Colorado State professor disputes global warming is human-caused

The Daily Reporter-Herald ^ | 9/19/2006 | Kate Martin

[cogitator]

My arguments against all the qualitative crap is that the models will show quantitative results for all significant feedbacks including weather within a decade or two.

Hopefully sooner than that.

[rwfromkansas]

Most of the time they are right anymore. I hardly ever have a met who gives me a botched forecast.

[palmer]

That (frustratingly) is still where a lot of FReepers are, particularly those that keep pointing out that CO2 constitutes 0.028% of the atmospheric gases and that water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas.

I guess I don't find it as frustrating ;) but I think most Freepers would accept the 0.6 as human caused if they bothered to look at the charts and formulas. The same formula could convince most of those that another degree is possible with doubled CO2. Beyond the doubling there is considerable doubt. But I don't think that the 0.028 or whatever argument is even valid as a talking point anymore. Water vapor as the most important GH gas is a much better talking point since it points out legitimate flaws in the models. A little "cloud feedback uncertainty" as you might put it.

[denydenydeny]

Gray’s view has been challenged, however.

I just love the MSM. You can ALWAYS tell when they disagree with a point of view, because they always throw a "critics charged" segemnt in there.

How many Global-Warming-is-a-menace articles have an opposing point of view?

[ELS]

marking for reference

[Paloma_55]

Therefore I think that the more immediate climate forcing factors are worth paying attention to.

You left off part of that sentence...

Therefore I think that the more immediate imaginary climate forcing factors are worth paying attention to.

[cogitator]

Therefore I think that the more immediate imaginary climate forcing factors are worth paying attention to.

I'm not that stupid.