I am very worried by the report of a heavy handed police raid on Tallbloke, a blogger in Norfolk. According to this account, he was raided due to a link to leaked documents posted in a comments thread. We have become far too blase about the rapid erosion of civil liberties in this country. Norfolk is not devoid of serious crimes which these six detectives should be better employed in investigating.
I had not heard of Tallbloke and know nothing beyond the report to which I have linked. His blog discusses climate change at scientific levels well above my understanding, but scarcely seems a subject for the police. I do not share Tallboy’s views – in particular, I think man-made climate change is a fact we are not tackling with nearly sufficient seriousness. But whether or not I agree is irrelevant. What is important is the free speech issue. It is astonishing our media are criticising government handling of protest in Russia, when we have police raidng dissident bloggers in Norfolk which goes unnoticed.
‘As George Monbiot put it:
When a non-scientist attempts to dispute the findings of an entire body of science, a good deal of humility and a great deal of research is required.’
Monbiot’s specialism was zoology; that makes him as much of an authority on the processes governing the earth’s atmosphere as the noted AGW sceptic, David Bellamy, a botanist.
‘I had no idea you were an authority on the matter – could you refer to some papers you’ve published?’
Playing the straw man there, Glenn. AFAIK Scouse Billy isn’t claiming to be an ‘authority’, but as a competent statistician he has spotted (as have others) innumerable instances of statistical sleight of hand by the Warmist lobby. He is also quite right to state that the current ‘consensus’ in the ‘peer reviewed literature’ does NOT translate into the statement ‘the science is settled’. Twenty years ago the ‘consensus’ within paleoanthropology was that interbreeding between homo sapiens and other hominid species occurred rarely, and where it did there was a strong likelihood that any offspring would probably be ‘unviable’ ie infertile, as in the case of mules. DNA evidence has since demonstrated that all human populations other than black Africans possess ancestral material in their genes inherited from archaic hominids, thereby debunking the ‘consensus’ from two decades ago.
The police harassment of the blogger Tallbloke, coupled with the climategate revelations and the generous funding of ‘climate science’ (dwarfing that provided to the ‘denialists’ by ‘big oil’) should make all of us worried about the way dissenting views are treated by the PTB.
Glenn says:
It’s quite incredible to me that you “sceptics” are willing to toss aside the vast consensus of peer reviewed science in favour of some damned-fool conspiracy nonsense, bolstered by some weak anecdotes and the waving away of clear evidence…
Christ, I’d rather not believe that climate change is real either! But… What about the precautionary principle?…
______________________________________________________
Glenn, I used to think like you, and use similar arguments, taken from similar sources. Then I became aware that there were problems in the evidence I had, and suddenly I found that I really had only been given one side of the picture. I discovered that the many, many points on which climate skeptics were supposedly wrong, did have answers, every single one, and I discovered that in every case the science was better, plus the levels of truth, openness and courtesy were higher.
It was devastating to realize what a concerted suppression of evidence had been happening. It took me 6 weeks 24/7 to research enough to be sure; I then wrote it all up to help others understand. Click my name.
Oldmark: I’m sure you give Bellamy a heck of a lot more time than Monbiot, but you didn’t actually refute a single point quoted by him. Bellamy, you’ll remember, also touted himself as a big environmentalist, but that didn’t stop him advertising bleach. And all that has nothing at all to do with Monbiot’s statement:
.
“When a non-scientist attempts to dispute the findings of an entire body of science, a good deal of humility and a great deal of research is required.”
.
What has a person’s study, in any discipline, have to do with disputing that sentence? And you’re accusing me of using a straw man – looks like you’ve used one here to explain away a point, rather than argue it.
.
Actually, SB did claim expertise, and in doing so he appeals to his own authority:
.
—quote SB / 16 Dec, 2011 – 7:01 pm
“Unlike Glenn, I do have the wherewithall to understand the physics and the statistical techniques misapplied by the climate scientists…”
—-end quote SB
.
You think that’s my introducing a straw man? Talking of straw men, the only reference to “the science is settled” on this thread is by yourself, when you argue against such a declaration. After a bit of an internal discussion, you seem to declare nothing is determinable because science has, after all, made incorrect conclusions along the way. That is, you should note, the nature of science. Science updates working theories so that they best fit observed phenomenon. Do you have suggestions that might improve this approach?
.
