Global Warming

[GloriousCause]

Quote by: Sonart . Ah yes, John Stossel, pre-emminent climate scientist, television pundit and... Oooops... ...Libertarian.

Your point? He didn't go on saying "I'm a libertarian, global warming is bad because I'm a libertarian". He went on, brought scientists from the famed "Global Warming is bad" cadre of scientists who disagreed with their organization's conclusions (and methods), showed evidence that countered Gore's evidence from AIT, and left it at that. His point is that the vote isn't in yet. Jeez, why don't you just dismiss all critics of global warming who aren't granola-crunching lefties.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: GloriousCause Your point? He didn't go on saying "I'm a libertarian, global warming is bad because I'm a libertarian".

When folks say the scientific consensus for anthropogenic global warming is overwhelming, they're correct. It is overwhelming.

However, there's been a campaign to muddy the waters by convincing Americans that there's more controversy and disagreement than there actually is. Not unlike when the tobacco industry tried to use "scientific research" to confuse Americans about the actual dangers of smoking.

The source of this campaign of denial has been two-fold: first has been, obviously, the Oil, Coal, Gas and auto industries. The American Petroleum Institute, Exxon Mobile and others have actively recruited rogue scientists to support their opposition to energy regulation

Second has been ideological, libertarian pro-free-market, pro-private property think tanks who oppose government interference with the free market at all costs. The American Enterprise Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Hoover Institute, the Cato Institute, etc.

Libertarians are constitutionally opposed to the government telling business what to do. But if anthropogenic global warming is a real threat, it would be immoral NOT do something about it. But since corporate America is going to have to be dragged kicking a screaming by the government to change how they do business, which Libertarians can't live with, and they don't want to be labeled as immoral for failing to do what's necessary to save the planet, the only solution for Libertarians is...

...we're not causing global warming, so there's no need to regulate anyone.

That's why Stossel's being a card-carrying Libertarian is significant.

Oh yeah, and it hasn't hurt that the Bush administration has also been in league with the denial campaign.

Quote by: GloriousCause He went on, brought scientists from the famed "Global Warming is bad" cadre of scientists who disagreed with their organization's conclusions

A very SMALL cadre, all of whom are now boringly well known within the global warming debate. Unfortunately, when being interviewed by sympathetic reporter, I'm sure they all sounded very knowledgable and sincere. But if you look, they can all be traced back to either the energy industry or libertarian, free market think tanks.... like Xyzer's most recently source Discovery Institute.

Quote by: GloriousCause His point is that the vote isn't in yet.

His point being dead wrong. The vote has been in for some time now, and it's overwhelming. Sorry, but that's just a fact and trying to label it as "Junk Science" can't hide 40 years of constantly increasing research. Even Bush had to finally concede that Global Warming is real, although his plans to deal with it are anemic at best.

These people...

National Academy of Sciences
American Geophysical Union
American Meteorological Society
National Weather Association
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NASA
Stanford, Oxford, MIT and gawd knows how many other univeristies
Scripps and Woodshole Oceanographic Research Institutes

...are the most authoritative reserchers and arbitors of pure scientific research in the the United States on Global Warming, and ALL of them have declared that Global Warming is real, we're causing it, and it's happening faster than predicted. And for cautious scientists to declare outright that something is fact is a big deal. I'm sure John Stossel's a swell guy and all, but his expertise -- and that of his few "experts" -- doesn't come close to the accumulated expertise I listed above. Not even a little close.

Quote by: GloriousCause Jeez, why don't you just dismiss all critics of global warming who aren't granola-crunching lefties.

Because libertarians in particular are the only ones who think more important not to regulate the free market than it is to save the planet. Go figure.

.

[xyzer]

GloriousCause your post exemplifies the repeated tactic of these two "blind believers" Pooey and Sonart. Dont give specifics just attack any messenger that questions or posts facts minimizing the affect of anthropogenic CO2 on climate change? Refuse to answer questions with facts, instead make generalizations. I've posted many examples? You've been witness to the duck bob and weave tactics they have been using? Sonart posts classics like this one..

The source of this campaign of denial has been two-fold: first has been, obviously, the Oil, Coal, Gas and auto industries. The American Petroleum Institute, Exxon Mobile and others have actively recruited rogue scientists to support their opposition to energy regulation

Ad hominem attacks which we know are an illogically weak argument and not true. And of course who he fails to identify along with their rogue supporters?

Sonart just posted this revealing typical ANSWER to my question. He named a half a dozen or so pretigious agencies but gives us NO, dated, specific, examples of study conclusions. His obvious playground assumption is THEY approve the IPCC/Gore conclusions and we are doomed? Wow! Thats logic?

Just to keep the blind believers feet to the fire there is this article. I can remember Pooey months back repeatedly posting how many scientists were on the band wagon of deceit launched by Gore and the IPCC.This makes this article meaningful..
31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda
There are many more "scientists" who question the orthodoxy. People who are willing to consider contrary measurements, recent data, and not putting complete faith in the IPCC and Al Gore? The proxy data and premises used in the climate prediction models are at least a decade old and new data has shown natural factors are causing climate change.
From the refernce......

More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate. "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate," the petition states. "Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Pooeypants By the way, can you show me how Al Gore is earning from his film?

He's got a big interest in carbon credits, and he has made a lot of money if you check out his worth.

The film could be marketing for his carbon credits company. Just a thought because who really knows what he's got up his sleeve. I think he went a little mad after he lost the 2000 election, and he's probably never going to get over that.

http://www.alternet.org/environment/49025

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Just to keep the blind believers feet to the fire there is this article. I can remember Pooey months back repeatedly posting how many scientists were on the band wagon of deceit launched by Gore and the IPCC.This makes this article meaningful.. 31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda There are many more "scientists" who question the orthodoxy. People who are willing to consider contrary measurements, recent data, and not putting complete faith in the IPCC and Al Gore? The proxy data and premises used in the climate prediction models are at least a decade old and new data has shown natural factors are causing climate change. From the refernce......

Wow, this is the best you can come up with? The source for that article is this petition, which, is actually OISM's petition project. Which, we already know is a complete and utter farce.

I find it intriguing that you keep using the same fraudulent petition over and over, even though I've refuted it for the umpteen time, you still refuse to acknowledge how wrong you are. Anyway, seeing as I've already told you before about the false claims of the above petition before many times, I'd take this as another your attempts to lie your way through this debate. Because it seems that's the only way you can win...

Quote by: xyzer The proxy data and premises used in the climate prediction models are at least a decade old and new data has shown natural factors are causing climate change. From the refernce......

Please show me the conclusive report to back up these statements.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Xyzer Dont give specifics just attack any messenger that questions or posts facts minimizing the affect of anthropogenic CO2 on climate change?

Xyzer, we've been giving you boatfulls of specifics for years now, and you simply ingore them, or ask how it was arrived at, and when we explain that, you ask how that was arrived at.

This is how Xyzer's debates. As long as he can keeps his argument running around in circles, just ahead of his opponents, he can convince himself he's winning.:

There's a hole in the bucket,
Dear Liza, dear Liza
There's a hole in the bucket,
Dear Liza, there's a hole.

Then fix it, dear Henry,
Dear Henry, dear Henry
Then fix it, dear Henry,
Dear Henry, fix it.

With what shall I fix it,
Dear Liza, dear Liza?
With what shall I fix it,
Dear Liza, with what?

With a straw, dear Henry,
Dear Henry, dear Henry
With a straw, dear Henry,
Dear Henry, with a straw.

But the straw is too long,
Dear Liza, dear Liza
But the straw is too long,
Dear Liza, too long

Then cut it, dear Henry,
Dear Henry, dear Henry
Then cut it, dear Henry,
Dear Henry, cut it.

With what shall I cut it,
Dear Liza, dear Liza?
With what shall I cut it,
Dear Liza, with what?

With an axe, dear Henry,
Dear Henry, dear Henry
With an axe, dear Henry,
Dear Henry, an axe.

The axe is too dull,
Dear Liza, dear Liza
The axe is too dull,
Dear Liza, too dull

Then sharpen it, dear Henry,
Dear Henry, dear Henry
Then sharpen it, dear Henry,
Dear Henry, sharpen it.

With what shall I sharpen it,
Dear Liza, dear Liza?
With what shall I sharpen it,
Dear Liza, with what?

With a stone, dear Henry,
Dear Henry, dear Henry
With a stone, dear Henry,
Dear Henry, a stone.

The stone is too dry,
Dear Liza, dear Liza
The stone is too dry,
Dear Liza, too dry

Then wet it, dear Henry,
Dear Henry, dear Henry
Then wet it, dear Henry,
Dear Henry, wet it.

With what shall I wet it,
Dear Liza, dear Liza?
With what shall I wet it,
Dear Liza, with what?

With water, dear Henry,
Dear Henry, dear Henry
With water, dear Henry,
Dear Henry, with water.

How shall I get it,
Dear Liza, dear Liza,
How shall I get it,
Dear Liza, how shall I?

In the bucket, dear Henry,
Dear Henry, dear Henry
In the bucket, dear Henry,
Dear Henry, in the bucket.

There's a hole in the bucket.
Dear Liza, dear Liza
There's a hole in the bucket,
Dear Liza, there's a hole.

- - - - - - - -



.

[xyzer]

Xyzer, we've been giving you boatfulls of specifics for years now, and you simply ingore them, or ask how it was arrived at, and when we explain that, you ask how that was arrived at.

Nonsense Sonart! This post is only the latest example?

These people... National Academy of Sciences American Geophysical Union American Meteorological Society National Weather Association National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NASA Stanford, Oxford, MIT and gawd knows how many other univeristies Scripps and Woodshole Oceanographic Research Institutes ...are the most authoritative reserchers and arbitors of pure scientific research in the the United States on Global Warming, and ALL of them have declared that Global Warming is real, we're causing it, and it's happening faster than predicted. And for cautious scientists to declare outright that something is fact is a big deal. I'm sure John Stossel's a swell guy and all, but his expertise -- and that of his few "experts" -- doesn't come close to the accumulated expertise I listed above. Not even a little close

Where are the specific examples here? Where does this fit in the "boatload" of answers? I notice your response also uses the generalization.."All of them have declared Global Warming real" What does that mean? Most people know the world was in a global warming trend in the late part of the last century, I've repeatedly asked you and your believer friend Pooey why have there been colder periods dispersed in that period and how does human caused CO2 affect those changes? You both duck the question with tripe like this post. Its neither logical nor responsive. IT REvEALS THAT YOU REALLY DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER.

[xyzer]

Pooey surely you jest?

Wow, this is the best you can come up with? The source for that article is this petition, which, is actually OISM's petition project. Which, we already know is a complete and utter farce.

Who knows it besides you? Are you an arbitor of what is scientific fact and what isn't? If so what are your qualifications beside being an immature kid? Post your educational qualifications and degrees in science? Do your august climate science/science qualifications equp you to pass judement on any source with which you don't agree? Does actual NASA satellite data pass your test of actual scientific reliability?
Do you happen to know the names of any of the signers of the petition?
For that matter do you know any of the names and qualifications of the IPCC group that made the since disproven doomsday forecast on climate which you refer to? What are the qualifications of your 'soul mate' Al Gore? Are they climate related? Is he an authority on climate like you are?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Pooey surely you jest?

No, but I wish I were, because then I wouldn't have to face that fact that you keep repeating the same lies over and over. Even when they get thrown back at you, stamped with "rejected". Figuratively speaking, of course...

Quote by: xyzer Who knows it besides you? Are you an arbitor of what is scientific fact and what isn't?

Xyzer, just in the post from a few days ago.

Quote by: Pooeypants We've already been through the forgery that is OISM. I'm sure you remember about its fake petition, in fact, I remember finding out about this hoax back in 2006.

That's right, in additional to that post I'd also brought up the farce that is OISM's petition more than 2 years ago!

Quote by: xyzer If so what are your qualifications beside being an immature kid? Post your educational qualifications and degrees in science?

I have a BSc in Biochemistry and Med Micro BUT I do not re-interpret data concerning this field. Neither do I use my opinions as a basis for the debate. Therefore, my qualification is irrelevant. What are yours?

Quote by: xyzer Do your august climate science/science qualifications equp you to pass judement on any source with which you don't agree? Does actual NASA satellite data pass your test of actual scientific reliability?

Again, I have never used my personal judgment to overrule a legitimate source. I have never argued against a scientific paper with my own opinion, I did, however, contest your interpretations. This, however, is an entirely different matter.

Quote by: xyzer Do you happen to know the names of any of the signers of the petition?

All 31,000 of them? No, I can't say that I do. Do you?

Quote by: xyzer For that matter do you know any of the names and qualifications of the IPCC group that made the since disproven doomsday forecast on climate which you refer to?

I can find out all of their details on the IPCC website. Furthermore, the only doomsday forecast comes from you, the IPCC have very conserved projections whereas you believe that our civilisation is and must be completely dependent on fossil fuels, even though we have the technology to show otherwise.

Quote by: xyzer What are the qualifications of your 'soul mate' Al Gore? Are they climate related? Is he an authority on climate like you are?

Irrelevant, I have never quoted from Al Gore and I have never endorsed him. Please stop trolling with this point.

[Sonart]

.

Nonsense Sonart! This post is only the latest example? Where are the specific examples here?

Xyzer, when I said we've been giving you boatfulls of specifics for years now, I meant just that...

... for instance, this thread is over 70 pages long, although I didn't make my first post on it until page 51. But I also have posts going back to this thread. And this thread. And this one. And this one. And this one. etc. etc., with many of those posts just chock full of sourced data.

But it never mattered how much data we included, because it never satisfied you... "Oh yeah, where'd they get those figures?" "How do they know what the temperatures were back then?" "What were the atmospheric temperatures?"

No, you had to ask all the things that it's not and never has been our responsiblity to provide you. If we link you to a legitimate news story reporting that legitimate scientific research has discovered that such and such, then that's all we need to tell you. We don't have to give you the details of how they did the research, or where they got their numbers, or how a graph was arrived at because we're not scientists. All we have to share is fair reports of what science has found.

(Now if you can REBUT any information we present, or show that it's biased in some way, by all means feel free. After all, we've posted source after source that rebuts YOUR biased nonsense all the time.)

So anyway, all this is why I finally threw up my hands in frustration and started simply banging you over the head with "The List".

As I stated, 'The List' is comprised of the most legitimate, most authoritative, most unbiased and most respectable collections of scientific expertise, research and scientific reporting in the United States, if not the world. They are THE accumulated experts on Global Warming and have all stated, unequivicably, that anthropogenic global warming is a reality.

And you have never even TRIED to rebut their expertise, because you CAN'T rebut their expertise, because they are THE highest level experts on global warming ANYWHERE.

And I will keep reminding you of that fact until you get it.

.

[GloriousCause]

Sonart,

Your last reply to me just about sums up what I hear every time I dare question the supposedly indisputable (and yet scientifically unproven) truth that is anthropomorphic global warming.

Instead of wading into the facts that Stossel presented, I'm told that all dissenters are in bed with special interests and "the vote is in". Neither of these things are true - but it's an easy way to keep the conversation away from facts and science. I'm not saying your particular motive was to keep the conversation away from facts and science, but I am saying that I hear dismissal so much that I'm starting to wonder where, in fact, the science IS. You spoke about consensus in your post. Well, science isn't about consensus. Science is about science. Some of the greatest scientific advances in history have flown in the face of what was at the time established consensus among scientists who had only their opinions and no hard data to support them.

As for Stossel's motive, I don't question it. You cannot assume that all people are ideologically led. I've met John Stossel - he's a reporter first and a philosopher second. So it's as presumptuous of you to question his motives as it is for me to question a person whose ideology of more government control leads them to support global warming regulation (there has been a movement toward environmental regulation in the manner we currently face since long before global warming was even on the map, and many of those people are the fathers and mothers of the movement we see today). When it comes to a scientific issue, I don't care about a person's politics, I care about a person's science.

Right now, anthropomorphic global warming is hypothetical. It is not scientifically shown or even supported by enough data to be considered theoretical. Global warming alone is for real, data shows it, but the cause is not so well explored or connected to the data derived from the earth.

The only debate that needs to be happening right now is a scientific one. I know credible scientists on both sides who should be having that debate, but they're caught behind the same curtain that you're arguing in your post.

This all reminds me of the Iraq War. In the run up to the Iraq War, the consensus was that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to the USA. Perhaps not among the plebians, but among the military and intelligence community, 90% of the people saw the data and made that call. But there was dissent, and that dissent spoke about how the consensus cherry-picked data, drew weak links between data points, and allowed their ideology to lead their conclusions, but those dissenters were shouted down by the same arguments you're making here.

I'm no geological scientist. I'm not the one to be having the debate when the time comes, but I know railroading when I see it.

[xyzer]

Marilyn Monroe..Your assertion about Gores financial interest is backed up by this....The Media Ignore Al Gore's Planned Global Warming Profiteering | NewsBusters.org

But then according to Sonart, Gore is only interested in fanning the flames because he cares about the world? He has absolutely no interest in the fianancial impact of his assertions? Sonarts denials are evidence that he is a blind shill for the global warming orthodoxy?

[xyzer]

Sonare, do you realize how ridiculous this post is?

(Now if you can REBUT any information we present, or show that it's biased in some way, by all means feel free. After all, we've posted source after source that rebuts YOUR biased nonsense all the time.)

I've asked you and Pooey "umpteen' times to snswer a simple question. All you do is GENERALIZE, OR give me the names of sites or entities that are involved in climate research and ignore the simple question. e.g. If human carbon energy consumption is the cause of climate warming where is the conclusion that tells us why, the climate has cooled as anthropogenic energy use has pumped more CO2 into the atmosphere? Or to put it another way is it a certainty that humans have caused warming? So certain that we have to change our energy consumption habits? Your mento Gore says we do?
You say REBUT, do you know what the word means? I've posted numerous sites and conclusions by prominent scientists in the climate field that question the importance of the human impact on climate! I've given you numerous examples of the predominence of natural factors on climate! PDO, El Nino, La Nina; theories on the impact of moisture in our largely ocean covered planet on weather and climate. The influence of solar radiance as a precursor to radiative forcing? Moisture in the atmosphere is by far the biggest driver of climate and weather.
I dont think you get it?
I'm not denying the fact that there are some theories that support Gore. What I have been doing is posting sites and theories that challenge the assumed importance of humans in the natural climate evolution and change on this planet! And I have aattempted to counter the great Goreisms that dooms day conclusions on climate are over! Not to be challenged? The only explanation for the less than 1 degree warming of the last centurty?
I have tried to give you sites that challenge that orthodioxy and as I've just shown you that its Gore who stands to profit rather than the scientists , who you clain only dispute Gore (and Pooey) because they get paid by energy companies to do so?
Here is a blog by a reputable climate scientist that questions the CO2 orthodoxy. http://http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm#preface]Roy W. Spencer: Global Warming and Nature's Thermostat Its long and detailed but makes sense.

[xyzer]

Pooey. As far as you are concerned this apparently sums up the impact of your assumed credentials?

Again, I have never used my personal judgment to overrule a legitimate source. I have never argued against a scientific paper with my own opinion, I did, however, contest your interpretations. This, however, is an entirely different matter.

You've never taken a course in logic! If you had or could reason, you wouldn't pepper you prose with "universal affirmatives and negatives"! e.g. Never, Always?
Nor would you refuse to accept as logical contra argument by using adhominem insults(lie, forgery) and name calling? Thats not a reasoned way to debate?

To read someone say he/she has NEVER argued(questioned) a scientific patper is to take one back to the middle ages and 'flat earth" times. Thats about the level of your thinking? Science is static and we can never disput a theory? Childlike in the extreme?
I think you've given evidence of a rigidity that refuses to accept progress and change. Science like most else in this universe is dynamic. I'm not sure we can ever say that we know everything there is to know about the multitudinous and still mysterious universe we live in? Are you?

If it is to be an issue. What is the "c" in your BSc stand for? My Academic record is a BS(University of Maryland), MS US Naval Post Graduate School, MED University of Arizona. Along the way I took a course in Logic and a couple of courses in statistics plus a ton of pedagogic course for a teaching credential and a school supervision credential.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Pooey. As far as you are concerned this apparently sums up the impact of your assumed credentials? You've never taken a course in logic! If you had or could reason, you wouldn't pepper you prose with "universal affirmatives and negatives"! e.g. Never, Always?

Mr Xyzer, this is irrelevant, please get back on topic. This is just a red herring to draw us from the main points of the debate.

Quote by: xyzer Nor would you refuse to accept as logical contra argument by using adhominem insults(lie, forgery) and name calling? Thats not a reasoned way to debate?

No, it isn't. Yet you continue to use these tactics.

Quote by: xyzer To read someone say he/she has NEVER argued(questioned) a scientific patper is to take one back to the middle ages and 'flat earth" times. Thats about the level of your thinking? Science is static and we can never disput a theory? Childlike in the extreme?

No, read what I said. I said I won't dispute based on my personal opinion, however, that does not mean it can't be contested with other data and papers. Furthermore, you seem to be forgetting that not too long ago, you were complaining that the IPCC and used cautious terms such as "likely" or "most probable", questioning it's certainty. I mentioned to you on multiple occasions that science is never 100% certain, therefore cautious language must be used in conclusions. Therefore, this is a very good case of you being a hypocrite.

