Why do so many people deny climate change

[orogenicman]

FlaCalTenn,

Are you contending that CO2 does not absorb IR?

I'm sure it does, but the experiments presented bare no resemblance to what actually occurs in nature. For instance, the experiment that the Myth Busters did probably produce a concentration of CO2 that was many orders of magnitude greater than what exists in nature. Furthermore, it ignores the effects of water vapor. There are also numerous other complications that are ignored. The other experiments were utterly atrocious. The one where the guy drops Alkaseltzer into the water to produce the CO2 is the worst of the worst.

The mythbusters experiment wasn't trying to show the effect of water vapor. They were trying to show the effect of CO2, so naturally they would ignore the effects of water vapor and all other ghgs for that matter. Your water vapor argument is a red herring.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I would think it was more than 10 pages and I thought we mutually agreed that we would never agree till such time as post modern science has had its time and you realize that you were wrong at which time you would humbly apologize.

Postmodernism postulates that many, if not all, apparent realities are only social constructs and are therefore subject to change. It emphasises the role of language, power relations, and motivations in the formation of ideas and beliefs. In particular it attacks the use of sharp binary classifications such as male versus female, straight versus gay, white versus black, and imperial versus colonial; it holds realities to be plural and relative, and to be dependent on who the interested parties are and the nature of these interests. It claims that there is no absolute truth and that the way people perceive the world is subjective.

Is this what you're accusing flacaltenn of using?

I suggest you narrow your research to a description of post modern science....

Or you could post what you mean.

 

[PMZ]

Here's an idea. Build the Keystone Pipeline to the moon instead of Louisiana. Gather up all of the fossil fuel wastes that we fart into our atmosphere and pipe them to the moon, thus creating on the moon the prelife earth atmosphere and therefore climate. Then farm it.

 

[flacaltenn]

FlaCalTenn,

Are you contending that CO2 does not absorb IR?

I'm sure it does, but the experiments presented bare no resemblance to what actually occurs in nature. For instance, the experiment that the Myth Busters did probably produce a concentration of CO2 that was many orders of magnitude greater than what exists in nature. Furthermore, it ignores the effects of water vapor. There are also numerous other complications that are ignored. The other experiments were utterly atrocious. The one where the guy drops Alkaseltzer into the water to produce the CO2 is the worst of the worst.

The mythbusters experiment wasn't trying to show the effect of water vapor. They were trying to show the effect of CO2, so naturally they would ignore the effects of water vapor and all other ghgs for that matter. Your water vapor argument is a red herring.

Not a red herring.. The stated forcing functions for CO2 USUALLY ignore the presence of water vapor.. Water vapor will suck up and saturate any common bands of CO2 absorption before CO2 even gets it's boots on.. One of the reasons that stupid Forcing Chart in the IPCC is such baloney..

I think NormalJoe was pushing a lecture from MIT physics (which I dutifully watched) where the prof is driving one of the tools used to estimate the CO2 forcing power.. He went on for an hour about deriving how much the temperature would change for any CO2 increase.. NOTES for the class gave me a better view of the "control panel" for the model he was using.. In that ENTIRE LECTURE --- the "water vapor" slider was set to zero..

Kryptonite for the folks who lie to you about how much of an ACTUAL effect CO2 has in a REAL atmos composition..

What good is the "experiment" when we can CALCULATE the effect of a CO2 only atmos?

How accurate is the MythBusters set-up if they don't control the water vapor?
((After all they had dripping wet statues of whatzhisname vaporizing in the boxes))

The ISSUE is how OVERSTATED the actual warming power of CO2 in practice..

Not herring --- Filet Mignon...

 

[PMZ]

I'm sure it does, but the experiments presented bare no resemblance to what actually occurs in nature. For instance, the experiment that the Myth Busters did probably produce a concentration of CO2 that was many orders of magnitude greater than what exists in nature. Furthermore, it ignores the effects of water vapor. There are also numerous other complications that are ignored. The other experiments were utterly atrocious. The one where the guy drops Alkaseltzer into the water to produce the CO2 is the worst of the worst.

The mythbusters experiment wasn't trying to show the effect of water vapor. They were trying to show the effect of CO2, so naturally they would ignore the effects of water vapor and all other ghgs for that matter. Your water vapor argument is a red herring.

Not a red herring.. The stated forcing functions for CO2 USUALLY ignore the presence of water vapor.. Water vapor will suck up and saturate any common bands of CO2 absorption before CO2 even gets it's boots on.. One of the reasons that stupid Forcing Chart in the IPCC is such baloney..

I think NormalJoe was pushing a lecture from MIT physics (which I dutifully watched) where the prof is driving one of the tools used to estimate the CO2 forcing power.. He went on for an hour about deriving how much the temperature would change for any CO2 increase.. NOTES for the class gave me a better view of the "control panel" for the model he was using.. In that ENTIRE LECTURE --- the "water vapor" slider was set to zero..

Kryptonite for the folks who lie to you about how much of an ACTUAL effect CO2 has in a REAL atmos composition..

What good is the "experiment" when we can CALCULATE the effect of a CO2 only atmos?

How accurate is the MythBusters set-up if they don't control the water vapor?
((After all they had dripping wet statues of whatzhisname vaporizing in the boxes))

The ISSUE is how OVERSTATED the actual warming power of CO2 in practice..

Not herring --- Filet Mignon...

''Not a red herring.. The stated forcing functions for CO2 USUALLY ignore the presence of water vapor.. Water vapor will suck up and saturate any common bands of CO2 absorption before CO2 even gets it's boots on.. One of the reasons that stupid Forcing Chart in the IPCC is such baloney.. ''

You're right. Not a red herring. Either a lie or ignorance. It's just not true.

Water vapor is not what's changing in the atmosphere. CO2 is.

 

[flacaltenn]

Postmodernism postulates that many, if not all, apparent realities are only social constructs and are therefore subject to change. It emphasises the role of language, power relations, and motivations in the formation of ideas and beliefs. In particular it attacks the use of sharp binary classifications such as male versus female, straight versus gay, white versus black, and imperial versus colonial; it holds realities to be plural and relative, and to be dependent on who the interested parties are and the nature of these interests. It claims that there is no absolute truth and that the way people perceive the world is subjective.

Is this what you're accusing flacaltenn of using?

I suggest you narrow your research to a description of post modern science....

Or you could post what you mean.

This is actually hysterically funny and now ya gotta sit thru an explanation..
I saw that sucker punch coming and ducked. Because ASSUMING that SSDD realized the implications of labeling my science advice and views as "post modern" --- BECAUSE

The THREE of us (you, me and him) are actually more "Traditionalist" than "Post Modern" on many issues.. Like for instance --- the Constitution.. Which was written BEFORE NSA had massive satellite and communications gear to monitor "our Private Papers and Effects".

Fact is --- the quotes that SSDD cling to (in error) DESERVE an interpretation based on the "TRADITIONAL" letter of the laws.. And indeed, the new elements of Radiative Physics that explain "back radiation" and our ability to measure it and RF Fields and Waves arrived in Science History AFTER those quotes that SSDD abuses.

It is our JOB to make certain that any NEW issues or insights do not violate the letter of the law. And I've explained to him that they do not.. However --- with no Supreme Court to weigh traditionalist versus post modern "truth" ---- we're at an impasse.. It's like all those 5 to 4 decisions that are based on opinion.. Except that science backed me up and left him DENYING the existence of the new technology and insights that are REAL and MODERN.

Try DENYING computer spying and communications hacking from a Traditionalist View of our Constitution...

ROFLing in an awkward sort of way...

 

[itfitzme]

FlaCalTenn,

Are you contending that CO2 does not absorb IR?