If the PTB really have come down on this Tallbloke, as you suggest, because he’s disseminating the truth (that – gasp! – Global Climate Change is all a hoax!), then the PTB really are working their way from the bottom -up-. Like virtually everybody else, I’d never heard of Tallbloke before this. The chances of his feeble contributions to the climate denial lobby seriously worrying the PTB are difficult to take seriously. Why not just go after the denial lobby funders, instead of their useful idiots, which this guy is – at best? After all, aren’t you concerned, having stuck your neck out supporting this /cough/ crusader for truth?
Lucy Skywalker: You were only given one side of the picture? Seriously? What sort of censorship regime did you live under, where you only were subjected to pro-climate change propaganda? Surely not the country I live in (the UK), where most people seem to want to either ignore it, or refute it. Or the US, where more people now reject the notion of GCC than accept it.
.
It was devastating for you to find out the “truth”, eh. Sure. How many people have died in this fake war of climate change, again? How many stand to die, should those liars win, and in victory erect an army of wind-farms, solar energy collectors and so on? I think it was Socrates that said, “All wars are fought for money”. The money is on the side of the fossil- fuel lobby in this case. I’d be “devastated” to be conned into a war of lies which cost the lives of millions, you seem “devastated” much more readily. Even if it was a con, and just put money into solar panels/ wind turbines, instead of into the pockets of filthy middle-eastern dictators, I don’t think I’d call myself “devastated”.
.
But then, I wouldn’t call myself a useful idiot either.
.
The science linking C02 to AGW is as settled as the science that links HIV to AIDS and smoking to lung cancer. AGW denialists/conspiracy theorists are the contemporary equivalents of flat-earther’s and creationists…I just laugh at them.
This heated row over global warming is really rather sad. Some 25% of the world’s population are currently consuming about 75% of all fossil fuel extracted globally, so fossil fuel consumption would have to double or triple just to achieve global equality. If it wasn’t CO2 emissions that proved to be the limit it would be something else, like water supply. It’s a finite planet. Until Humanity learn to exploit the rest of the solar system, we need to get used to limits.
‘The money is on the side of the fossil- fuel lobby in this case.’
Really ?-
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB40001424052748703939404574566124250205490.html?mod=WSJ_article_comments#articleTabs%3Darticle
Clark- I agree that our addiction to fossil fuels is ultimately unsustainable, and that ‘green’ measures to reduce consumption are desirable. However the panoply of additional measures urged upon us by the Warmist lobby- windmill subsidies, ‘carbon credits’ , cap ‘n’ trade, aren’t desirable or, at a global level, implementable. Hence the decision to kick the can down the road at last week’s climate conference.
OldMark, the specific pattern by which the crisis develops doesn’t really matter; commercial “innovators” will find ways to turn it into an “opportunity” to make a (short-term) profit. Of course there’s loads of Greenwash being produced; there would be whether AGW was true, false, or hoax.
.
Do less, do it slower. Work less, spend less, spend more time chillin’, thinking, working things out in advance, learning from mistakes, spontaneously creating, community communication and cooperation – these all align with responsible energy use, and are opposed to the manic competition style of commerce characteristic of modern corporatism.
“The science linking C02 to AGW is as settled as the science that links HIV to AIDS and smoking to lung cancer. AGW denialists/conspiracy theorists are the contemporary equivalents of flat-earther’s and creationists…I just laugh at them.”
.
Oh great, let’s expand this ridiculous argument to include AIDS and lung cancer.
.
And what is the point of stating that the science linking CO2 to AGW is settled?
.
No climate scientist that I am aware of claims that CO2 is without an effect on the climate. The argument is about the magnitude of the CO2 effect and about other factors such as sulfates from coal burning that cool the atmosphere, and soot particles that warm the atmosphere, and feedbacks the magnitude of which can, it seems, only be assessed by models(which by the admission of important climate scientists are not working well) or from empirical measurements, i.e., of whether the climate is actually warming, which apparently it is not right now.
.
Everybody can have an opinion. But if you are going to assert that TallBloke is a denier of man-made climate change (a bizarrely silly thing to deny, incidentally in view of the butterfly effect) then you should either provide some evidence, which Craig Murray has not done, or you should have the decency to admit, when it is pointed out to you, that you are talking bollocks.
.
Instead, Craig Murray calls those who question his magisterial assertion fools, which leads to a certain rather obvious conclusion.
Qark Re: ‘No climate scientist that I am aware of claims that CO2 is without an effect on the climate. The argument is about the magnitude of the CO2 effect and…..’
.
