Re: [OT] The Huff calls B.S.!


"Mickey" <Mickey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:p2gth6ltcf6ii9ehqb621j5oljbk4p94at@xxxxxxxxxx
Carbon <nobrac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Fri, 31 Dec 2010 16:09:17 -0800, Miss Elaine Eos wrote:
....

Damn! If only we'd listened, eh?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/the-2010-climate-bs-of-
th_b_802906.html

Gleick and his fellow climatologists could be correct. You don't know.

Yes, I do. You know how I know? I can read, and I have more than two
brain cells to rub together. I'm also surprisingly resistant to
"appeal to authority" arguments.

All this political crap is irrelevant.

No, it isn't. It's the heart of the matter.

Indeed, the AGW argument fails on many points, but three or four are fundamental:

1) CO2 rise FOLLOWS rather than LEADS temperature increase.

2) CO2 forcing, as a GHG, peaks in the 0-160ppm range. CO2 is a very weak GHG, and adding a lot more doesn't have the consequence the AGW hysterics promise.

3) Solar activity has nearly a perfect correlation to temperature fluctuations, and it's CAUSATION is well demonstrated.

4) AGW theory, as far as predictions goes (models) have failed going forward AND backwards. Alluding to warmer as well as colder temps, dryer as well as wetter climate, etc., indicates a theory that would fail a high school science class.
.