Search results

Captain, if you actually read any climate science, or the IPCC review, you'd know that water vapour is the dominant greenhouse gas, but that it responds to temperature. It's a feedback, not a forcing. If you read the IPCC you'd know that, they don't include water vapour in their list of forcings.

Of course we can. Whether or not we do is another matter.

I did. And far from dismiss it, they actually discuss cirrus cloudiness and persistent linear contrails, as wells as the best estimates at the time of the cut-off for the radiative impact. Far from a dismissal.

The IPCC dismisses it completely? Petros, it becomes clear as time passes that you don't know what the IPCC actually says, you just assume that they dismiss something, or that they ignore something else. It's pretty easy to just google "IPCC contrail" and you get a link to Working Group 1, which...

Miller security guards handcuff editor: 2010 Alaska U.S. Senate election | adn.comThe editor of the Alaska Dispatch website was arrested by U.S. Senate candidate Joe Miller's private security guards Sunday as the editor attempted to interview Miller at the end of a public event in an...

Somehow I doubt your point was to to be purposefully fallacious, but fallacious you were.

No it wasn't. That's a strawman. If the science was settled, there would be nobody publishing new investigations. Some of the science is very strong though, such as the radiative properties of carbon dioxide. The only folks who deny this are cranks and those with an inclination towards...

No science is without caveats. It's implicitly understood by anyone who works in scientific fields. Scientists make recommendations based on the balance of evidence, and the balance of evidence, as the Royal Society report concludes, suggests anthropogenic climate change. Anyone who reads the...

The IPCC is a review of the science...and the modelling experiments that groups perform for the IPCC are stored in the CMIP3 archive. The verification is peer review: CMIP3 - Google Scholar

But it does support the IPCC conclusions, it even uses IPCC conclusions in the report... I assumed you were intelligent enough to make that conclusion on your own. It's not impossible...I don't know how you can't grasp this...the solubility of a gas in a solution depends on many factors. The...

The evidence speaks for itself. You think the report contradicts the evidence for anthropogenic climate change, and it plainly reaffirms it, it even reaffirms conclusions made by the IPCC. So either you're lying, or you still have problems with reading comprehension. See, this is just more...

And you thought it was a good review? I'm surprised, because I thought it was a decent review, not very thorough, but decent. Past experience with you leads me to believe that you can't have read the same document I did, not with your stated views. For instance, in the past you quibbled over...

So simple that any moron who can drive a car or bake cookies should be capable of replicating the experimental design.

A barrier between two bodies of water. They either can mix or they will not. Salmon making their run to the ocean for the first time encounter increasing salinity as they approach the estuaries, where the fresh water from the river, and the salt water from the ocean mix. It's called brackish...

No, but I do read the documents produced by leading authorities, rather than editorials in newspapers. That's the major difference between you and I.

So? You can put lipstick on too, that doesn't make you a pretty lady. Not even close. I read the actual report. You read a newspaper article. That's not the same page. When you read the report, and you get the full context, the conclusions are very different than the CH cherry picked...

There's books out there which can help you with reading comprehension problems. It's the editorial content which detracts from the credibility... I did. I addressed the direct quotations that the editorial used. I agree with them completely, and they do not limit or pull any support from an...

It would be ironic if Avro ever used arguments from Suzuki as support. He hasn't. So no, not ironic. What's ironic is your support for the Royal Society report-or rather for the Calgary Herald editorial version- and your insistence that it is incompatible with the review conducted by the IPCC.

Ahh, because that was clear from the five posts leading up to this...sorry, but I don't have an encyclopedic memory of every post made by every poster in every thread that I've ever posted to.

I lived on the Prairies...what exactly is it you think that I think, and that you think would shake the trust that you think I have in what you think I think? Maybe you're looking in the wrong data sets...if you weren't so ubiquitously vague...well this conversation might actually go somewhere...