Registered: 1383531388 Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote #51
Recently howls of rage came from the Global Warming Alarmists when Scott Pruitt, the new head of America's Env. Protection Agency, said that he did not think that CO2 is the primary control knob for climate.
In fact Pruitt is quite correct. Carbon dioxide (which represents 3.618% of the Greenhouse gases by volume) is not nearly as effective at trapping heat and releasing it back into the atmosphere as H20 (i.e. water) which represents up to 80% of the greenhouse gases. Of course, the CO2 alarmists claim that increases in CO2 increases temperature which in turn increases the water content which increases temperatures even more. However, this does not occur in reality because the increase in water content produces increase cloud cover which in turn deflects away more sunlight and results in cooling. In other word, nature has its own checks and balances built into the climate system. If that were not the case, the earth would have ended long ago by reason of disaterous climate change. However, I'm sure Notley and her gang won't be putting a tax on water because the oil companies don't make their money off water. After all the whole global warming narrative is about destroying the capitalist economy and a "war on water" won't do that.
Registered: 1383490587 Posts: 78
Reply with quote #52
They should tax the political parties for disgorging all the hot air and advertising.
Registered: 1383531388 Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote #53
For all those Catastrophic Climate Changers who allege that skeptics are non-scientific deniers, here is an articles which deals with the mathematical probability of the Computer Climate models being right.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/columns/2017/03/14/why-are-climate-change-models-flawed-because-climate-science-incomplete/hekwjPBTScRpFyXaXnrWhI/story.html The Article states in part" " The list of variables that shape climate includes cloud formation, topography, altitude, proximity to the equator, plate tectonics, sunspot cycles, volcanic activity, expansion or contraction of sea ice, conversion of land to agriculture, deforestation, reforestation, direction of winds, soil quality, El Niño and La Niña ocean cycles, prevalence of aerosols (airborne soot, dust, and salt) — and, of course, atmospheric greenhouse gases, both natural and manmade. A comprehensive list would run to hundreds, if not thousands, of elements, none of which scientists would claim to understand with absolute precision. But for the sake of argument, say there are merely 15 variables involved in predicting global climate change, and assume that climatologists have mastered each one to a near-perfect accuracy of 95 percent. What are the odds that a climate model built on a system that simple would be reliable? Less than 50/50. (Multiplying .95 by itself 15 times yields 46.3 percent.) Is it any surprise that climate-change predictions in the real world — where the complexities are exponentially greater and the exactitude of knowledge much less — have such a poor track record?" When asked whether CO2 was the "climate control knob" and the head of the U.S. Env. Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt said that was not yet known .... he got it right: As the Boston Globe article states" " Measuring human impacts on climate is indeed “very challenging.” The science is far from settled. That is why calls to radically reduce carbon emissions are so irresponsible — and why dire warnings of what will happen if we don’t are little better than reckless fearmongering."
Registered: 1490913900 Posts: 27
Reply with quote #54
The Earth and Life itself flourishes when C02 levels are high. But that's just science. Silly me.
__________________ Did we miss the Rapture?