I'm sure it does, but the experiments presented bare no resemblance to what actually occurs in nature. For instance, the experiment that the Myth Busters did probably produce a concentration of CO2 that was many orders of magnitude greater than what exists in nature. Furthermore, it ignores the effects of water vapor. There are also numerous other complications that are ignored. The other experiments were utterly atrocious. The one where the guy drops Alkaseltzer into the water to produce the CO2 is the worst of the worst.

Quite the contrary, the presented experiments demonstrate how little and how easily CO2 will mix with other gasses and absorb IR. The Alkaseltzer one is the best of them. Anyone can do it at home with a couple of bottles, thermometers, a lamp, and some Alkaseltzer.

The more detailed and controlled experiment gave us the Beer-Lambert Law and the absorption coefficients.

By all means, though, do your own experiment and post the video on u-tube. Come back when you have the link.

 

[itfitzme]

I'm sure it does, but the experiments presented bare no resemblance to what actually occurs in nature. For instance, the experiment that the Myth Busters did probably produce a concentration of CO2 that was many orders of magnitude greater than what exists in nature. Furthermore, it ignores the effects of water vapor. There are also numerous other complications that are ignored. The other experiments were utterly atrocious. The one where the guy drops Alkaseltzer into the water to produce the CO2 is the worst of the worst.

The mythbusters experiment wasn't trying to show the effect of water vapor. They were trying to show the effect of CO2, so naturally they would ignore the effects of water vapor and all other ghgs for that matter. Your water vapor argument is a red herring.

Not a red herring.. The stated forcing functions for CO2 USUALLY ignore the presence of water vapor.. Water vapor will suck up and saturate any common bands of CO2 absorption before CO2 even gets it's boots on.. One of the reasons that stupid Forcing Chart in the IPCC is such baloney..

I think NormalJoe was pushing a lecture from MIT physics (which I dutifully watched) where the prof is driving one of the tools used to estimate the CO2 forcing power.. He went on for an hour about deriving how much the temperature would change for any CO2 increase.. NOTES for the class gave me a better view of the "control panel" for the model he was using.. In that ENTIRE LECTURE --- the "water vapor" slider was set to zero..

Kryptonite for the folks who lie to you about how much of an ACTUAL effect CO2 has in a REAL atmos composition..

What good is the "experiment" when we can CALCULATE the effect of a CO2 only atmos?

How accurate is the MythBusters set-up if they don't control the water vapor?
((After all they had dripping wet statues of whatzhisname vaporizing in the boxes))

The ISSUE is how OVERSTATED the actual warming power of CO2 in practice..

Not herring --- Filet Mignon...

Actually, you are wrong. As CO2 drives temperature which in turn drives humidity, the water vapor can be entirely ignored in creating a basic model. Water vapor only becomes a consideration if we want to be more precise and increase the predictive quality of the model. Otherwise, it is unnecessary for simple proof that CO2 is the driving factor in the climate.

 

[orogenicman]

The mythbusters experiment wasn't trying to show the effect of water vapor. They were trying to show the effect of CO2, so naturally they would ignore the effects of water vapor and all other ghgs for that matter. Your water vapor argument is a red herring.

Not a red herring.. The stated forcing functions for CO2 USUALLY ignore the presence of water vapor.. Water vapor will suck up and saturate any common bands of CO2 absorption before CO2 even gets it's boots on.. One of the reasons that stupid Forcing Chart in the IPCC is such baloney..

I think NormalJoe was pushing a lecture from MIT physics (which I dutifully watched) where the prof is driving one of the tools used to estimate the CO2 forcing power.. He went on for an hour about deriving how much the temperature would change for any CO2 increase.. NOTES for the class gave me a better view of the "control panel" for the model he was using.. In that ENTIRE LECTURE --- the "water vapor" slider was set to zero..

Kryptonite for the folks who lie to you about how much of an ACTUAL effect CO2 has in a REAL atmos composition..

What good is the "experiment" when we can CALCULATE the effect of a CO2 only atmos?

How accurate is the MythBusters set-up if they don't control the water vapor?
((After all they had dripping wet statues of whatzhisname vaporizing in the boxes))

The ISSUE is how OVERSTATED the actual warming power of CO2 in practice..

Not herring --- Filet Mignon...

''Not a red herring.. The stated forcing functions for CO2 USUALLY ignore the presence of water vapor.. Water vapor will suck up and saturate any common bands of CO2 absorption before CO2 even gets it's boots on.. One of the reasons that stupid Forcing Chart in the IPCC is such baloney.. ''

You're right. Not a red herring. Either a lie or ignorance. It's just not true.

Water vapor is not what's changing in the atmosphere. CO2 is.

The key there is common bands. Not all infrared bands are common to both water and CO2. You apparent think you understand this issue but the world's scientists for some reason don't. Talk about arrogance. But that is neither here nor there with regard to the mythbusters episode.

 

[PMZ]

I suggest you narrow your research to a description of post modern science....

Or you could post what you mean.

This is actually hysterically funny and now ya gotta sit thru an explanation..
I saw that sucker punch coming and ducked. Because ASSUMING that SSDD realized the implications of labeling my science advice and views as "post modern" --- BECAUSE

The THREE of us (you, me and him) are actually more "Traditionalist" than "Post Modern" on many issues.. Like for instance --- the Constitution.. Which was written BEFORE NSA had massive satellite and communications gear to monitor "our Private Papers and Effects".

Fact is --- the quotes that SSDD cling to (in error) DESERVE an interpretation based on the "TRADITIONAL" letter of the laws.. And indeed, the new elements of Radiative Physics that explain "back radiation" and our ability to measure it and RF Fields and Waves arrived in Science History AFTER those quotes that SSDD abuses.

It is our JOB to make certain that any NEW issues or insights do not violate the letter of the law. And I've explained to him that they do not.. However --- with no Supreme Court to weigh traditionalist versus post modern "truth" ---- we're at an impasse.. It's like all those 5 to 4 decisions that are based on opinion.. Except that science backed me up and left him DENYING the existence of the new technology and insights that are REAL and MODERN.

Try DENYING computer spying and communications hacking from a Traditionalist View of our Constitution...

ROFLing in an awkward sort of way...

Progress got us here. It will take us beyond. We just need to accept that denialism has been around forever and needs to be treated with the irrelevance it has abundantly earned.

 

[flacaltenn]

The mythbusters experiment wasn't trying to show the effect of water vapor. They were trying to show the effect of CO2, so naturally they would ignore the effects of water vapor and all other ghgs for that matter. Your water vapor argument is a red herring.

Not a red herring.. The stated forcing functions for CO2 USUALLY ignore the presence of water vapor.. Water vapor will suck up and saturate any common bands of CO2 absorption before CO2 even gets it's boots on.. One of the reasons that stupid Forcing Chart in the IPCC is such baloney..

I think NormalJoe was pushing a lecture from MIT physics (which I dutifully watched) where the prof is driving one of the tools used to estimate the CO2 forcing power.. He went on for an hour about deriving how much the temperature would change for any CO2 increase.. NOTES for the class gave me a better view of the "control panel" for the model he was using.. In that ENTIRE LECTURE --- the "water vapor" slider was set to zero..

Kryptonite for the folks who lie to you about how much of an ACTUAL effect CO2 has in a REAL atmos composition..

What good is the "experiment" when we can CALCULATE the effect of a CO2 only atmos?

How accurate is the MythBusters set-up if they don't control the water vapor?
((After all they had dripping wet statues of whatzhisname vaporizing in the boxes))

The ISSUE is how OVERSTATED the actual warming power of CO2 in practice..

Not herring --- Filet Mignon...

