything; the sun is doing that. Greenhouse gases act as insulation, preventing the Earth from radiating the sun's energy back into space. This is why the upper levels of the atmosphere aren't warming, as Frank Talk pointed out. The heat isn't making it up there.

NewScientist explains:

Quote:

Imagine two people standing at the South Pole, one dressed in full Antarctic gear and the other wearing not much at all. Now imagine that you're looking through one of those infrared thermal imagers that show how hot things are. Which person will look warmest - and which will be frozen solid after a few hours?

The answer, of course, is that the near-naked person will appear hotter: but because they are losing heat fast, they will freeze long before the person dressed more appropriately for the weather.

. . .

If they put on some clothing, they'll appear cooler to a thermal imager, but what's really happening is that they are losing less heat.

Similarly, if you could look at Earth through a thermal imager, it would appear slightly cooler than it did a few decades ago. The reason is that the outer atmosphere, the stratosphere, is cooler because we've added more "clothing" to the lower atmosphere in the form of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.

As a result, the planet is gaining as much heat from the sun as usual but losing less heat every year as greenhouse gas levels rise.

How do we know? Because the oceans are getting warmer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BmanMcfly

No, my research does go deeper than that...

You're not fooling anyone with that bit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BmanMcfly

but for the sake of the arguments, I just double checked with that ONE source (for the sake of laziness). At the same time tho, I don't claim to be an inventor of ideas, just a repeater...

Again, we can tell. You're a parrot simply reciting a litany of debunked and disproven skeptic nonsense. Please read the relevant post here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/Enviro...post1057766593 (Anthropogenic Global Warming 101)

Quote:

Originally Posted by BmanMcfly

Look into the club of rome... it was in the 70's that they wrote a book where they talked of 'the need for an enemy either real or imagined to unite the masses.", and also talked of how things like "In searching for a new enemy to unite us,we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill."

I'm familiar with the Club of Rome and their Limits to Growth, but not much else from them. Do you have any direct citations where I can find those quotes?

I'm surprised by the conspiratorial tone, too, what with you being such a humanitarian concerned about "real" problems affecting our planet and all. The club of Rome was some of the only few warning about the dangerous problem of growth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BmanMcfly

(Look for a book called 'The first global revolution' that came out in the 1970's)

I was able to find it here: Alexander King & Bertrand Schneider - The First Global Revolution (Club of Rome) 1993 Edition. Got any specific page numbers?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BmanMcfly

I said a COMBINATION of factors... and if you don't take into consideration ALL the factors then you can't get a full picture.

I mean, you can have MAX solar activity + High % global cloud cover, and still have cooler temperatures, since the cloudcover would completely block the majority of the radiation/heat.

Doesn't matter, 'cause you still have neither...

Quote:

Originally Posted by BmanMcfly

So, now we're at the point where we are each stating each others argument as disinformation.... EXCEPT for the Cause-Effect relationship, which NOBODY touches...

Still wrong. We have.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BmanMcfly

If there IS a human caused factor in climate change, IT IS NOT from CO2, as CO2 is a BYPRODUCT of the climate.

I seriously don't know how many ways to say it...

Interestingly enough, the scientist in TGGWS that they used for their CO2/ocean data, Carl Wunsch, has publicly stated that they deliberately misrepresented his science:

Quote:

What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely accepted by the scientific community. There are so many examples, it's hard to know where to begin, so I will cite only one: a speaker asserts, as is true, that carbon dioxide is only a small fraction of the atmospheric mass. The viewer is left to infer that means it couldn't really matter. But even a beginning meteorology student could tell you that the relative masses of gases are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A director not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to eliminate that piece of disinformation.

An example where my own discussion was grossly distorted by context: I am shown explaining that a warming ocean could expel more carbon dioxide than it absorbs -- thus exacerbating the greenhouse gas buildup in the atmosphere and hence worrisome. It was used in the film, through its context, to imply that CO2 is all natural, coming from the ocean, and that therefore the human element is irrelevant. This use of my remarks, which are literally what I said, comes close to fraud.

...

I have some experience in dealing with TV and print reporters and do understand something of the ways in which one can be misquoted, quoted out of context, or otherwise misinterpreted. Some of that is inevitable in the press of time or space or in discussions of complicated issues. Never before, however, have I had an experience like this one. My appearance in the "Global Warming Swindle" is deeply embarrasing, and my professional reputation has been damaged. I was duped---an uncomfortable position in which to be.

Even he says you're wrong.

Gill · 10-14-08, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heretic

Quote:

Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post
So even with a shorter 'half-life' there is ALWAYS going to be more water in the atmosphere than CO2... and since CO2 has already been acknowledged as an EFFECT of climate, any further discussion of CO2 as the enemy is really a waste of time... since any further argument would be based on a flawed assumption.

Unfortunately, water vapor is not forcing agent.

