Roger wrote:

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:

So you believe that the greenhouse effect is nonexistant?

Not necessarily; it may be irrelevant, or overstated, or masked by
other mechanisms.

So why call it a myth?

Because it may be irrelevant, or overstated, or masked by other
mechanisms, and yet one is being taxed on it while not looking,
sounding, or walking like the only mechanism in play.

Don't forget the alarmist message that came from the various models
that all predicted a huge rise in 'global warming' due to CO2.

A little scientific investigation revealed that the models had been
'tuned' to give the same answer....exit the modelling as a serious
issue.

If you use much the same assumptions models should predict much the same
results. With the rise in computing power models are becoming ever more
sophisticated but they can only be tested before the event on how
closely they model past behaviour which may not be a good guide to the
future if deviations from the norm are much greater than was the case in
the past, even if the data from the past is sufficiently accurate and
extensive to provide a good model of past events.

Yes, but it was later admitted by one of the modellers that there was
pressure? rivalry? tacit agreement? to make all the models give the
same result. That is basically fraudulent, and makes a mockery of the
techniques and resources used, no matter how clever or sophisticated.

Then there was the Met Office, that claimed on national TV that it had
'proved' the link between 'global warming' and CO2. A search of their
website failed to find a published paper that gave that result. The
Met Office has been very quiet on the issue since then...exit the MetO
as a player.

No proponent of 'global warming' has exer explained why the planet
oscillates between cold and warm states; the best they can do is claim
that human activity is 'partly' to blame and 'might' accellerate
'global warming'.

The crux of the matter is the greenhouse effect. If the effect exists
then mankind is contributing to global warming even if the world is
cooling at the time because mankind is undoubtedly responsible for
discharging huge quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere.

You say that 'The crux of the matter is the greenhouse effect'; do you
have any evidence for that? It may not be 'the crux' at all.

If you look at the Met Office website, you may find a publication
about 'global warming', buried in which is a chart showing the
estimates of 'warming' by a number of effects, including CO2.

The paper admits that CO2 is the most well-understood phenomenon, but
makes little of other mechanisms, one at least of which of which has a
greater potential to affect the climate, but in a cooling rather than
warming effect. There are other cooling effects as well, some with
large estimated error bands as so little has been researched about
them.

The problem is that mechanisms like these are impossible to tax,
cannot be controlled by anything that indiciduals could do, not
subject to 'building control'...and they have been largely ignored,
while money has been pumped into things like fraudulent models for
those mechanisms that are easily taxed.

Look at it this way. The climate is chaotic with numerous natural
variables competing to change it one way or the other. One element is
the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Another (as TNT pointed out) is the
amount of pollution in the atmosphere. The system must be reasonably
stable but only between certain limits.

That's an assumption by you. Do you have any published references to
support it?

Breech those limits and the
system will stabilise at a very different figure. Go too low and you
have an ice age with the large area of ice reinforcing the low
temperature by reflecting straight back into space much more of the suns
energy than was formerly the case. Go the other way and the giant
reflectors disappear and it might take an event more extreme even than
the overdue super volcano eruption in Yellowstone Park to bring back the
ice.

All you are now doing is piling supposition on supposition.

I believe that 17000 scientists work on 'global warming', but the case
for it is made by about a tenth of that number.

If that is the case then 15000 or more of the non supporters have been
incredibly quiet.

Or lack the funding.

Since Al Gore's famous graph of CO2/temperature over the millennia was
shown to be flawed - in that the CO2 levels *lagged* climate change -
the heat has gone out of that debate, and focussed on sunspot activity
instead.

If the greenhouse effect is real, and it has been accepted as fact for
over a century, then whether or not CO2 concentrations tend to lag or
lead is an interesting side issue.

There is a rational explanation for the lag, if it really does exist, in
that some of the extra CO2 is expelled from the sea as sea temperatures
rise and the sea is such a huge heat sink that it lags years behind
atmospheric temperature trends.

Possibly; but if CO2-led 'global warming' is a flaky issue - and I've
touched on some of those above - it might not matter.

The Wikipedia article I refer to in another post claims in effect that
it is only the greenhouse effect that up to now has made the Earth a
reasonably pleasant place to live.

That's peurile, and a supposition.

The blue-green algae that ruled the CO2-rich world before 'life as we
know it' came along were seemingly quite happy too. Who are you to say
that the planet is a 'reasonably pleasant place to live'?

I wish I could find the reference that said the planet had cooled by
0.7 degC in the last 12 months - a rise of that magnitude would have
been trumpeted from high buildings by the supporters of CO2-led
'global warming'; instead of the current deafening silence.

Would one year in isolation matter? But just for the record it does seen
inherently unlikely* given the ice shrinkage in the arctic this summer
and the ice losses in the Antarctic during our preceding winter.

*Unless of course the polar regions have continued to warm while the
tropics have started to cool.

I'm sorry, but if you have nothing to offer, such as published work,
to support your argument, then really you're just making it up as you
go along. All I have quoted came from published sources - you might
like to try researching the literature for yourself, rather than
making usupported comments.

I suggest you do what I did...spend three or four months researching
both sides of the argument. I've reproduced for you some of the
things I found, but frankly your response e.g. to the accusation of
fraudulent modelling didn't even address the issue.

If you have something of substance to say, I'd be pleased to answer
it, but I really am not interested in subjective remarks like 'the
planet is a reasonably pleasant place to live'.