Actually, you are wrong. As CO2 drives temperature which in turn drives humidity, the water vapor can be entirely ignored in creating a basic model. Water vapor only becomes a consideration if we want to be more precise and increase the predictive quality of the model. Otherwise, it is unnecessary for simple proof that CO2 is the driving factor in the climate.

IGNORE WATER VAPOR AS A GHGAS?? C'mon grasshopper --- how much more is this act gonna go on??

IGNORE THE COMPOSITE absorption of CO2 in the presence of water vapor???

Oh yeah.. Hysterical.. The Wizard of Oz says...
"No -- do not look behind that curtain" as Toto takes his leg in his jaws...

How many vegetables do you have to have thrown at ya before you abandon stand-up comedy??

 

[PMZ]

FlaCalTenn,

Are you contending that CO2 does not absorb IR?

I'm sure it does, but the experiments presented bare no resemblance to what actually occurs in nature. For instance, the experiment that the Myth Busters did probably produce a concentration of CO2 that was many orders of magnitude greater than what exists in nature. Furthermore, it ignores the effects of water vapor. There are also numerous other complications that are ignored. The other experiments were utterly atrocious. The one where the guy drops Alkaseltzer into the water to produce the CO2 is the worst of the worst.

Quite the contrary, the presented experiments demonstrate how little and how easily CO2 will mix with other gasses and absorb IR. The Alkaseltzer one is the best of them. Anyone can do it at home with a couple of bottles, thermometers, a lamp, and some Alkaseltzer.

The more detailed and controlled experiment gave us the Beer-Lambert Law and the absorption coefficients.

By all means, though, do your own experiment and post the video on u-tube. Come back when you have the link.

Actually, no experimentation is required. We have the moon with no atmosphere and the earth with one and both get equal solar radiation per unit mass. Easy to measure the climate in both places. The difference between the two climate's can only be explained by GHGs.

 

[PMZ]

Not a red herring.. The stated forcing functions for CO2 USUALLY ignore the presence of water vapor.. Water vapor will suck up and saturate any common bands of CO2 absorption before CO2 even gets it's boots on.. One of the reasons that stupid Forcing Chart in the IPCC is such baloney..

I think NormalJoe was pushing a lecture from MIT physics (which I dutifully watched) where the prof is driving one of the tools used to estimate the CO2 forcing power.. He went on for an hour about deriving how much the temperature would change for any CO2 increase.. NOTES for the class gave me a better view of the "control panel" for the model he was using.. In that ENTIRE LECTURE --- the "water vapor" slider was set to zero..

Kryptonite for the folks who lie to you about how much of an ACTUAL effect CO2 has in a REAL atmos composition..

What good is the "experiment" when we can CALCULATE the effect of a CO2 only atmos?

How accurate is the MythBusters set-up if they don't control the water vapor?
((After all they had dripping wet statues of whatzhisname vaporizing in the boxes))

The ISSUE is how OVERSTATED the actual warming power of CO2 in practice..

Not herring --- Filet Mignon...

''Not a red herring.. The stated forcing functions for CO2 USUALLY ignore the presence of water vapor.. Water vapor will suck up and saturate any common bands of CO2 absorption before CO2 even gets it's boots on.. One of the reasons that stupid Forcing Chart in the IPCC is such baloney.. ''

You're right. Not a red herring. Either a lie or ignorance. It's just not true.

Water vapor is not what's changing in the atmosphere. CO2 is.

The key there is common bands. Not all infrared bands are common to both water and CO2. You apparent think you understand this issue but the world's scientists for some reason don't. Talk about arrogance. But that is neither here nor there with regard to the mythbusters episode.

It takes quite an ego to believe that a conservative without climate science or any science for that matter, knows more about climate than those who've devoted their lives to its study.

 

[flacaltenn]

Not a red herring.. The stated forcing functions for CO2 USUALLY ignore the presence of water vapor.. Water vapor will suck up and saturate any common bands of CO2 absorption before CO2 even gets it's boots on.. One of the reasons that stupid Forcing Chart in the IPCC is such baloney..

