Re: OT Gas Prices and the Blame Game

On 21 mei, 18:18, John Larkin
<jjlar...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2008 03:10:59 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
On 20 mei, 13:30, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
On 19 mei, 22:46, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian <n...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Sat, 17 May 2008 14:22:26 +0100, Martin Brown wrote:
The Neocons will still be denying climate change even when the sea is
lapping at the steps of the White House. Plenty of the USA is well above
sea level so they do not care.

I deny "climate change" because it's purest bull***.

Well, the bull*** is that people have anything to do with it. The climate
has been changing on earth for millions, maybe billions, of years. The
warmingists' idea that the most recent changes are "all your fault" are
based on rationalizations for their own guilt and angst.

The proof of this is, when you ask them about the contribution of
water vapor/clouds, they just start name-calling. So, the real deniers
(of reality) are the warmingists, Q.E.D. ;-)

Sorry Rich, but you really are a twit. Clouds don't seem to make any
difference

LIAR !

A lying proposition, made easier to sustain by the fact that you
snipped the subsequent text that made it clear that while cloud cover
does make a difference to the local albedo, the evidence is that cloud
cover does not change significantly as the average global temperature
changes, so the IPCC models don't have to include it as a variable.

Since CO2 absorption isn't, directly, sufficiently alarming for the
desired political effects, models have been created to add massive
positive feedbacks, to create a "tipping point" disaster scenario
which mandates immediate and radical intervention into the world's
economies. That intervention (surprise!) begins with taxes.

A fine conspiracy theory, that falls down as soon as you start looking
for these massive positve feedbacks in the IPCC models. They are
incompatible with tractable models, and the IPCC hates them.

There are positive feedbacks in the models - as the Arctic gets
warmer, the ice and snow goes away and the albedo of the region rises
and it absorbs more heat - and in the longer term, as the oceans get
warmer they will absorb less CO2 (which is less soluble in warm water)
and will eventually start releasing CO2 rather than absorbing it. The
first isn't massive and the second one has a time constant of a few
hundred years and probably won't kick in until we've really screwed
up.

And since clouds are a likely negative feedback mechanism, of course
the IPCC-sponsored models must exclude them.

You should try and read some of the debate on the subject - if cloud
cover was an effective negative feedback mechanism, it would be very
difficult to explain a lot of the geological data that points to
appreciably higher global temperatures in the remote past. Check out
Tony Hallam's "Catastrophes and Lesser Calamities" ISBN 0-19-280668-8
which I've cited here before.

This isn't rocket science. This isn't science at all.

What you've posted isn't science, just one more daft conspiracy
theory.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijegen
.

Loading