My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Zythryn]

He, unfortunately, provides no references.
However, since the issue of GW really hasn't had much backing until after 2000 or so, I would hardly blame GW as an issue for not building refineries in the late 70s, 80s or 90s.

Hey throws a lot of tasty insults around and commits a whole slew of logical fallacies.

There is one nugget of good information in the email. That is that the entire AGW issue boils down to CO2 and its effects in the climate.
It is amazing that he mentions he has seen numerous studies showing CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, yet he fails to mention them.
He must have had limited space for his email (what... what is that... it is HOW long... oh um never mind then).

I agree that if you can show CO2 does not absorb heat, AGW falls apart. So if this single linchpin could totally wipe out the theory, why hasn't anyone successfully done so?

[Moontanman]

I'm not sure either about the connection with GW and lack of refineries. While it is true that lack of refineries is contributing to gas prices the reason we don't have is they pollute big time, and no one wanted them in their town or area. NIMBY effect. that's why people in southern California can drive across the border and by gas at almost half the current US price. speculators have to shoulder at least part of the blame for high gas prices, OIL is not disappearing right now, the countries that produce it are limiting their production and countries like India and China are buying more this produces a demand greater than supply situation where the prices climb sharply. Simple economics not GW scare.....

[freeztar]

Very good points MTM.

I'd also like to add that building solar arrays and such is a much better long-term solution than building more refineries. The side benefits of this, besides energy independence, is cleaner air and less CO2 being emitted.

[Thunderbird]

While in the US Navy 80's when we would aproach any industrailized contenent long before you sighted land you could tell the direction by simply looking at the horizon. It would be a yellowish brown tint lefting into the sky above. You do not notice the smell unless you have been out to sea for a while.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by freeztar

Very good points MTM.

I'd also like to add that building solar arrays and such is a much better long-term solution than building more refineries. The side benefits of this, besides energy independence, is cleaner air and less CO2 being emitted.

I'm not sure I understand, how building more solar arrays is going to provide more and cheaper gasoline? How will they help me drive to the store or to the beach? Refineries are for gasoline not electricity. I know we need better sources of electricity (see modern nuclear power plants) but this doesn't help people who already own gasoline powered vehicles. Very long term we might go to electric or even hydrogen but I can't buy a new electric car nor can most people.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

I'm not sure I understand, how building more solar arrays is going to provide more and cheaper gasoline? How will they help me drive to the store or to the beach? Refineries are for gasoline not electricity. I know we need better sources of electricity (see modern nuclear power plants) but this doesn't help people who already own gasoline powered vehicles. Very long term we might go to electric or even hydrogen but I can't buy a new electric car nor can most people.

You answered your own question.
That's why I qualified my statement with "long-term". Also, I was speaking in the context of the thread topic. It would be all to easy to drift into a discussion on gas prices (that might make a good thread though ).

[Little Bang]

Moon, that email does illustrate one important aspect of human nature. We sometimes defend what we want the truth to be with rhetoric that excludes the real truth.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Little Bang

Moon, that email does illustrate one important aspect of human nature. We sometimes defend what we want the truth to be with rhetoric that excludes the real truth.

That's an axe that cuts both ways. As no one else has seen fit to bring this bit forward here, I'll do 'er.

...When researchers observe natural changes in clouds and temperature, they have traditionally assumed that the temperature change caused the clouds to change, and not the other way around. To the extent that the cloud changes actually cause temperature change, this can ultimately lead to overestimates of how sensitive Earth's climate is to our greenhouse gas emissions.

This seemingly simple mix-up between cause and effect is the basis of a new paper that will appear in the "Journal of Climate." The paper¹s lead author, Dr. Roy W. Spencer, a principal research scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville, believes the work is the first step in demonstrating why climate models produce too much global warming.
...
While the paper's two peer reviewers, both climate model experts, agreed that the issue is a legitimate one, Spencer knows the new paper will be controversial, with some claiming that the impact of the mix-up between cause and effect will be small. ...

UAHuntsville News

[Zythryn]

Not really the same thing Turtle.
I didn't see any name calling or lack of references there.
It was a well spelled out position with a nice summary of a full paper.
I look forward to the peer reviewed article when it becomes available.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Zythryn

Not really the same thing Turtle.
I didn't see any name calling or lack of references there.
It was a well spelled out position with a nice summary of a full paper.
I look forward to the peer reviewed article when it becomes available.

? Little Bang's quote said nothing about name-calling, and it is his 'axe' I referred to.

Originally Posted by Little Bang

We sometimes defend what we want the truth to be with rhetoric that excludes the real truth.

Also of interest is that Dr. Spencer is a meteorologist, and as a group, meteorologists have expressed skepticism over the methods & conclusions of the climatologists and their models right along the way.

Originally Posted by uah.edu

..."Our paper is an important step toward validating a gut instinct that many meteorologists like myself have had over the years," said Spencer, "that the climate system is dominated by stabilizing processes, rather than destabilizing processes -- that is, negative feedback rather than positive feedback." ...

UAHuntsville News

What do you want the truth to be?