I think NormalJoe was pushing a lecture from MIT physics (which I dutifully watched) where the prof is driving one of the tools used to estimate the CO2 forcing power.. He went on for an hour about deriving how much the temperature would change for any CO2 increase.. NOTES for the class gave me a better view of the "control panel" for the model he was using.. In that ENTIRE LECTURE --- the "water vapor" slider was set to zero..

Kryptonite for the folks who lie to you about how much of an ACTUAL effect CO2 has in a REAL atmos composition..

What good is the "experiment" when we can CALCULATE the effect of a CO2 only atmos?

How accurate is the MythBusters set-up if they don't control the water vapor?
((After all they had dripping wet statues of whatzhisname vaporizing in the boxes))

The ISSUE is how OVERSTATED the actual warming power of CO2 in practice..

Not herring --- Filet Mignon...

''Not a red herring.. The stated forcing functions for CO2 USUALLY ignore the presence of water vapor.. Water vapor will suck up and saturate any common bands of CO2 absorption before CO2 even gets it's boots on.. One of the reasons that stupid Forcing Chart in the IPCC is such baloney.. ''

You're right. Not a red herring. Either a lie or ignorance. It's just not true.

Water vapor is not what's changing in the atmosphere. CO2 is.

The key there is common bands. Not all infrared bands are common to both water and CO2. You apparent think you understand this issue but the world's scientists for some reason don't. Talk about arrogance. But that is neither here nor there with regard to the mythbusters episode.

We might be having an intelligient convo if your first defense wasn't to jump all over me for crap I never stated.

1) I never said the Climate Wizards DONT KNOW about how CO2 forcing is derated in the presence of water vapor.. They KNOW IT.. But they take EVERY OPPORTUNITY to overstate the power of CO2 by IGNORING IT.. As in that MIT lecture I cited. Or in that phoney baloney "Forcing Chart" the IPCC promulgates as a lie. They CITE the forcing power of CO2 in an atmos FREE of water vapor... So no derated reality for CO2 whilst they MANGLE the modern numbers for solar forcing with absurb rabid passion..

2) Water vapor does not NEED TO VARY to make this a fundamental consideration concerning the actual effects of CO2.

 

[Rebelitarian]

I just finished reading a post in which Abraham responded to a comment by posting a graph. After realizing the person he was talking to was taking visual cues from a picture and ignoring the information in the graph, I started thinking about why people deny climate change.

Tim Prosser wrote an interesting article on the subject and it came down to just a few ideas:

One is that many people who deny global warming do not have a science background. Therefore, they find themselves in a bind when dealing with the materials explaining the issue.

Additionally, climate change discussion has become so politicized and misinformation so regularly injected by those with incentive to do so that the conversation is overwhelming for many people to sort through.

And last but not least, I think the prospect of declining living standards creates an emotional response in people that in many ways shares the stages of grief. People are emotionally attached to lifestyles and it is VERY difficult to accept data that may point toward new behaviors.

K.

Global warming and climate change are nothing but Globalist agendas to put carbon taxes on people so the Globalists can fund a world bank.

It is a scam thought up by bankers for the benefits of bankers. No real environmentalism is going on.

This is why people are tired of it.

 

[bripat9643]

FlaCalTenn,

Are you contending that CO2 does not absorb IR?

I'm sure it does, but the experiments presented bare no resemblance to what actually occurs in nature. For instance, the experiment that the Myth Busters did probably produce a concentration of CO2 that was many orders of magnitude greater than what exists in nature. Furthermore, it ignores the effects of water vapor. There are also numerous other complications that are ignored. The other experiments were utterly atrocious. The one where the guy drops Alkaseltzer into the water to produce the CO2 is the worst of the worst.

