or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by muppetry

Oh - OK, well in the past you have mostly used much more recent data to make that point. If you look over a couple of hundred years then those effects have clearly been measured. Of course, if you reject those data then that is a different matter, but you were, I think, referring to what has been measured.  I think you are referring to the glacial melt period after the last ice age from around 15,000 to 8,000 years ago. That is not a useful comparison since we are not...
 That depends a lot on the period of data that you consider - you like to look at just the past few years since the asserted "pause" in climate change. In the context of a minimum of yearly cycles I don't think that is statistically defensible. Over virtually any longer period the opposite is not being observed. In any case, in the absence of any proposed mechanism that would not argue for CO2 to be viewed as a moderator - it would argue no correlation.
 Completely agree.  I have no beliefs on this question. I have seen (as have you) physical arguments, data, and modeling results that indicate that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels increases radiative forcing which, in turn, increases global average temperatures, leading to the widely accepted (but as yet unconfirmed) hypothesis of AGW. Whether such an increase in temperature would be bad may be open to debate but has been argued to have adverse climate outcomes such as...
 Not sure where you pulled that definition from, but it's a bit narrow according to the dictionaries and references that I looked at. Where did you find the restriction that it should be poisonous, carcinogenic etc.? Either way, this is not a useful argument - it was deemed harmful to increase its level in the atmosphere, and thus treated as, and named as, a pollutant. Are you actually objecting to the use of the word, or to the the initiatives to reduce emissions?
I thought that might happen. My point was not to comment on whether CO2 is harmful, in climate terms, but to point out that it was deemed harmful in that context, and thus classified as a pollutant. As to whether it should be regarded as harmful, the bulk of the scientific evidence suggests that it is, and I've seen little or no scientific evidence to the contrary. You have read some of the papers, and I know that we come to different conclusions on that question. The...
The classification (or not) of CO2 as a pollutant isn't worth arguing over. It was done because of its role in atmospheric thermodynamics, and because increasing atmospheric CO2 is widely regarded as harmful in terms of climate influence. "Harmful" is one of the defining criteria for the term "pollutant". Water vapor, on the other hand, already exists in the environment at far higher levels that we can influence, and so even if that gas has similar properties in the...
Agreed. It does matter who isn't behind it, however.
That he does, and seems to be an unpleasant piece of work, even though he has supported some good causes. Can't hold that against those who find themselves to be unwitting and unfortunate beneficiaries of his "support" though.
I'm afraid I don't follow your argument at all. Luke Montgomery has never been affiliated with her, or any other, campaign. So to summarize, the website disavows authorization, as do his other websites such as the billforfirstlady.com site, and the only "evidence" being bandied around is that he is the owner of those sites, which is no secret at all. He has always been independent and unendorsed. I think that you have let wishful thinking override common sense. 
 Ugly, but what makes you think that her campaign had anything to do with the website or video, especially if it links to Sanders' campaign? Not that he appears to have any connection to it either. Makes a nice story though, I suppose. 
New Posts  All Forums: