Secondly,. I have told you before, multiple times, that I have no connection with Bill Blakemore, ABC or any other commercial or political entities. My only affiliations are with Phi Kappa Phi, Sigma Xi, AGU, AAS, and the Planetary Society. Do I expect you to believe that? You’ve believed nothing I’ve told you up to now, and you have convinced no one of your position. You have, however, antagonized several people.

If you are right by virtue of your having passed muster with your dissertation committed, you should be willing to grant at least as much deference to those who have not only done that, but been selected by their peers to the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy has stated: “Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases have increased significantly since the Industrial Revolution, mostly from the burning of fossil fuels for energy, industrial processes, and transportation.” But, again, they are all wrong and you, and only you, are right.

You claim that you knowledge of the physics of the atmosphere give you a unique perspective and expertise in the matter, but clearly the thousands of members of the American Geophysical Union strongly disagree with you. Their position is that “Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century. Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have increased since the mid-1700s through fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, with more than 80% of this increase occurring since 1900. Moreover, research indicates that increased levels of carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years. It is virtually certain that increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will cause global surface climate to be warmer.” Those thousands of scientists are also wrong because you, and only you, are right.

Indeed the entire scientific community, represented by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which has stated that “The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society… The growing torrent of information presents a clear message: we are already experiencing global climate change. It is time to muster the political will for concerted action. Stronger leadership at all levels is needed. The time is now. We must rise to the challenge. We owe this to future generations.” All wrong (and political to boot!) because you, and only you, are right.

I, and the rest of the scientific world, stand corrected.

I also commented on my role in designing and specifying a satellite instrument, the SSMI, widely used in both operational meteorology and climate research.

None of this has been posted in almost an hour. More disgusting censorship from the managers of this site. You too, Dawes?

So you are saying that even though CO2 is a “trivial” part of the atmosphere, it absorbs so much of ALL the radiative heat leaving the Earth (in the appropriate wavelength band) that adding more CO2 can’t possibly have a significant effect.

Really?”

Yes, really. There’s only a small amount (~5%) of earth’s emission that CO2 can have any effect on. It’s already doing 87% of that. Since the Little Ice Age, temperatures have gone up perhaps 1 C, mostly due to H2O greenhouse and increasing solar magnetic field (keeping galactic cosmic rays away). CO2 – all of it, not just the human component – can’t do much more. Trying to save the planet by regulating human CO2 – even if the Chinese, Indians, Brazilians, and Russians went along – is just a fantasy.

Thomas Friedman of the NYT likes to analogize CO2 to a blanket around the earth. It’s not a bad analogy, but I don’t think he realizes it doesn’t support his alarmism. When you get into bed, the bed is environmental temperature, maybe 65F. After a few minutes, the temperature is 98.6 F. That’s as warm as it will get. The blanket doesn’t warm you; you warm the blanket.

That’s the function of CO2 (or any greenhouse gas): it slows the escape of heat from the earth into space. Earth doesn’t get as cold overnight as it otherwise would; the average temperature (day max + nightime min divided by 2) is raised. If you call that “warming”, I’ll go along.

‘dismissibve & condescending”

I’ve offered substantial physical reasons for being sceptical, indeed, refusing the argument offered. That’s neither “dismissive” nor “condescending”. That’s simply evaluating the physics and data offered and recognizing it doesn’t make sense.

Fundamental rule of science, Jock: nonsense = nonsense. One ought to be courteous in telling the presenter he’s got nonsense, but he should be told. I’m telling you.
Quote Jock:
“This is a complicated subject, and there is plenty of information out there (both true and false) to build a seemingly logical case against AGW, if one is so inclined. But if one is truly objective, one would soon discover which of these issues have already been answered by climate scientists, and which are flat-out lies. Would there be anything left? Perhaps, but not enough to outright dismiss the majority scientific viewpoint that AGW is real. That would be un-scientific and un-professional.”

Here you go, Jock: the flat-out lie is that “the science is all settled”.
Another flat out lie: “there is a crisis of man-made global warming.” No data or theory supports that.
Another flat out lie: teh Mann-Bradley-Hughes hockey stick graph of paleoclimate.
Another flat out lie: CO2 is an important greenhouse gas.
Another flat out lie: human emissions of CO2 are important in radiative effects on earth’s temperature.

‘Nuf for you, Jock? Spare me your wishy-washy generalities.

I’m neither anonymous nor a “purported meteorologist”. You have been rather insufferable in lecturing me about courtesy to other correspondents on this page. My only infraction of your asserted rules has been my reference to Blakemore – after the removal of several of my posts – as a liar, a categorization I freely repeat.

Start following your own standards, sir!

So you are saying that even though CO2 is a “trivial” part of the atmosphere, it absorbs so much of ALL the radiative heat leaving the Earth (in the appropriate wavelength band) that adding more CO2 can’t possibly have a significant effect.

Really?

– That is an absolute lie, and you know it.