Unfortunately, despite the ramblings in an alarmists blog (paid for by an environmental organization), the simple fact is that we don't know if water vapor is a positive or negative feedback.

Alarmist blogs like realclimate must push the theory that water vapor is a positive feedback simply because the whole theory of AGW rests on that assumption. Without positive feedbacks, the whole house of cards that is AGW theory will come tumbling down. Water vapor feedback is solely calculated by modeling and has never been proved or disproved by observation.

If you want to read some REAL scientific studies on the affects of water vapor, following is a link to a NOAA paper on the subject. Here is an excerpt:

Quote:

Current climate models invariably support the estimates of the strength of water vapor feedback obtained from the simplest assumption that relative humidity remains unchanged as climate warms. These numerical models are simply tools we use to generate the climates consistent with our hypotheses regarding the relevant physics, including our hypotheses as to how best to treat unresolved scales of motion. If one has a coherent idea for a mechanism that might reduce climate sensitivity, one should be able to incorporate the idea in an idealized and tentative way into a comprehensive climate model. This would enable the community to
quantitatively evaluate competing theories about the strength of water vapor feedback, rather than relying on qualitative arguments. If a weak water vapor feedback climate model could be onstructed, climate modelers could then analyze it systematically to see if its fit to data is comparable to or better than other models. No such model currently exists.

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/b...0/annrev00.pdf

Of much more interest is the affect of clouds on AGW theory. If you think current climate models handle water vapor poorly, they do a dismal job with clouds. There are several new studies on the theory that clouds have a much greater affect on temperature than previously thought.

Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations

and

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/adinfriris.pdf

Quote:

That's easy: the one that has the evidence backing it up. Besides, you weren't referencing a peer reviewed study. You were referring to a book and a magazine, neither one of which is peer reviewed. This reinforces my point, that you, like most skeptics, have a really hard time distinguishing between valid peer reviewed and supported science and useless propaganda.

Then I can assume that you will stop quoting useless propaganda from realclimate??

Quote:

As Frank Talk pointed out, aerosols were blocking some of the suns radiation. Once those started clearing up, temps starting rising again. There was a brief increase in surface temps in North American in the days after 9/11 when all the aircraft were grounded.

Source?

UtahBill · 10-14-08, 11:31 AM

speaking of magazine articles, Readers Digest did a short one on energy issues a few months ago that was as bad as they get. I sent a letter to the editor but they ignored me. The author was clearly unqualified to write about science at any level. An 8th grader could have cut and pasted a better article...

Frank Talk · 10-14-08, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BmanMcfly

No, all that had to be done was to ignore the fact that when superimposed, the CO2 vs temp graph over hundreds of thousands of years doesn't 'Fit nicely' as Al Gore so eloquently put it... it fits together when one sits under and your eyes fill the spaces, had he put both graphs on the SAME LINE... the lie would have been clear for all to see.

Your still on this lag thing. The idea that increased CO2 will cause warming is not based on historic correlations but because of the nature of the gas. I'll repeat it again. In the past CO2 did not initiate warming, something else did. That warming led to increased CO2 which in turn led to more warming. Today CO2 concentration leads temperature rise, the historic lag is irrelevant.

Quote:

Al Gore, btw IS/WAS a member of the 'Club of Rome'... which the same people that belong to that 'club' are also members of the CFR, some in the Federal Reserve, they represent 'elites' from all nations. This isn't some 'mickey mouse' lobby group... and no, I don't propose that they got people to lie... but rather those scientists that came to the conclusion that global warming might be caused by human activity, these are the ones that found their studies to be 'better funded' as an example... whereas scientists that aren't convinced are labelled as equivalent to 'holocaust deniers' (something worthy of a jail term in some places).

Anyway, I could go on for another 5-10 pages as to the workings of compartmentalisation, and the ways in which society is being manipulated by a small group (maybe 150 to probly less than 500 people) that for all intents and purposes run the world... these are the primary benefactors of 'globalisation'. That said, the vast majority of people are genuinely good intentioned people that don't see the bigger picture as to how their 'doing a good job' is acting as a detriment to the vast majority of people...

Conspiracy theories have no place in this discussion.

Quote:

This again proves my point... "Since the beginning of the 19th century CO2 has been rising."

Yet, in that time we've seen about 4 decades of warming, 4 decades of cooling, 3 decades of warming... and the apparent start of a new cooling trend (yet to be seen)... According to your theory then, the temperature should already be raising at an exponential rate... not warming and cooling in spite of the 'main' greenhouse gas.

What evidence would suggest that exponential increase in CO2 would lead to immediate exponential increase in temperature? Things have been happening on the earth besides burning fossil fuels (production of aerosols being one of them) if all else remained the same then increased CO2 will cause constant warming but when other things are changes the results aren't going to be constant. In the end there is still a long term trend.

Quote:

Also, it was probably ignored since your entire graph would fit in, what, the 30% range?? 20%? 5%?? less than 1%? So you ignore the most significant greenhouse gas in order to prove a point... I wish scientific theory worked like that... if your theory works only 80% of the time, just disregard 20% of the data, say 'case closed' and call it a day???

Water vapor is ignored because it is a function of temperature. Water vapor won't increase if temperature doesn't increase. It's another positive feedback. Warming increases water vapor concentration which in turn enhances the greenhouse effect.

Quote:

All the more evidence that CO2 is NOT driving the climate, look, there is a correlation between the price of oil and the price of gas, where when one goes up the other TENDS to go up. One doesn't cause the other to go up, but because there is a relation between the two it can seem that one might cause the others price to change. Get my drift?

Except the laws of physics say that increased CO2 concentrations will cause temperature rise.

Quote:

Also, it's not precisely 700 years, but there is there is enough discrepency to say that one doesn't cause the other.

You don't know what your talking about.

Quote:

The source is the very same graph that Al Gore used in his documentary, except having both graphs superimposed rather than above the other.

Once again with the CO2 lagging temperature. I've already addressed this.

No... The world is more complex than that.

Quote:

I'll say it again; "IF HUMANS ARE THE CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING CO2 IS NOT THE CULPRIT!!!" Co2 is a NUTRIENT NOT a pollutant.

ALL LIFE ON EARTH is carbon based, being swapped from waste from humans to the nutrients of plants and the waste of plants being the nutrients of humans. There are MANY different pollutants that are being released into the environment that ARE a REAL detriment. So, if we truly want to become a 'GREEN' civilization, we would do more to tie ourselves TO our natural environment

A pollutant is "physical, chemical, biological, [or] radioactive . . . substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air." (See the Clean Air Act). CO2 fits the description and excess amounts of CO2 are harmful. Your ignorance is astounding.

Gill · 10-14-08, 12:01 PM

Quote:

A pollutant is "physical, chemical, biological, [or] radioactive . . . substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air." (See the Clean Air Act). CO2 fits the description and excess amounts of CO2 are harmful. Your ignorance is astounding.

Except to plants which thrive on it.

Frank Talk · 10-14-08, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gill

Except to plants which thrive on it.

But excess CO2 will deplete nitrogen levels and overall stunt plant growth.

Heretic · 10-14-08, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gill

Unfortunately, despite the ramblings in an alarmists blog (paid for by an environmental organization), the simple fact is that we don't know if water vapor is a positive or negative feedback.

Didn't think I said we did. I was simply discussing water vapor as feedback. Kinda makes your whole Realclimate rant kinda silly now, doesn't it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gill

Alarmist blogs like realclimate must push the theory that water vapor is a positive feedback simply because the whole theory of AGW rests on that assumption. Without positive feedbacks, the whole house of cards that is AGW theory will come tumbling down. Water vapor feedback is solely calculated by modeling and has never been proved or disproved by observation.

er... what? It's meteorology 101, d00d. The amount of water vapor in the air is a function of temperature. Obviously an increase in global temps will result in an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere. And guess what? That's what happened.

This is an interesting switch however. Skeptics are usually quick to point out how strong a greenhouse gas water vapor is and its prevalence in the atmosphere. Now it seems as though you're touting it as our savior from warming.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gill

Of much more interest is the affect of clouds on AGW theory. If you think current climate models handle water vapor poorly, they do a dismal job with clouds. There are several new studies on the theory that clouds have a much greater affect on temperature than previously thought.

Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations

and

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/adinfriris.pdf

Yup. That's pretty much all I've seen of Lindzen's "Iris". Not much has changed in the decade or so he's been promoting it. Warrants more study for sure, I'm not convinced its the death knell of AGW and all things liberal is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gill

Then I can assume that you will stop quoting useless propaganda from realclimate??

No. They still happen to be right, which makes them the opposite of "useless".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gill

Source?

CNN.com - 9/11 study: Air traffic affects climate - August 8, 2002

Got my NASA link yet?

10-14-08, 11:31 AM	#116
UtahBill Sage Join Date: Sep 2005 Last Seen: Today 07:28 PM Location: Peoria, AZ Posts: 7,683 Thanks: 1,101 Thanked 2,062 Times in 1,388 Posts Lean: Moderate Gender: Total Awards: 1	Re: Global warming scam? speaking of magazine articles, Readers Digest did a short one on energy issues a few months ago that was as bad as they get. I sent a letter to the editor but they ignored me. The author was clearly unqualified to write about science at any level. An 8th grader could have cut and pasted a better article...
	__________________ Education is expensive, ignorance is costly. Each generation should have more opportunities than the last, but not at the expense of the next.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.debatepolitics.com/archives/34664-global-warming-scam.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
Monday Message Board at John Quiggin	This thread	Refback	09-22-08 05:18 PM