He, ironically enough, was the propaganda minister for "two prominent federal science agencies." That's about as factless and political as political can be (as opposed to objective and on the merits).
Interpreting, the real problem is that free people don't spoon-feed as easily as MiniTrue would like.
The rest of it's reeeaaallllyyy tedious.
"In the Syrian situation, for instance, it may not matter whether Syria used chemical weapons against its own people. What may matter more to you is whether you believe Barack Obama when he presents that objective set of facts."
Moron. Syria's nasty business, just none of our business. As for objective facts...Obama?
Walter Williams once lamented being on television debating a mush-head. They're the worst.
I'm easily persuaded, you're just not persuasive. Bluster and insults don't count.
I obviously live on this planet and want the best for it. I'm going to be here a lot longer than you. That's why I conserve and take care of spaceship Earth, and am surprised when you don't.
None of that substitutes for actual scientific reasoning.
Years ago I pointed out that the uncertainty in cloud modelling exceeds the entire alleged AGW effect by an order of magnitude.
That one fact alone means all the long-term projections are crap.
Instead of the common wiz-dumb's catastrophic runaway warming, one entirely possible outcome is that the Earth gets a little warmer, water evaporates a little faster, clouds get a little friskier, block some sun, and the negative feedback stabilizes temps. And we grow more food.
You insisted--and none too politely--humidity wasn't changing, so this could never happen.
Recently I noticed you citing increased atmospheric moisture content, crediting AGW.
is diamond-hard, no matter how wrong it is. No point in debating with him.
You are easily persuaded into any fashionable right-wing opinion, no matter how fatuous. I'm less politically oriented, and have a number of opinions that you couldn't possibly share, no matter how correct they might be.
Which starts and finishes with a right-wing political regime that will keep on making the rich richer. The concept that making the remaining 99% of th e population a little better off might eventually make the rich even richer does seem to escape you.
Unless your political opinions provoke the response they deserve. The US Gi ni index is now at 0.45, which is a bit high for long term political stabil ity. When the 99% fully understand that they are being taxed by a governmen t that doesn't represent their interests, they may make the same choice tha t your founding tax evaders did.
Neither of us is going to persuade China by our exemplary behaviour. What I say won't have much effect, but it's still more than anything I could do v ia my domestic arrangements.
Which you don't understand and are happy to ignore.
By which I imagine you mean that you've been told about Richard Lindzen's " iris" hypothesis, and haven't yet noticed that observational data didn't su pport it - my impression is that it was demonstrated it to be flat out wron g, but I can't point to the relevant papers. Since you would have found it on one of the denialist web-sites that publish every paper that might have confounded the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, but none of the pap ers that rebutted them, you won't be able to either.
In your "expert", if somewhat one-eyed opinion. The July copy of "Physics T oday" reported the launch of the Global Climate Change Viewer at
formatting link
which is claimed to incorporate more than 20 climate models covering the ye ars 1850 through 2100 and also looks back at the mid-Holocene period (6000 years ago) and at the last glacial maximum (21,000 years ago). It doesn't l ook like crap to me, but I haven't been out to dinner with an unsuccessful climate modeller and thus lack your expertise.
There's absolutely no sign of any negative feedback now, or in the geologic al record - and the more frequent extreme weather we are already getting fr om the warming we've already got is costing us more food than CO2 fertilisa tion is ever likely to deliver.
Clouds appear when air is rising or moving away from the equator, and thus getting cooler. Since an equal volume of air has to come down or move close r to the equator, getting warmer in the process, cloud cover is going to re main pretty stable with global warming. Lindzen thought that he had found a way of trumping this, but he was wrong.
Your Pollyanna "possible outcome" does show up on denialist web-sites, but nowhere else. It's attractive to people who are making loads of money out o f digging up fossil carbon and selling it a fuel. People without that motiv ation tend to find it less plausible.
Humidity won't change, but warmer air contains more water at the same relat ive humidity.
Humidity is "relative humidity", a measure of the mount of water vapour in the air relative to the saturation vapour pressure of water at the same tem perature as the air.
You need to learn a little more about the subject before you start congratu lating yourself. A Ph.D. in physical chemistry doesn't mean much, but at le ast it has left me with some grasp of elementary physics and thermodynamics .
I hope I've not expressed myself so impolitely as to offend your delicate s ensibilities.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.