"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 21:36:24 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:


And I question whether you really know what evidence is being
tampered
with. The data and other evidence that's tossed around about
anthropogenic warming is a propagandist's dream. It's too complex,
and
too easy to obscure, for anyone but an expert to unravel.

Actually the atmospheric energy transport mechanisms are rather basic
and simple, relative to some of the other thermodynamics we had to
learn. We student chemists learned about energy transfer in gases
first because it is so much easier to understand there than in liquids
or solids.

Climate is extensively very complex but not so difficult intensively,
at least if you have a good background in physics and chemistry. The
original "climate scientists" were professional astronomers
investigating the atmospheres of Venus and Mars.

One of the labs in college had a large apparatus set up to measure the
properties of suspected greenhouse and ozone depleting gases at the
low concentrations of the upper atmosphere. I spent a summer operating
and analyzing data from an infrared spectrophotometer, so I became
pretty familiar with the process and the quantum mechanical
interpretation of the squiggles on the spectra.

The real problem is collecting sufficient accurate data from places we
don't have continuous easy access to, such as the lower atmosphere
over oceans or the Brazilian rain forest.

"You guys can pluck out some physical phenomenon and debate about
which
way the photons are going, or argue over the methodologies of
measuring temperature, but no one here has any idea how the whole
puzzle fits together."

Those arguments are basic to the dispute over how to collect and
interpret the data. You've only shown how little your own opinions
mean.

--jsw