Wrong actually, the magnitude of the Co2 effect is entirely calculable and is not in dispute. If you type in ‘climate sensitivity’ and go to the Wiki page and look under ‘essentials’ you will find :-
.
‘CO2 climate sensitivity has a component directly due to radiative forcing by CO2 (or any other change in Earth’s radiative balance), and a further contribution arising from feedbacks, positive and negative. “Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1 °C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed. The remaining uncertainty is due entirely to feedbacks in the system, namely, the water vapor feedback, the ice-albedo feedback, the cloud feedback, and the lapse rate feedback”;[8] addition of these feedbacks leads to a value of approximately 3 °C ± 1.5 °C.’
.
Sorry about the lack of a link but every post that I have sent to this site recently which contains a link simply disappears into the aether, attempts to repost just result in a message from wordpress telling me that I have already said that.
.
In the unlikely event that anyone is interested, my earlier contention that the Sun had a markedly lower output in the Earth’s distant past then go to the Wiki entry headed main-sequence and then look under the heading luminosity-colour variation and you will find :-
.
‘As non-fusing helium ash accumulates in the core of a main-sequence star, the reduction in the abundance of hydrogen per unit mass results in a gradual lowering of the fusion rate within that mass. To compensate, the core temperature and pressure slowly increase, which causes a net increase in the overall fusion rate (to support the greater density of the inner star). This produces a steady increase in the luminosity and radius of the star over time.[16] Thus, for example, the luminosity of the early Sun was only about 70% of its current value.’
.
Please also note that I understated the case, my astronomy is evidently out of date. Also note that I can make points using entirely mainstream sources and do not have to go to ‘special’ literature, as is the case with creationists and greenhouse effect deniers. I can also make points in plain English and do not have to throw in intimidating sounding jargon to make myself sound clever, I leave that sort of thing to know-nothing pseudo-intellectuals. If you can’t explain it in plain English, then you don’t understand it yourself.
anno
16 Dec, 2011 – 8:57 am
anno! This is a science blog, PLEASE do not speak of religion in it.
But moreover, why don’t you take your hatred of the western world and f**k off to Islam.
Why is it that non-climate scientists feel as though they are in an authoratitive enough position to be able to confidently dispute an entire body of science represented by the scientific consensus on this issue?
The truth is, they are no more qualified to do so, anymore than 9-11 “truthers” are able to confidentally comment on the structural properties of steel. But that doesn’t stop them.
It boils down to who one trusts. There are two choices to be made here. Does one believe in the consensus represented by 97-100 per cent of climate science, or the up to 3 per cent minority?
Believing in the latter is by definition an irrational position to take because it implies a massive conspiracy and cover-up on behalf of the former. There is no other conclusion to adopt.
The reality is the science is settled on AGW.
dickous said;
anno! This is a science blog, PLEASE do not speak of religion in it.
But moreover, why don’t you take your hatred of the western world and f**k off to Islam.
,
Which way would that place be at then? (Darwinism obviously is a crock of shit judging by this specimen.) BTW dickous, Anno is your worst nightmare, he is more white than you probably, so don’t tell him to love his bit of the West they way you do yours, in a sort of perverted fashion.
,
PS Science rofl that is really funny though.
There’s no need to repeat yourself Daniel. We understand your position, which is identical with that of 100% of genuine climate scientists and anyone who disagrees with you is nutter and a conspiracy theorist.
.
But you might as well save your breath. Since you refuse to consider any position but your own, who’s going to debate you?
.
MarkU, when I say that the argument is about the magnitude of the effect of CO2, I am talking about the net effect after all feedback effects, i.e., the argument about sensitivity. And that uncertainty is large and and is central to the debate among climate scientists about anthropogenic climate change.
.
But what prompted this discussion was Craig Murray’s contention that TallBloke denies man-made climate change, a ridiculous claim for which Murray has offered no evidence, and for which he should apologize.
.
Climategate, in which TallBloke has played a, so far as we know, minor role, is all to do with whether scientists in whom Daniel has total trust, are in fact, trustworthy. It is also to do with whether they are in total agreement as Daniel implausibly asserts.
Daniel,
Firstly there are no none-scientists, any one can make any kind of observation, and based on training and education proceed to adduce, and ascertain postulations and theories (the veracity and accuracy depends on the methodologies of research, and on peer review).
