Quote from drjekyllus:
You made the claim. The burden of proof is on you.
You seem to know, but your heroes at CRU don't seem to know.
On Oct 14, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
" Hi Tom
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where
energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not
close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is
happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as
we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
Kevin"
All you have to do is to read the thread of emails to understand to what they were referring (and no the "lack of warming" does not refer to a lack of anthropogenic climate change, or overall warming, as you will certainly misunderstand it):
Tom Wigley wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the recent
>> lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to look at
>> the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic trend
>> relative to the pdf for unforced variability. The second is to remove
>> ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the observed data.
>>
>> Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The second
>> method leaves a significant warming over the past decade.
>>
>> These sums complement Kevin's energy work.
>>
>> Kevin says ... "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of
>> warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't". I do not
>> agree with this.
>>
>> Tom.
So the fraudsters at CRU don't even claim to know
Yes, they do. You misunderstood that since they do not understand everything they understand nothing. Naturally that made no sense.
, but BigDaveDiode, a failed trader posting on an internet forum from his mom's basement knows.
Hey, my Mom's basement is very attractive!
I have posters up and everything!
1. So your computer was manufactured with zero CO2 emissions. There were also no emissions to get it from the factory to your home. Interesting.
Look, you're leaving the rails of rational thought again. Recognizing a scientific truth doesn't bind anyone to a particular course of action (or inaction.)
2. If the science is correct, then there really is only one way to solve the problem. The solution does not include adding more CO2 to the environment which your are doing.
No, there are almost always multiple methods of solving a problem. Conservation is one approach (and a perfectly valid approach) but you're telling me that you can't even think of even a single other approach?
3. It has nothing to do with whether the are argument is correct or not. It has to do with being a hypocrite.
Whether I'm a hypocrite or not has no impact on the truth or falsehood of any argument, fact, or evidence.
4. ????? I have no idea what to even make of this.
No doubt.
Neither you, nor dcraig can make any argument for MMGW that even comes close to being considered scientific proof. Once again Dave, making the the argument that it got warmer so MMGW is a valid theory is absolute rubbish.
So you don't believe that there's proof that CO2 molecules absorb infra-red energy in a dual manner?
Because there is.