Quote by: xyzer I think you've given evidence of a rigidity that refuses to accept progress and change. Science like most else in this universe is dynamic. I'm not sure we can ever say that we know everything there is to know about the multitudinous and still mysterious universe we live in? Are you?

Nope, but I am always open to ideas that have credibility and support. You, on the other hand has a mindset which will not budge a millimetre.

Quote by: xyzer If it is to be an issue. What is the "c" in your BSc stand for? My Academic record is a BS(University of Maryland), MS US Naval Post Graduate School, MED University of Arizona. Along the way I took a course in Logic and a couple of courses in statistics plus a ton of pedagogic course for a teaching credential and a school supervision credential.

BSc stands for Bachelor of Science. This is standard abbreviation in the UK.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Sonare, do you realize how ridiculous this post is?

I can't speak for Sonart but let us analyse how ridiculous your post is.

Quote by: xyzer I've asked you and Pooey "umpteen' times to snswer a simple question. All you do is GENERALIZE, OR give me the names of sites or entities that are involved in climate research and ignore the simple question. e.g. If human carbon energy consumption is the cause of climate warming where is the conclusion that tells us why, the climate has cooled as anthropogenic energy use has pumped more CO2 into the atmosphere? Or to put it another way is it a certainty that humans have caused warming? So certain that we have to change our energy consumption habits?

We've mentioned before that other factors can overwhelm CO2 forcing, this is basic atmospheric science which can't seem to grasp. This has never been in contention and it is known that the 1940s cooling period can explained by mass burning of fossil fuels with sulphates that had negative forcing. But you knew this already because we've told you dozens of times. You're drawing a strawman here (by claiming that we think CO2; a) has a linear relationship with temperature, b) Overwhelms all other factors) and putting words in our mouths because you don't have an argument that holds water.

Quote by: xyzer Your mento Gore says we do?

If you recall, the Stern report, in addition to all known major scientific organisations have made a statement saying that action has to be taken. Who cares about Al Gore? What's your obsession with him? We don't quote him or endorse him...

Quote by: xyzer You say REBUT, do you know what the word means? I've posted numerous sites and conclusions by prominent scientists in the climate field that question the importance of the human impact on climate!

Yeah, rebuttals require evidence, in this case we look to scientific reports. Blogs and Economist's opinions don't count, neither does non-reviewed papers that pretend to be published.

Quote by: xyzer I've given you numerous examples of the predominence of natural factors on climate! PDO, El Nino, La Nina; theories on the impact of moisture in our largely ocean covered planet on weather and climate.

The PDO is something adds and subtracts from the warming, if you would click on here, which I cited a few weeks ago. So the PDO has influenced temperatures for at least the last 50 years (obviously, it happened prior to measurements as well) but during that time, we've seen temperatures rise. So are you now claiming that PDO has caused a net increase in global temperature? If so, please state a source to that claim.

Quote by: xyzer The influence of solar radiance as a precursor to radiative forcing?

Yes, the sun is what effectively keeps the planet warm completely. But do you have evidence that its output change explain all or at least most of the increased warming? If you can, then the debate is finalised.

Quote by: xyzer Moisture in the atmosphere is by far the biggest driver of climate and weather.

Except water vapour is part of the feedback and not the forcing. But we've covered this before, don't you learn anything?

Quote by: xyzer I dont think you get it?

Of course you don't, anything we post that you don't like, you'll instantly develop amnesia or blindness to it. Terrible affliction, I do pity you.

Quote by: xyzer I'm not denying the fact that there are some theories that support Gore. What I have been doing is posting sites and theories that challenge the assumed importance of humans in the natural climate evolution and change on this planet! And I have aattempted to counter the great Goreisms that dooms day conclusions on climate are over! Not to be challenged? The only explanation for the less than 1 degree warming of the last centurty?

Please, there is no religion devoted to Gore, although I am close to thinking you're part of a cult that is... Let's get one thing straight, I've never quoted or endorsed Al Gore and his preachings. Can you find evidence that Sonart has?

Quote by: xyzer I have tried to give you sites that challenge that orthodioxy and as I've just shown you that its Gore who stands to profit rather than the scientists , who you clain only dispute Gore (and