,
Belief has little to do with facts and theories. However, to find a bums rush to prove “climate Change” (aside from the fact that climate is always changing) with a huge push for wind mills (turbines) which were abandoned a long time ago, and or some other wacky notion of power generation, that is always going wanting, all the while pushing the anthropogenic sources of warming, which means it is the human’s fault to clutter the place up and destroy the planet and all that shit.
,
The same bunch of crooks’ solution is then found in higher charges for energy, ie deprive people from heat, food, and movement, as well as “peak oil” which is any minute now oil is to finish, and best go and kill all those brown skinned folk sitting on their lands because there is oil under those lands. Further, while we are at it that is a good starting point for culling more human beings because the fuckwits in charge are losing their grip on their power.
,
Fact is the power constructs are designed to operate in this fashion. In the past Earth was undoubtedly flat, and anyone who thought it was round was a heretic and was burned to teach the other bastards not to commit the mistake of thinking for themselves and even worst think independently.
,
The fact that so far none of the bastards in the “climate change lobby” have even started to measure the solar wind, and magnetic storms, just proves the gravy train of the “climate change” lobby. How come the ocean tides are not the fault of the drivers causing the Earth to wobble has not been forwarded yet? BTW how do ocean tides come about? (just go find the answer and see how independent life on Earth is)
OK, AGW-Sceptics, do you advocate that us in the developed countries (US, EU etc) halve our fossil fuel consumption so that poorer countries can burn that which we save? Or do you advocate attempting to double or triple fossil fuel extraction? Or should energy inequality be advocated as a policy?
OK, AGW-Sceptics, do you advocate that us in the developed countries (US, EU etc) halve our fossil fuel consumption so that poorer countries can burn that which we save? Or do you advocate attempting to double or triple fossil fuel extraction? Or should energy inequality be advocated as a policy?
,
Well at least the pretence is put aside, no longer saving the planet, for the poor little cuddly polar bears is being pushed. However can we get to drive our cars a little bit longer, and keep up the standards of life we are used to is designed for concentrating the minds of the climate change skeptics.
,
What a loaded and silly questions? Further referencing the debate to field of bollocksology as a solution is not a nice trick either.
,
Fossil fuels belong to the fossil sciences, ie Hydrocarbons are not “fossil fuels”, therefore the secondary notions of this fuel running out by linking it to the dinosaurs are bollocks too. Nice try but an epic fail.
,
Further so far as energy production goes, there are liquid, gaseous and solid hydrocarbons, as well as the Nuclear energy production methods. If it is good enough for the Martian rovers to run by nuclear batteries for years on end, then cars and trucks can run on these batteries too. That is in addition to nuclear power reactor generated power charging the said nuclear battries.
,
However as we know the solid hydrocarbons are too filthy and destroy the ozone, and fill the stratosphere with carbon mono/di/umpteenoxide and cause men’s willies to drop off too. Also the nuclear is Hiroshima, and Fukushima put together, and what about Saddam’s nuclear bombs, that can be blown up in forty five minutes over here, less said about a dirty bomb (what have bombs that do not carry washing instruction tags to do with the farm yard eggs, but hey, fearmongers know no bounds).
,
Though never has there been a serious debate about fluid bed furnaces, or clean exhaust systems incorporation into the most furnaces. Whilst Blair the war criminal authorised the purchase of oodles of wind mills (one of his sponsors owned a factory building these, and paid £1200,000 roughly about £1200 sales commission for each, as party funding). Tony the war criminal also talked about grand schemes of capturing and pumping the carbon into the Earth, but he never even hinted at the carbon dioxide content of every bottle of Coke and Pepsi (shades of Dr. Strangelove, and the coke machine scene) how is it manufactured? Or what happens after every bottle has been opened?
,
However, energy production and or saving the planet and civilisation are really side issues, when the matters of palming off the massive numbers of willy nilly printed fiat dollars comes to forth. As well as capture and retention of hard earned cash of we the people for reasons of keeping up the tax revenues for the “developed” world at the levels that keep an army of humongous size equipped with the most expensive kit available, as well as black ops, and the expenses of the oligarchs charge hands masquerading as the elected leadership in cahrge, and their henchmen for rousting the punters/consumers. These factors can easily be explained away through the notions of oil running out any minute now, bears have ran out of ice, and of course for these not to happen we need to keep the oil barons really rich (limit explorations, monopolies can do this sort of monopolisation) and keep on raking in the tax revenues too. This also means to keep any kind of credible energy production out of the arena of everyday use, which is explained away by Saddam’s nukes coming our way in 45 minutes.
,
Suppose best we go and start another war then; to keep the planet green and save on paying for oil too.
So fed-up, the science is wrong and you are right? That is the “logic” of your position.
Hey Fedup… kind of hard to read your post above (19 Dec, 2011 – 1:41 am) and take it seriously. Clark’s question is straightforward and honest, and a good point of discussion. Should we decide the vast consensus of climate change science is all just hooey, and tell the third world, fire up those engines, boys! Just burn fossil fuels every last way you can think of using it. Let’s hope we come up with new forms of energy in a couple of decades, because peak oil is already passed, so it’s going to be more expensive and environmentally destructive to extract oil from now on.
.
It’s all lies, right? Peak oil will never be reached – reserves are infinite. There is no danger to the global climate. Just be a Good Consumer, which happily coincides with the interests of the fossil fuel and climate change denial industry. Move along, sheeple, nothing to see here.
Fedup, I think even the proponents of abiotic oil would tell you that you can’t double or triple production.
.
Yes, there are some promising technologies, but technological development is like a multi-stage rocket; the next generation has to be launched by the existing technology. Humanity are squandering the hydrocarbons. Will there be enough left to build the replacement? If we’re forced to reduce energy production, it’s better to plan for it than to be at the mercy of circumstances.
.
Hey, I’m not worried about “saving the planet”:
.
http://qntm.org/destroy
.
Glenn, these are worth a look:
.
http://energyfromthorium.com/essay3rs/
Btw, Daniel – much as I’ve enjoyed reading your contributions to this thread, I ought to mention that the blog’s host has requested that ix/xi discussions be kept to a minimum. That’s why I’ve thought it best not to mention that that your conflating GCC denial with sceptics of the approved understanding of ix/xi is a bit underhand, to say the least.
One thing we now know about you, Clark, is that you’re an enemy of the market economy.
.
Your first question, for example, assumes that if carbon emissions are to be restricted it must be on the basis of some kind of rationing that would place all the restraint on the developed world.
.
A market solution, obviously, would apply restrictions generally, e.g., through carbon taxes, either universally applied, or applied nationally with countervailing duties on exports from countries without a carbon tax. That way Asian billionaires would experience the same penalty for carbon emissions as poor people in England. That does not seem too unfair.
.
Your second question assumes that oil production is determined by some kind of bureaucratic decision, whereas under a market system it is determined by supply and demand through a price mechanism. Under such a system future production is unpredictable. It might rise, but then it might fall as natural gas, a much cheaper fuel, replaces oil in most applications.
.
Your third question seems like the advocacy of outright communism, where everyone gets so many pounds of beans, sugar, flour and oil per month? Any market solution, you imply, constitutes a deliberate policy of inequality. That’s not how most people view things.
.
There are many ways of responding rationally to concerns about the environment without abandoning the free society and relatively unfettered markets.
Qark, my questions assume that CO2 emissions are limited because hydrocarbon extraction rate is limited. This is a dynamic problem; you don’t get hydrocarbons quicker just by drilling/mining into new reserves, like putting more land to fields: your older wells/mines keep running out. You have to find, secure and exploit new stuff faster than the older sources are disappearing, or the production rate declines.
.
How it gets distributed – global dictatorship, market economy, taxes and subsidies, whatever – is not a matter that I considered, beyond the desirability of equalising things. As things stand, us rich bastards don’t need to worry, because those countries that would like to develop can’t afford nearly as much fuel (or other peaking resource) as we can, so we’re well set to remain dominant. Is that what you mean by a “market solution”?
Qark, FYI I’m not opposed to markets and trade. Most of the time they’re fine. When they aren’t, there’s government and law (if they aren’t corrupt). I don’t see anything wrong with communism either, so long as it’s voluntary.
Thanks for bringing some sense back to this debate, Clark, this pre occupation with the ever increasing CO2 cushion is easily explained by the inmactions of the western leaders who are pushed into climate conference rooms by vested interests.
What should be closely watched are the signs that will guarantee a runaway process of athmospheric gases which will impede live for those who like their oxygen to come just in the right proportions, I’m speaking of methane. It is a fact that the release of methane hydrates has exponentually to the increase in surface temperature which leads me, a science sceptic, to beleieve that there is a corrolation. Methane bubbling up from thousands of underwater hydrates are being released, equally the slow thaw of the tundra has created a lake scape which is releasing these gases at a much increased rate.
methane takes longer to reach the upper athmosphere, but is also takes 7 times as long to disperse, if there is something to disperse/adhere to, than CO2. The two together is one unholy mix. Whilst we can do something to reduce the CO2 emissions, our dithering has brought us to the poinht that we cannot control or alleviate methane emissions.
