Which enticingly ends,
"Next: Who are the hoaxers, and what are they after?
.
save bump
Actually the opposite is happening. Due to recycling and re-planting of trees, and reducing the emissions of cars, CO2 is actually dropping while O2 is rising. What this means is plants could die from not enough CO2. Photosynthesis in plants basically stops when the CO2 level in the atmosphere drops below 0.02%. Right now it is 0.0383%. A few years ago it was 0.04%.
What this means is we should stop recycling, cut down more trees, and burn fossil fuels dirtier. No, I am not kidding about this. All liberals are doing with this global warming hoax is just speeding up the destruction of plant life on earth, and guess what? No plant life = no life. No people, animals, fish, birds, insects, on and on.
ping
Most of the models that "work" have "non-physical adjustment"s. Otherwise they are typically only good for making comparisons, not producing absolute values.
Monbiot’s reply:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=57&ItemID=12743
snip...”He appears to rely on the testimony of one man who studied meteorology for three years a long time ago, while dismissing the work of thousands of others with greater experience and better credentials. As Cockburn must know from his work on the 9/11 conspiracists, you can find an “expert” to support just about any position on any subject. If you want to believe that HIV does not cause AIDs, you can find a professor of medicine who supports that view. If you want to claim that smoking does not cause cancer, or that black people are less intelligent than white people, you can find a self-appointed “expert”, with academic qualifications, to defend that position. The cherry-picking of experts is just what the 9/11 conspiracists have done, and this is just why their approach is unscientific.
· He provides no evidence that he has asked other climate scientists to determine whether or not Martin Hertzberg’s argument has merit. The scientific approach demands that, rather than sheltering them from criticism, you subject your beliefs to the same scrutiny and scepticism with which you treat opposing views.
· He uses arguments - such as the claim that “water is exactly that component of the earth’s heat balance that the global warming computer models fail to account for” and the claim that global temperatures were higher in the medieval period than they are today - that have long been discredited. For a discussion of these positions, see here and here.
· He has not understood that a temperature rise initially pre-dating an increase in CO2 in the ice core record strengthens rather than weakens the standard theory. Temperatures rose as a result of changes in the Milankovic Cycle, sunspot activity or other forcing agents. They then caused the release of greenhouse gases from the biosphere, which then caused temperatures to rise further. Climate scientists warn that rising temperatures caused by carbon dioxide emissions today will cause exactly the same effect: the release of further carbon dioxide and methane by oceans, soils and forests, causing further rises in temperature. What would he expect to find - evidence of industrial civilisations 600,000 years ago?”...snip
If global warming were from the beginning a cause of conservatives, I wonder what the left would be doing right now?
bttt
Referance PING
btt
A wonderful article for perusal by anyone hoping to debate the alarmists.
brrr.... I mean bttt. :)