Like or Dislike: 0  0

A summary of the worst can be found here:

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html

Like or Dislike: 0  0

The major party politicians appear oblivious to the lack of a factual basis for ETS/CPRS, preferring to see it as a purely political issue to be resolved by deals and negotiation. Perhaps they can negotiate a cure for cancer!The result can be only a set of measures that fail to do anything to assist the community to address climate change.Legislative failure!

How many other legislative failures has our party dogma driven style of democracy delivered?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 1  0

You call me names and think I will go out of my way to do your homework and help you “understand” something you apparently don’t want to understand?

You think ad homs against people or institutions who summarize the peer reviewed research would convince anyone that you are really interested in scientific evidence or debate? I don’t jump through hoops for anyone.

Still waiting for that apology, and some sign you can reason.

Jo

PS: Note everyone, it’s always a mistake to honestly answer questions from bullies. The delusional arrogance has to stop before the conversation even starts.

Like or Dislike: 1  0

You are willfully NOT getting the links. If you went to the pages I suggested you would get active versions of these points below. Yes the pages are written by me, or David, but they link to other sites. Do I have to write them out again personally for you? Isn’t that being a tad precious?

If you read those other links, you’d find the hot-spot called an upper tropospheric temperature trend or other catchy, easy to follow and search for, phrases. You can tell that the CCSP want us to understand this crucial point eh?

Read NIPCC 2008 – it’s full of diagrams and refs.

All my articles on the missing hot spot.

Like or Dislike: 1  0

Graeme says: Your descriptions of myself:
1. vacuous pronouncements
2. delusional arrogance?
3. self acknowledged ignorance?

You said you hadn’t come across “hot spots” and asked for info. We gave it, you ignored the links, picked others, came back with irrelevant stuff about combustion from an ignorant blogger while you whined that we did’nt have peer reviewed references which we do. That covers 1, 2 and 3. right. We’re not name-calling, we’re just describing what happened.

And sorry, I was misspelling “greame”. Maybe it was freudian, but it was accidental, and I’ll try not too. OK?

See, it’s not that hard to say sorry eh? Just one line?

Like or Dislike: 2  0

PS: Links to your repeated question are already provided in my first answer to you.

Jo

Like or Dislike: 2  0

There is nothing denialists would accept as evidence, but we are not denialists. You can name nothing we deny. If you want us to answer your questions, treat us with basic manners. We are happy to help, but we won’t be bullied by boors.

While you think we are this mythical subhuman class called “denialists” there is nothing we can say to you that you would listen too.

The conversation will not even begin until you act like an adult. Your comment is held in moderation until then.

Like or Dislike: 2  0

Regarding water vapor, the point was that the greenies are gushing over hydrogen power (not methane), which produces water vapor as it’s only combustion product. This would be an anthropomorphic source of water vapor, just like CO2 is from burning fossil fuels. It’s pretty hypocritical to claim anthropomorphic CO2 has a huge effect and anthropomorphic water vapor has no effect when water vapor, on a molar basis, is a more effective GHG. The conclusion you should draw is that neither matters relative to the climate.

My vested interest is the same as everyone else in the world. Your ‘lifestyle’ comment is absurd and makes you’re motivation seem like envy.

Let me summarize my article.

Every test of the AGW hypothesis has failed. The tests my article concentrates on are,

1) The satellite record doesn’t show an average surface temperature increase correlated to CO2 over the last 25 years, when according to AGW theory, should be about 0.8C.

2) AGW predicts that the Earth responds very slowly to change, in order to counter 1). The satellite data unambiguously shows that the Earth responds very quickly (months, not decades) to changes in radiative forcing.

3) To support 2), AGW predicts that the entire ocean must be moved before a temperature increase will manifest. The satellite data also unambiguously shows, based on the relationship between the seasonal variability of the energy entering and leaving the system and ocean temperatures, that the amount of water whose temperature must change is very small, relative to the entire ocean depth.

4) AGW predicts a climate sensitivity, in the form of an amplification factor, of about 9, based on the 3C rise from doubling CO2 causing 3.7 W/m^2 of additional atmospheric absorption. The satellite data also shows that the gain, or amplification factor, of the climate system is about 1.7, which means that doubling CO2 causes about 0.6C of warming.

George

Like or Dislike: 2  0