I only wrote this to change the CO2 music and to appear on Glenns counter. Could say quiet a bit about the slowing process of the thermo haline processes in our marine layers, as important to the warming/cooling process as the release of CO2. I agree with the statement that we do as yet need to have more information on what will extinct us, but to dither when the signs are showing that our climate is becoming more chaotic, due to these processes, would be utter futility. That said, I would not cry a minute if the most rapacious of all species disappears from this planet, it will make no difference to the process, I fear, as the endgame is a red giant which will swallow us whole.
Miskolczi’s Law and Constant yet to be disproven
.
(A good synopsis with references – and, yes, Miskolczi is published and peer-reviewed in spite of NASA’s attempts to silence him)
.
Dr. Miskolczi first published his work in the Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Services in 2004, Volume 108, No 4. He published further statistical proof in the same Journal in 2007, Volume 111, No. 1. In the 5 years since he first published his results, not one peer review has come back disproving his theory, or his Constant. To date, not one scientist has come forward to disprove Miskolczi’s theory that the Earth’s climate is at equilibrium, and that Carbon Dioxide cannot be released in amounts great enough to upset that equilibrium.
.
http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights-in-portland/hungarian-physicist-dr-ferenc-miskolczi-proves-co2-emissions-irrelevant-earth-s-climate
Scouse Billy
I followed your link and guess what, its an ultra right-wing nut-job publication, where you can also read about:-
.
“Why GOP voters should reject Ron Paul’s dangerous and offensive foreign policy” let me give you an excerpt “Paul never speaks of America as a “shining city upon a hill,” as Reagan did. Instead, he starts with a false premise – that the United States is a warmongering imperial power bent on conquest for fun and profit.”
Jesus Willie, do you actually read this sort of publication? or did you just come across it in your seemingly endless search for any superficially impressive sounding shit thats telling you what you want to hear? Is that your only method of evaluating information? if it’s what you want to hear then critical faculties are turned totally off, its automatically laudable and must be true.
OK, it wouldn’t be fair not to address the actual article would it. let me ask you a question. If someone from the other side came up with an equivalent sort of article from an appropriately obscure source (some Bulgarian journal, say) that had not yet been addressed by deniers, just how impressed would you be? Not very I would suggest.
MarkU – “OK, it wouldn’t be fair not to address the actual article would it.”
.
So, why didn’t you? Perhaps that’s your lack of scientific literacy…
.
The article merely explains in terms that the lay person may understand what Miskolczi states in the scientific journal cited. As to where this author wrote the piece – I agree it is a shame that the corporate media choose not to inform us of Miskolczi’s work but that is another issue and is immaterial to its veracity.
.
His latest work is published in Energy and Environment.
.
(Reprinted here):
.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/E&E_21_4_2010_08-miskolczi.pdf
,
P.S. When people who don’t understand something refer to it as “superficially impressive sounding shit”, I think that tells us something about them. Probably better to remain silent or better still make it your business to fill in the gaps in your knowledge/understanding of the world.
Scouse Billie
I have never claimed to be particularly knowledgeable or interested in the field of statistics, my area of expertise is the natural sciences, which is where I came in. What prompted my intervention on this thread was your trumpeting of the fact that the greenhouse effect was greater in the earths distant past, clearly implying that this was somehow inexplicable according to orthodox climatological science. As I have already pointed out, the sun’s output was markedly lower at that time which is why the planet didn’t fry. I also remarked that the failure to mention this rather pertinent fact is evidence of either ignorance or deliberate dishonesty. In your case ignorance seemed the most charitable assumption, in the case of people who should know better, such as the odious Ian Plimer, dishonesty is the only likely explanation. Tell me, if the greenhouse effect deniers are on the side of the angels, why the lies? I included in my post of 6.14 above an excerpt from the wiki article on main-sequence stars.
Additionally if you are really ignorant enough to require confirmation from GCSE physics to the effect that the solubility of gases in water decreases with increasing temperature, just type in ‘solubility of gases’ into google and you will find a huge number of sites which will tell you what you need to know.
“your trumpeting of the fact that the greenhouse effect was greater in the earths distant past”
.
You misread/misunderstood what I said, which was that CO2 has been many times greater in the past but the Earth did NOT fry.
.
I am stating the exact opposite of your “interpretation” of my statement.