or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by muppetry

I'm not mocking you (well perhaps a little in my last post - I apologize for that), I'm just baffled by your reluctance to try to understand science. Your assessment of GW baffles me. Your response (or really lack of it) to my arguments baffles me. Sure - you thanked me, but then went on simply to naysay, completely, everything that I had said. Not even an argument, let alone a cogent one - just flat out denial. I'm accustomed to scientific debate, and I have no idea how...
Well that's an unfortunate end to your pretense of a serious discussion on the subject. Labeling statements of the obvious as condescension and observation of your (self-admitted) lack of scientific understanding as attacks is a pretty sad retort. I didn't know about the inbreeding.
OK - well your sarcasm makes clear your feelings about my attempts to explain, and your comments, plus your earlier response to BR make it quite clear that you really don't understand the science. Now you want me to list your unsupported statements, in addition to having addressed them, in most cases multiple times? I'm sorry, this is turning into a "bring me a rock" exercise, which I suspect is your intent. You assert, for example: That CO2 does not cause warming because...
You still completely misunderstand - to clarify - artificial CO2 emmisions do not require a feedback loop, and instead cause direct warming. The positive feedback loop, to which I referred previously, occurred historically when other warming mechanisms drove CO2 out of solution in the oceans, which then reinforced the warming process, and explains why the initial warming preceded the CO2 increases. So CO2 concentration increases can, and have, followed warming but,...
 But note that if you replot the same data that you seem to trust (the RSS MSU LT readings), with the same linear trend (LS) from the inception date of those measurements (1978), you get the following:  Note also that this is just a lower troposphere measurement, averaged globally over the LT thickness, and takes no account of land or ocean temperatures.
 A significant element of the problem is that there is no shortage of commentators ready and willing, probably with a variety of motives, to declare GW to be a hoax. None of them, as far as I can tell, are scientists of any kind, let alone climatologists, but that doesn't matter since the public, in general, is neither able to distinguish scientist from layman, nor able to distinguish the scientific method from unsupported assertion. Call it a scandal, link it to...
New Posts  All Forums: