In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 27/03/13 14:55, Jethro_uk wrote:


One phrase I've heard more and more is "if you don't believe it's
happening, you haven't read the evidence" - which has the effect of
giving the person saying it some mantle of authority as well as
discouraging any debate. My retort is simply "if you do believe it, you
haven't understood the evidence."

+1

which tends to work. However every once
in a while you'll get the "well, you can prove anything you want with
facts" hissy fit.


Yep.

My brother in law is a specialist PHD geologist and his speciality is
dating old rocks and so on, and he comes across a lot of evidence about
climatic conditions in the past when the rocks were laid down.. His
attitude is simple' if CO2 was that important, it would have led to
massive climate fluctuations in the past: all the evidence is that CO2
levels increase AFTER the earth has warmed up., not before, and that's
totally consistent with outgassing from warmer oceans etc. If CO2
behaved like they claim it does, we would have tipped into massively
hot conditions and stayed there. But we never did. Instead we got ice
ages...I don't need to look in any more detail than that. Neither do I
need to come up with a different theory. The theory is refuted by the
paleogoligical evidence. End of story'.

I have been searching back up this thread trying to find the message I
wanted to follow up. This one will have to do:-)

Could the dumping of water vapour and hydrocarbon residues in the upper
atmosphere be the missing element from the climate models?

My knowledge on the subject is limited to how little space there is
between my knees and the seat in front but the timescale of me regularly
climbing into an aircraft coincides with your 15 years of negative
feedback.


--
Tim Lamb