In real science the burden of proof is always on
the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
iota of valid data for global warming nor have
they provided data that climate change is being
effected by commerce and industry, and not by
natural phenomena.

David,

Would you please leave uk.sci.weather off the list of news groups when
you post these links to AccuWeather.

As weather enthusiasts we are well aware of the AccuWeather web site
and if we want to read their opinions we don't need links from you to
do so.

If these links inspired interesting discussions you might be justified
to include us, but they just provoke inane name calling and repetitive
remarks like the one above, which contains no new or even any
scientific evidence what so ever. That sort of denialism is not
scientific and has no palce on a scientific newsgroup such as
uk.sci.weather, or for that matter sci.geo.meteorology and
sci.environment. Perhaps it is just that UK newsgroups have higher
standards than US ones.

If you genuinely want an answer to the links you post then I suggest
you go to http://www.realclimate.org/ You are not going to get an
intelligent answer here when all the responders are ignorant morons.

So just take us off you list,

TIA

Cheers, Alastair.

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 07:48:33 -0700 (PDT), Alastair
wrote:

In real science the burden of proof is always on
the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
iota of valid data for global warming nor have
they provided data that climate change is being
effected by commerce and industry, and not by
natural phenomena.

David,

Would you please leave uk.sci.weather off the list of news groups when
you post these links to AccuWeather.

As weather enthusiasts we are well aware of the AccuWeather web site
and if we want to read their opinions we don't need links from you to
do so.

Of course, you can understand the accent of
all the wimmin meteorologists on AccuWeather,
I sure can't, they talk awfully funny, as if they
were British or something. :-)

Alastair wrote:
In real science the burden of proof is always on
the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
iota of valid data for global warming nor have
they provided data that climate change is being
effected by commerce and industry, and not by
natural phenomena.

There is valid data which tends to corroborate the
theory that additional CO2 tends to lead to increasing
the equilibrium level of energy at the surface of the earth.

This evidence includes: the cooling of the stratosphere,
the warming since 1979 of the atmosphere, surface, and sea surface,
and the increase in stored heat by the oceans over the last fifty years.

We can however, question the models in many ways including:
noting that the temperature increases have been at or below
the low end as modeled by the gcms, that the pronounced maxima
over the tropical upper troposphere has not occurred, and
that for the last nine or so years, there has been cooling in
the surface temperatures, the sea surface temperatures, the
lower and middle troposphere and that the ocean at depth
has lost heat for the last five or so years.
Also, we may note that according to radiosonde data,
rather than a water vapor feedback, the atmosphere has
dried out and that even though the models indicate that
sea ice loss should be greatest in the Antarctic, Antarctic
sea ice has actually increased. We should also not that
research indicates that at least part of the cause of
Arctic sea ice loss is due to dynamic motion of the ice.


If you genuinely want an answer to the links you post then I suggest
you go to http://www.realclimate.org/

Realclimate is an idealogical site that will not post
responses which question their orthodoxy.
Only the unquestioning should visit there to reconfirm
their preconceived notions.