Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 7:35pm:



The mechanism of AGW is not known.

That is our point of contention.  I do not know how it works - nor do you. Nor anyone.

That is the point. It is a hope, not a fact by people like you.

Frank wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 7:37pm:


Correct.

It's proof that there's extra CO2 in the atmosphere from human activity.

Nothing more.

Cult members don't understand this.

When that CO2 is shown to be absorbing photons of IR that were heading for space then we have good evidence for the AGW theory. Spectrometry both terrestrial and satellite does show the GHGs absorbing IR.

So the AGW theory holds up very well.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 7:39pm:



If we knew for sure that the only cause of GW was that extra CO2 absorbing IR, yes.

But we don't Nobody does. It is a conjecture made in ignorance of very other conjecture that can be made.


Nobody understand how the climate works.
Therefore nobody can make definitive pronouncements about what makes it go this way or that.

It is an irreproducable, un-replicatable system so you cannot experiment. It is all modeling, guesses and conjectures with a massive dose of political push.

Being for or against AGW is largely a political stance, not an objective, scientific one - simply because there is no apolitical, scientific understanding that can say either way.

AGW is politics, not science.

Frank wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 8:55pm:


As I said before, proof that GHGs cause AGW does not rely on models, just chemistry and spectroscopy.

Yes, I have a good idea.

Frank wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 8:55pm:


OK, Sore End, here is the uhhhhh “politics” of AGW 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

Bobby. wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 11:41am:


I just love this statement by Booby!

Media brainwashing. Yeah, I always quote ACA etc as evidence of AGW  Nah, I quote scientific papers, papers that go right over Booby’s pointy head 

I can’t think for myself, oh boy that is a beauty! Booby can never refute a single critique I make of the ridiculous Dubyne videos he keeps posting here tho nobody views them. The flash frozen fox—no answer when I point out that a river with a very thin layer of ice, that the fox broke through, cannot be cold enough to flash freeze a mosquito let alone a fox! No answer at all. (If the ice was really thick and the river really really cold the fox would not have broken through the ice!) But I can’t think for myself 

There are no credible alternative theories that explain why the globe is heating up.

Not orbital changes. Not the sun being more active—it has been quiescent for like 50 years! So WHAT can be heating the globe? Is there more radioactive fission in the earths mantle? Nope, AGW, radiative forcings, is the only possible theory to explain the warming of the globe.

Ask yourself this: since the AGW theory is likely the explanation for the heating of the globe even with a quiescent sun—what is going to happen when the sun enters, as it will at some stage, its active state?

Also, what Booby can’t bring himself to evaluate and answer: with 40% more CO2 in the atmosphere than at the last LIA—what will a new LIA look like? Come on Booby, you seem to claim, by trying to bag me, that you can think for yourself. So, what will a new LIA, if one miraculously appeared, look like? Would we even notice it apart from readings on instruments?

And Dubyne L I E S, he lies a LOT! He claimed record cold and snow in Europe in April. I checked weather records and agricultural sites. There was no such record cold and snow! A clear lie, just like the “flash frozen” fox, just like the pink lake. Complete crap.