Search results

The article begins with an outright lie so I read no further. Professor Jones made no such concession and no other scientist has either. The American Thinker is one more American Jokester.

That it says nothing about the methodology is revealing. That it is the Daily Mail Online says more. There seems to be no report of such a survey suggests that it is an online survey by the Daily Mail and that would be sufficient reason to dismiss it. The Daily Mail prints virtually only denial...

And then there is Virginia where the Socialists are behind the scam. Virginia Lawmaker Says 'Sea Level Rise' Is Liberal Propaganda

You may have missed where I said the opposite!

I have no idea what you are geting at or what all that mass of data that you give no explanation for is supposed to convey7.

I have no idea what you mean. There is a trend in the data. It is adjusted as all data is to filter out anomalies when looking for trends..

It is entirely unusual for trends of that nature. All warmings and coolings prior to the present took place over very long periods of time and they have rarely been so extreme as this which is happening rapidly. But, to your main point. Greenland was never fertile and never supported farming in...

The first comment is "who is Michael Hammer?" He is not a climate scientist but another engineer who has grown in hat size. He does make Eli Rabbett's "Nutter" List. Actually, his claims are absurd. All trends are of adjusted data. They smooth out internal variations.

I think. petros, I know the source of you puzzlement. What the IPCC did say was that "anthropogenic use of water is less than 1% of the water vapour fron natural sources." That is quite different from what you are saying. What proportion of water usage would irrigation be? Let's be generous...

Indeed I do! I will leave it, though, to the one who can explain it in terms of science, while Petros brushes off that "fairy dust."

My sense of responsibility would not let me leave before you and the Captain have taken in some small amount of information. It is not whether they happend, It is how and why.

If you would try giving some support for all those claims, we could disabuse of your false ideas. You have posted a lot of nonsense. But, if you want to make a point, I will show the counterpoint. You don't need to ne a more verbose edition of Bear who gives idiocy a new dimension with his one...

It would help matters if you would just present your case without the snarkiness. Then I would treat you more seriously and give more attention to your educational needs. Here is the rebuttal to MacLean, De Freitas and Carter. Quoting those three is not a credible argument. All have been...

How would irrigation have anything to do with the water vapour content of the atmosphere. Irrigation, even if the water vapour were not controlled by temperature, is just moving water from one place to another.

The water vapour would drop as the temperature dropped. Automatically, yes. As the temperature dropped to a level that would fit with the CO2 concentration. If the temperature dropped it would rain. But CO2 will not drop just like that. It can stay in the atmosphere for hundreds of years -...

What on Earth does that have to do with anything. I can easily give you the answer, btw, but, as a non scientist it would be better for one who can explain it thoroughly to do so. I do not have to do any poking around. I have poked around at this stuff. for more than fifteen years. For...

Tonington could give you a better answer. It would not be possible for water vapour to change its atmospheric content without change in temperature, though. At least, I do not know the way it could. I do not see even a temporary change if there were some freak of nature that increased wv content...

The easy answer is: by reducing CO2. The increase in water vapour is a function of the CO2 driven temperature increase. Climate sensitivity dictates a 1C increase for a doubling of CO2. The effect of the water feedback is to amplify that to around 3C as a best estimate. The range of projections...

I have no idea what Bear's position is on this. He seems to swing between acceptance of the science and a personal desire that the science be ignored because it will affect him monetarily. However, that is not the issue. What I give you IS logic and science. You return irrationality. It is...

Vahrenholt is not Germanyès top environmental scientist. He is an electric utility executive and a denier of long standing. His co-author of a book of denial is a geologist. They still maintain it is all the Sun in spite of all the evidence. Your source, Cdn Bear, is the Global Warming Policy...