TWilliam wrote: xironman wrote:
He is pretty well debunked here
So you're both on record with that, right? You cite to a blog?
And who writes that blog?
"Tim Lambert (deltoidblog AT gmail.com) is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales."
Perfect example of unscientific approach of the GW guys.
Here's the interaction:
Anti GW guy says - GW models predict that there should be a hot spot.
Pro GW guy says - "The left [image] shows the pattern predicted for doubling CO2, while the right one shows the pattern for a 2% increase in solar output."
So Pro-GW guy doesn't actually come out and say, "we've found a hot spot." He goes into some distraction about stratospheric cooling. But then, realizing it's weak and he doesn't have the goods, he adds,
"If the hot spot <b>really is missing</b> it does not prove that CO2 is not causing warming, but it would indicate something wrong with the models. (Which might mean that things are worse than what the models predict.)"
Now that, boys, says it all. And I'd like to thank all of you for making it so easy for me to make a good living without working too hard.
1. The guy says, "if the hot spot is really missing"!! He's not even sure! This is a flat out admission that he's unsure.
2. Instead of saying the scientifically accurate thing, giving the missing hot spot, he says, "the model must be wrong", and, in perfect, typical GW hysteria, throws in, "things might be worse!".
This is laugh out loud funny.
The GW cite to a blog entry by a guy who is not, by their own litmus, qualified to comment, and the guy's blog entry is a bloody mess.
What the guy should have said, were he honest, is - - - "there is no hot spot, and that is evidence that tends to make anthropomorphic GW less likely, but there is a chance that the models are incorrect, which needs further study."
Mr. Hysteria makes clear he is clueless, then throws in "maybe things are even worse!".
There are 3 types of people reading this thread.
If you are type 3, which means you are unsure about whether GW is caused by humans in whole or any part, they I strongly encourage you to read the OP's citation and that author's suggestion that a missing hot spot means that global warming is not being caused by a green house effect, and the deltoid blog link cited above.
Read my comments on the deltoid blog.
Ask yourself, who seems more reasonable.
For your GW guys who cited to the blog - thanks! The inherent hysteria in Deltoid's response would have been the perfect example for me to cite!
Jeez, usually the other side makes me do all of my own leg work!
<b><i>if the hot spot is REALLY missing</b></i>
Killing me here!
Massive Human Dieoff <b>must</b> occur as a result of Peak Oil. Many more than half will die. It will occur everywhere, including where <b>you</b> live. If you fail to recognize this, then your odds of living move toward the "going to die" group.