• netdr

    Since l gore isn’t capable of debate he has to resort to name calling and Ad Hominem attacks.

    There are so many holes in the consensus view that allowing skeptic to point then out would result in even more loss of belief in CAGW. Bring it on Al !!

  • Andy

    Al Gore makes Victor Lustig look like an amateur. Always a joke when an individual makes a billion then runs a telethon and not a very funny joke … no wonder he would take after Jerry Lewis.

  • bill long

    Everyone needs a religion of some sort

  • Food For Thought
  • I would recommend people to watch the presentation. Warren tries (successfully I believe) to present both sides of the argument. This is something that was totally absent from the 24 hours of Climate Reality.

  • Fighting the Alarmists powerPOINT by powerPOINT. I like.

  • geran

    Great job!

  • Hey Skipper

    Excellent presentation.

    Regarding European climate variation over the last 2000 or so years, it is, ummm, perplexing that Dr. Mann relied upon natural proxies to determine that there has been essentially no change over that period until very recently.

    After all, there is such a thing as recorded history. Not quite halfway through Volume I of Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (starting at location 5037 of the version I downloaded onto my Kindle from the Gutenberg Project), there is a fairly extensive discussion of significant changes in climate as described in historical records dating back to the time of Caesar.

    Since Gibbon published Volume I in 1776, I doubt he had a global warming axe to grind.

  • Nick Nack Tote

    nick nack patty wack give a dog a bone, i want a tote bag pweeeaassse 🙂

  • netdr

    RE: the CO2 experiment featured in the Goreathon.

    Simulated sunlight hitting 2 jars one with CO2 one without.

    Reading about the results others got isn’t as much fun as doing it myself.

    I also know what to believe and what is BS. I am an engineer and am quite good at recognizing BS.

    I did my own version of the 101 experiment.

    I used 1 plastic jar and 1 sunlamp to eliminate the variables in jar thickness and sunlamp brightness. I lined the bottom with paper towels so the thermometer wouldn’t be sampling the jar material temperature. The distance was also measured and repeatable. I didn’t turn the sunlamp off ever. [each trial was 10 minutes]

    The top was open but CO2 is heavier than air and there was no wind.

    CO2 was courtesy of baking soda and water. I have no meter to measure %. But it was close to 100 %.

    I bought an instant read digital meat thermometer [Farberware] accurate to .1 ° F [at least repeatable] . I used only one because different ones differ by .2 ° F or more.

    Between trials I brought the vessel to the same temperature.

    I repeated each trial several times and obtained a baseline.

    Results:
    Baseline:
    Heating was about 39.7 ° F with a range of +or – 1 °
    [the amount of light hitting the thermometer was hard to keep constant.]

    CO2 trials

    Heating was 39.4 ° F with the same error range.

    The results suggest even 100 % CO2 produces no measurable warming.

  • Orson

    Warren-

    You may be interested to be alerted to this news.

    A Canadian with a physical engineering degree claims to found a hole in climate model theories: non-dynamic parameterization. Specifically, after consulting some 20 textbooks on modeling, he says this:

    “My thesis could if necessary be reduced down to three sentences.
    1.  General circulation models are strictly hydrostatic, in that they forbid vertical motion of air (apart from non-prognostic parameterizations).
    2.  Warming by CO2 necessarily involves permanent reshaping of the vertical air column, which cannot be reflected in a strictly hydrostatic model.
    3.  This leads to errors that are large in comparison with the forecast warming.
    That’s it. It’s almost like a compact syllogism. Models are hydrostatic, warming is not, therefore models of warming generate errors.”

    http://declineeffect.com/?p=212

    DOWNLOAD here:
    http://declineeffect.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Pot-Lid-Sep-2011-v1.2.pdf

    FROM Down Under, Warwick Hughes plugs the effort here
    http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=1132

  • ProSkeptic

    Great presentation. Your point about how the Green Movement has lost its way by backing CAGW is one that should be made more often I think. When you see career politicians on the same side as Greenpeace then you have to know something’s up. I think the Greens have been conned by a bunch of vested interests who see CAGW hysteria as a way of increasing their power base and probably enriching themselves and their friends.

  • ProSkeptic
  • netdr

    The case for CAGW is essentially argument from ignorance.

    Essentially we postulate that minute amounts of CO2 will cause warming of the atmosphere. Then we simulate the climate [minus clouds & ocean currents etc]. The climate has warmed slightly more than the models say it should so e ascribe the residual warming to CO2.

    Since there has been no warming for 13 years the models must be tuned to show there would have been substantial cooling during those 13 years which exactly balances the missing warming. How convenient !

    Whenever there is cooling despite increasing CO2 like 1940 to 1978 it is attributed to aerosols. How convenient since the effect and amount of aerosols are unmeasured so it could be anything it needs to be.

  • I have a novel suggestion to resolve the global-warming debate: get all the global warmers to stop exhaling for about ten minutes!