Skip to comments.
Climategate's Phil Jones Confesses to Climate Fraud
American Thinker ^
| February 14, 2010
| Marc Sheppard
Posted on 02/13/2010 10:56:43 PM PST by neverdem
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-68 last
To: neverdem
To: ApplegateRanch
62
posted on
02/14/2010 9:18:47 PM PST
by
SunkenCiv
(Happy New Year! Freedom is Priceless.)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
I sent a email to Druge to see if he can more closely follow all the stuff coming out. I noticed today he had posted some three articles on the problems the global warming folks are now faced with.
63
posted on
02/14/2010 9:59:38 PM PST
by
Marine_Uncle
(Honor must be earned....)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Whoops.. Druge=Drudge. Minds a fizzle.
64
posted on
02/14/2010 10:01:16 PM PST
by
Marine_Uncle
(Honor must be earned....)
To: Dementio
Keep trying true believer.
Keep trying.
65
posted on
02/15/2010 8:03:56 AM PST
by
Darksheare
(Tar is cheap, and feathers are plentiful.)
To: Dementio
You also have yet to speak about the content of the supposedly hacked emails.
66
posted on
02/15/2010 8:05:38 AM PST
by
Darksheare
(Tar is cheap, and feathers are plentiful.)
To: lewislynn
If there is no greenhouse effect there also can’t be a greenhouse gas. Not quite. The AGW claim was that we faced the possibility of a run-away greenhouse effect due to a positive feedback loop, caused by C02. The anti-AGW claim is that this claim was wrong on several counts.
- CO2 is a minor player
- C02 greenhouse effect has an upper limit, more CO2 than this limit has no further effect - and we've reached the limit.
- There was no proof behind the idea of a run-away greenhouse effect, which would seem to violate rules of black-body radiation.
Lindzer of MIT published a recent paper proving that there is no positive feedback. The AGW claim is that the warmer it gets, and the higher the CO2, the less heat will be emitted from the upper layers of the atmosphere. The satellite record proves otherwise.
So, there are greenhouse gases, but no run-away greenhouse effect and so no catastrophic warming.
67
posted on
02/16/2010 6:25:53 AM PST
by
slowhandluke
(It's hard to be cynical enough in this age.)
To: slowhandluke
You're the first one to use "run-away greenhouse effect"
Since vapor is considered a greenhouse gas (by everyone but me, I still call it vapor) and is more plentiful than CO2, when will it have to be heavily regulated to prevent (your new found) "run-away greenhouse effect"?
The term "greenhouse" used to describe our natural weather and atmosphere is language of the left. The sooner we stop using their language the better off we will be. I can hardly wait to see and hear "run-away greenhouse" in every news and weather report...congratulations
68
posted on
02/16/2010 8:11:31 AM PST
by
lewislynn
(What does the global warming movement and the Fairtax movement have in common? Disinformation)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-68 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson