[t vago]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

So, when did plate tectonics get confirmed?

The difference between AGW and all of the other scientific theories is that AGW is not proven. All of the other scientific theories you mention do not depend on computer models that use estimates or gross approximations. All of the other scientific theories you mention do not require pleas to authority or emotional appeals to work. All of the other scientific theories you mentioned are not being hawked by leaders who say one thing and do something completely opposite, with regard to those theories. And, most importantly, all of the other scientific theories you mentioned are not trying to be used to destroy the economy of Western nations by way of draconian cap and trade or other carbon "management" schemes.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

If you watched the videos that I posted a while ago, you would see that Richard Alley and/or Benjamin Santer do/es talk about sun spots -- they have included them in the models. They are able to model the factors, and the results are matched against the data.

But Richard Alley and Benjamin Santer don't know how to quantify all the variables that should go into climate models, Neil. Hm... Santer himself said as much!

There are many. I think it's tough to put your finger on any one and say this is the neuralgic point—like finding one pain point in the body and saying this is where it hurts the most. There are a number of obstacles that limit our ability to understand the nature and causes of climate change. One is clearly the climate models. We have an imperfect understanding of clouds and how they interact with incoming sunlight; how they modulate climate change. We have an imperfect understanding of important physical processes. Modeling rainfall, for instance, is very tricky, and clouds and rain are important for both the Earth's radiation budget and the hydrological cycle. What limits modeling is often observations. Or to put it this way, the limitations in climate modeling go hand-in-hand with limitations in the observations themselves: how well we can measure and understand very basic physical processes? Inadequacies in key observational records are another serious obstacle to continued progress in climate modeling.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Are the models literally 3D models -- I think they are data models; but maybe I'm wrong. I'm sure that things like clouds are data models. From the congressional testimony videos, you can get a glimpse of factors like sulfate aerosols.

What? You don't know how a computer model is generated? You don't know how the processes within are being modeled? You don't know what assumptions are made with respect to those models? A computer model is more than just running a couple of equations and getting a result, Neil. It's also taking finite points, running those equations with regard to the points immedately surrounding said finite points, and doing it ad infinitum, or until a set number of iterations are completed. By the way, here's a link to article which describes difficulties in modeling sulfated aerosols.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Do you know how they measure the thickness of the Greenland and Antarctic ice? If you watched the earlier videos, you would know. Hint: it involves gravity and "roller coaster" satellites. Comment after you have found out the specifics.

Then tell me what the cryosphere is doing, Neil. All you can focus on is sea ice. Oh, wait! You're not a scientist! You said so yourself! Therefore, since you're not a scientist, you shouldn't comment on it, because you keep implying that I should also shut up and listen to my betters!

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Did you know that there is so much ice on Antarctica, that it is what is causing the Earth to be pear shaped? And the rotation makes it into a oblate spheroid -- so it is quite complex. The weight of the Antarctic ice is pushing the land down a lot, too -- don't quote me, but I think it is at least several hundreds of feet?

There are lots of overlaps between the various fields of science. Madam Curie's work with uranium helped establish the age of various strata of rock, and thereby the times that fossils lived. Geology has a huge part of understanding our climate over time. Biology and archaeology also play key roles.

Climate study involves geologists, biologists, oceanography, limnologists, ice scientists (like Lonnie Thompson at Ohio State University), atmosphere scientists, dendrochronologists, astrophysicists, chemists, and a few others I am probably forgetting. How do all of these fields collaborate to make a fake?

You're confusing me, Neil. I thought you implied that only climatologists could comment on AGW. You are now saying that all sorts of scientific professions can now comment on AGW? But you implied the exact opposite a few pages ago! Which is it? And why do you only allow comments when they support AGW? I thought you said you couldn't judge one way or the other!

And explain to me how wrong came to be fake? And why do you assume that I think that EVERYONE supporting AGW is some sort of conspiracy? Isn't it enough that this movement relies on useful idiots and zealots to shamelessly promote it in the face of conflicting evidence or compelling evidence to the contrary?

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

You say there are holes in the theory -- are you qualified to say this?

Oh, I now need to be qualified in order to be a skeptic? Where is the skeptic qualification card, Neil? What college courses do I need to take in order to become a qualified skeptic, Neil? Which universities confer a degree on being a qualified skeptic, Neil?

Let's turn the question around, Neil. Are you qualified to provide a defense of AGW? If you're not, then why are you defending AGW?

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Which of the charts that I posted are false? If they are false, then where is your proof?

You can't prove AGW with all of those pretty charts, and you can't disprove the alternate explanation with what I posted, so you resort to politely implying I should just shut up because I'm not "qualified." You already stated you are not a climatologist, Neil, so you should also take your own advice and shut up.

At least I'm more honest about it than you'll ever be.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Watch this Congressional testimony, and please pay close attention. There is a skeptic (who works for the Cato Institute which was started by the Koch brothers, who made their money from oil), and there is a proponent of AGCC. One is leaving out facts, and conveniently skewing the charts; and the other is showing all the uncertainties. Which one is the better scientist?

Zealot-edited video removed

Oh, yes! Let's discredit Michaels because he happens to get money from sources you happen to dislike. Let's hold up as HOLY the IPCC report, even though it received data from a discredited source! And let's fill the discussion with gobbledygook about the cooling effect of sulfated aerosols, because maybe that will shift focus away from how little effect comes from Manmade carbon dioxide emissions!

Oh, and let's use a video edited by one of your AGW zealots, too! No bias there, right?