On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 6:26:15 AM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:

If they'll even lie about their names, what makes you think that their
"data" isn't a lie, too?

These are weird people.



Are you posting about all the people that post here that lie about their names?

Dan

On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 04:06:53 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 6:26:15 AM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:

If they'll even lie about their names, what makes you think that their
"data" isn't a lie, too?

These are weird people.



Are you posting about all the people that post here that lie about their names?

Dan

I'm posting about people who would submit an article to a scientific
journal under phony names.

That's weird.

--
Ed Huntress

On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 8:39:38 AM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:


I'm posting about people who would submit an article to a scientific
journal under phony names.

That's weird.

--
Ed Huntress

I guess you were too anxious to label them weird to read the whole post.

Dan

On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 06:14:58 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 8:39:38 AM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:


I'm posting about people who would submit an article to a scientific
journal under phony names.

That's weird.

--
Ed Huntress

I guess you were too anxious to label them weird to read the whole post.

What makes you say that? Did you find it convincing?

It looks like baloney to me:

1) The "sealed glass-box" idea has nothing to do with the modern
greenhouse effect. That's a process explained by quantum mechanics,
not by wavelength selection through partially transparent materials.
Even mentioning it as an analogue to the modern theory is evidence
that one doesn't know what one is talking about.

2) Nikolov and Zeller had to fake the atmospheric pressure of Mars in
order to fit their model to it.

3) Even if the theory was correct at one level, it would describe a
*static* situation. Warming is a *dynamic* situation. Any warming
caused by pressure would quickly be emitted to space by IR radiation,
and there is no forcing mechanism in N&Z's model to replace the lost
heat. Any high school physics student should recognize this right
away. Roy W. Spencer, a Ph. D. physicist, made a very kind and polite
explanation of this, and why N&Z's model is not physically possible.

You'll note that practically the only repitition of the paper is being
made by hard-case climate deniers.

--
Ed Huntress

On 7/10/2017 6:39 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
I'm posting about people who would submit an article


http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...d-study-finds/

Much of recent global warming has been fabricated by climate scientists
to make it look more frightening, a study has found.

The peer-reviewed study by two scientists and a veteran statistician
looked at the global average temperature datasets (GAST) which are used
by climate alarmists to argue that recent years have been €œthe hottest
evah€� and that the warming of the last 120 years has been dramatic and
unprecedented.

What they found is that these readings are €œtotally inconsistent with
published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.€�

That is, the adjusted data used by alarmist organizations like NASA,
NOAA, and the UK Met Office differs so markedly from the original raw
data that it cannot be trusted.

On 7/10/2017 8:11 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
It looks like baloney to me:

Grow a brain, Crazy Eddy.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/...ge/1023334.stm

By Professor William M Gray of Colorado State University

As a boy, I remember seeing articles about the large global warming that
had taken place between 1900 and 1945. No one understood or knew if this
warming would continue. Then the warming abated and I heard little about
such warming through the late 1940s and into the 1970s.

In fact, surface measurements showed a small global cooling between the
mid-1940s and the early 1970s. During the 1970s, there was speculation
concerning an increase in this cooling. Some speculated that a new ice
age may not be far off.

Then in the 1980s, it all changed again. The current global warming
bandwagon that US-European governments have been alarming us with is
still in full swing.

Not our fault

Are we, the fossil-fuel-burning public, partially responsible for this
recent warming trend? Almost assuredly not.

These small global temperature increases of the last 25 years and over
the last century are likely natural changes that the globe has seen many
times in the past.


Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes

William M. Gray
Colorado State University
This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in
global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations.
Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood.

Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature
changes. We are not that influential.

There is a negative or complementary nature to human-induced greenhouse
gas increases in comparison with the dominant natural greenhouse gas of
water vapour and its cloud derivatives.

It has been assumed by the human-induced global warming advocates that
as anthropogenic greenhouse gases increase that water vapour and
upper-level cloudiness will also rise and lead to accelerated warming -
a positive feedback loop.

It is not the human-induced greenhouse gases themselves which cause
significant warming but the assumed extra water vapour and cloudiness
that some scientists hypothesise.

Negative feedback

The global general circulation models which simulate significant amounts
of human-induced warming are incorrectly structured to give this
positive feedback loop.

Their internal model assumptions are thus not realistic.

Carbon dioxide BBC
Mainstream opinion believes that pollution contributes to climate change
As human-induced greenhouse gases rise, global-averaged upper-level
atmospheric water vapour and thin cirrus should be expected to decrease
not increase.

Water vapour and cirrus cloudiness should be thought of as a negative
rather than a positive feedback to human-induced - or anthropogenic
greenhouse gas increases.

No significant human-induced greenhouse gas warming can occur with such
a negative feedback loop.

Climate debate has 'life of its own'

Our global climate's temperature has always fluctuated back and forth
and it will continue to do so, irrespective of how much or how little
greenhouse gases we put into the atmosphere.

Although initially generated by honest scientific questions of how
human-produced greenhouse gases might affect global climate, this topic
has now taken on a life of its own.

It has been extended and grossly exaggerated and misused by those
wishing to make gain from the exploitation of ignorance on this subject.

This includes the governments of developed countries, the media and
scientists who are willing to bend their objectivity to obtain
government grants for research on this topic.

I have closely followed the carbon dioxide warming arguments. From what
I have learned of how the atmosphere ticks over 40 years of study, I
have been unable to convince myself that a doubling of human-induced
greenhouse gases can lead to anything but quite small and insignificant
amounts of global warming.