The mythbusters experiment wasn't trying to show the effect of water vapor. They were trying to show the effect of CO2, so naturally they would ignore the effects of water vapor and all other ghgs for that matter. Your water vapor argument is a red herring.

Nevertheless, there was water vapor in the container. If they didn't want to show the effect of water vapor, then they should have insured that the container didn't have any in it.

 

[Steven_R]

When I took Chem I, we went over the scientific method. The professor used climate science as an example of what not to do when it came to science. It wasn't that there may or may not be data supporting Anthropogenic Climate Change, it's that the science community is bending many of its own rules in getting papers out. The journals aren't properly vetting the articles, aren't allowing papers disputing the evidence and conclusions, won't let contrary voice present at conferences. We're not talking about the ID crackpots not getting a say, but the scientists with the background and the data. There are multiple questions from scientists that aren't being addressed by other scientists and it's a problem.

 

[PMZ]

The mythbusters experiment wasn't trying to show the effect of water vapor. They were trying to show the effect of CO2, so naturally they would ignore the effects of water vapor and all other ghgs for that matter. Your water vapor argument is a red herring.

Not a red herring.. The stated forcing functions for CO2 USUALLY ignore the presence of water vapor.. Water vapor will suck up and saturate any common bands of CO2 absorption before CO2 even gets it's boots on.. One of the reasons that stupid Forcing Chart in the IPCC is such baloney..

I think NormalJoe was pushing a lecture from MIT physics (which I dutifully watched) where the prof is driving one of the tools used to estimate the CO2 forcing power.. He went on for an hour about deriving how much the temperature would change for any CO2 increase.. NOTES for the class gave me a better view of the "control panel" for the model he was using.. In that ENTIRE LECTURE --- the "water vapor" slider was set to zero..

Kryptonite for the folks who lie to you about how much of an ACTUAL effect CO2 has in a REAL atmos composition..

What good is the "experiment" when we can CALCULATE the effect of a CO2 only atmos?

How accurate is the MythBusters set-up if they don't control the water vapor?
((After all they had dripping wet statues of whatzhisname vaporizing in the boxes))

The ISSUE is how OVERSTATED the actual warming power of CO2 in practice..

Not herring --- Filet Mignon...

Actually, you are wrong. As CO2 drives temperature which in turn drives humidity, the water vapor can be entirely ignored in creating a basic model. Water vapor only becomes a consideration if we want to be more precise and increase the predictive quality of the model. Otherwise, it is unnecessary for simple proof that CO2 is the driving factor in the climate.

Actually, it seems more accurate to me to say the the change in atmospheric CO2 concentration is what drives the change in climate. Nothing else is changing, but it is the traditional previous levels of several GHGs that has made earth inhabitable. Some 33 degrees warmer than without GHGs.

 

[flacaltenn]

When I took Chem I, we went over the scientific method. The professor used climate science as an example of what not to do when it came to science. It wasn't that there may or may not be data supporting Anthropogenic Climate Change, it's that the science community is bending many of its own rules in getting papers out. The journals aren't properly vetting the articles, aren't allowing papers disputing the evidence and conclusions, won't let contrary voice present at conferences. We're not talking about the ID crackpots not getting a say, but the scientists with the background and the data. There are multiple questions from scientists that aren't being addressed by other scientists and it's a problem.

You're extremely lucky to have had a Chem professor that cares enough about the INTEGRITY of the process...

The peer pressure and incentives for fraud are massive in any academic venture with this much political undercurrent.

 

[SSDD]

Fact is --- the quotes that SSDD cling to (in error) DESERVE an interpretation based on the "TRADITIONAL" letter of the laws.. And indeed, the new elements of Radiative Physics that explain "back radiation" and our ability to measure it and RF Fields and Waves arrived in Science History AFTER those quotes that SSDD abuses.
..

There are no measurements of backradiation because it does not exist. There are examples of people fooling themselves with measuring devices, but no measurements of backradiation.