On 06/08/2019 13:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/08/2019 11:12, Martin Brown wrote:
On 06/08/2019 09:08, Tim Streater wrote:

The same applies to this climate stuff, I'm afraid. And don't try to
fob me off with any cock about what the models *tell* us. Models make
predictions, they don't *tell* us anything.

The models are plenty good enough now to tell us that CO2 and other
trace polyatomic greenhouse gasses are warming the planet.

No, they are not.
They are plenty bad enough to tell us to 3 sigma that whatever is
warming the planet is *not* CO2.

But even teh most rapid warmist will aqdmit that. What warms teh planmet
is teh positive feedback of water vapour, or so they say, which
ampolifies CO2. In their models.

You really should sober up before reaching for the keyboard.
You are giving the impression of an inebriated nutter here.

It has been conclusively shown that in the real world, it does not.

Prove it! There is a Nobel Prize waiting for anyone who can demonstrate
that the prevailing orthodoxy on climate change is wrong.

Even the canonical deniers for hire admit that - at least when they
are being scientific.

No, they dont. Not to any signicicant extent. Me farting warms the
planet. Lighting a candell warms the planet. Excess CO2 warms the planet
all by insignificant amounts

You clearly are delusional. The CO2 warms the planet slightly and that
warming also increases the atmospheric water vapour content as well as
making CO2 less soluble in the seas which is another potential feedback.

You know as well as I do that a warmer atmosphere can hold more water.
As an aside one of the first pieces of work I did as a researcher was on
quantifying the relationship for a precision computer code to find the
driest possible locations on Earth for placing observatories.

You cannot balance the Earth's global energy budget without including
greenhouse gas forcing after the 1970's.

You can'tÂ* balance the Earth's global energy budget
*with* including greenhouse gas forcing after the 1970's.

Something is happening here, but they dont know what it is, do they Mr
Phil JonesÂ* (and Michael Mann)

Why make personal attacks on these two scientists?


And you cannot magic the sun brighter because it is under constant
satellite surveillance. I suppose you want to deny HADCRUT temperature
data too, but the Berkeley Earth group set out as sceptics and
reproduced it closely with a further extension back to the 1800s.


Why would one want to? teh merest wisp of cloud drops surafec radaiaton
by up to a factor of 8...

It is odd that we have FLIC models for relativistic jets and all sorts
of other exotic phenomena that attract nothing like this level of
hostility. They are still only models but they are now very refined
models that give a pretty good predictions.

Unlike Climate change which gives totally crap predictions.

Â*We are only beginning to see
the effects now. It will be bad for champagne production in France but
good for making it in the southern UK. Our infrastructure is already
showing that it cannot handle the higher rainfall from warm summer heat.


WQe are not seeing any eg=fefcts now at all expoecpt frok greeing in te
sahel due to better paknt grwoth in arid regioiusn

That pretty much sums you up.
Incoherent ranting and raving by a deranged right whinger.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown