That is just too silly, Steven. Please do try to be honest.

You start with the suggestion that our blanket is "mainly" CO2, & water vapour, in a typical misrepresentation of the facts.

Our blanket is water vapour, with some trace elements, one of which is CO2.

A recently published paper on the greenhouse effect, which our conniving lying AGW "scientists" tried to prevent, has shown a beautiful ballance in these gasses.

AS CO2 has built up, [to a minor extent] in the mix, water vapour has decreased, to maintain the ballance. Neat hay? Of course, you won't believe it, but that's your problem.

If you have any more great ideas, please rush into print. Some days we need a laugh.

ooops looks like web 2 has changed the link
while i was on the page

but hey i saved the pictures
and the new ones...that look even more suss..look at the arrows...some huge heats there...ask why?

anyhow the photos are now here
note the hot spot west of darwin

whats making that heat
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=3631

Hasbeen,

THAT IS VERY INTERESTING

If it is possible to demonstrate that a negative feedback effect such as the one you describe between CO2 and water vapour will keep the equilibrium temperature of the Earth roughly constant I personally would be delighted. It would be one damn thing less to worry about.

This is the sort of OBJECTIVE science that interests me passionately. So please do not assume that I would not believe it.

But I would like to see it for myself. Please give me a reference ASAP. At the very least please provide the names and affiliations of the scientists who did the research.

Runner & OUG,

My understanding is that both of you reject evolution. If you have decoupled your belief systems from OBJECTIVE reality to that extent there is no way for me to have an OBJECTIVE dialogue with you.

JBowyer

Unlike Hasbeen you have not provided me with any OBJECTIVE reason to change my pov. Can you explain what happens to the extra heat radiated back to Earth or what possible feedback mechanism might mitigate the effects of increasing the Earth's insulation?

steven, despite the straightforward nature of your explanation, it doesn't matter. That's the whole damn problem.

Everyday people have got it into their head that they can wrap their minds around the science of climate change. That goes for both sides. Thus, they feel able to comment on something which is far beyond their understanding.

I don't understand all the physics of climate change. Unless you're a pretty serious climatologist, I'll wager neither do you.

It comes down to who you believe and unfortunately, most people aren't good at evaluating sources.

They don't seem to assess the motivations - for many, the idea that greedy scientists wants grants is a realistic one. Never mind that this seems pretty stupid once you've actually interacted with any kind of reputable research institution.

The fact that entrenched interests have a strong stake in maintaining the status quo, represents a far stronger motive to skew data doesn't seem to be appreciated.

Similarly, the peer-review process, which has been the hallmark of reputable science for decades, appears to be discarded with any old paper being accepted into the debate. All one needs to do is claim some scientist conspiracy (apparently for these alleged grants who scientists are willing to sell their integrity for) has corrupted the process. Or be entirely ignorant of the peer review process and how rare it is to find papers disputing global warming which actually pass muster with reliable evidence. I suspect this is even more common.

What's really disturbing is how this has become a political issue. Those who oppose global warming, by and large, are those who a) are vehemently anti-government and taxes and b) are staunchly conservative and pro-family values.

These issues are in no way related. This is an issue about science, not progressive vs conservative politics, however it suits some to make it a political issue.

A couple of points
- there is a difference between a sceptic and someone who has rejected a theory. I tend to think we need to take AGW seriously (but AGW does not equal ETS) but am concerned about the behavior of many on both sides of the debate, there is a lot of spin and potential for corruption around this issue. The fact that so many people desperately concerned about AGW find using private (or publicly funded) jets to get to talk to people on the other side of the world when tele-conferencing is so readily available does have some shades of the emperors missing clothes.
- Not being convinced about a particular proposal does not mean that someone rejects all of the underlying science and assumptions. It is possible to believe that the earths atmosphere provides insulation without being convinced that a particular extrapolation of that has been proved or that a specific new tax or trading scheme is the solution.

R0bert

A sincere global warming skeptic? What an oxymoron. Or perhaps that should be a CO2moron….or just a plain old moron!

OBVIOUSLY, AGW is real. Those who say that they don’t believe this are either being dishonest or deluded….or downright moronic!

Now if by some strange chance there are actually genuine intelligent sincere climate change skeptics out there uninfluenced by the wishes of big business or continuous-growth-worshipping politicians or business-as-usual-at-all-costs idiots, then how can they possibly justify not erring on the side of caution?

And if they err on the side of caution, then they should be totally aligned with as those that are concerned about AGW?

Skeptics that aren’t have got to viewed very suspiciously as to why they aren’t.