arctic ice VS antarctic ice and global climate change and ozone hole

This article highlights exactly why the AGW debate is so full of obfuscations and weasel words. The easiest way to explain the situation is to think of a greenhouse which has black paint applied to the glass. The first coat cuts the amount of infra red light substantially yet subsequent coats have less and less effect until there is no further attentuation.

This week, Ellen Davis posted what she probably believes is a $5,000 dagger at the throat of climate change skeptics. On a site called Truthmarket, she offered a $5,000 bounty for anyone who could:
Provide verifiable evidence that significantly less than 95% of American scientists believe in the reality of Global Climate Change and that humans are a likely cause.
​
Ms. Davis’s flourish (and associated PR campaign) is an absolutely perfect example of how the climate debate is broken. Why? Because she has offered a statement that not only most scientists, but most skeptics would agree with! How is that possible? Because this has been the central tactic of strong advocates of anthropogenic global warming theory for years: bait and switch. When skeptics criticize one issue, they respond by defending another.

I explained all this a while back in another Forbes piece. The key to understanding the disconnect is to recognize that the catastrophic man-made global warming theory is a two-part theory. In part one, man-made CO2 causes some warming, about a degree Celsius for every doubling of its atmospheric concentration. In part two, feedback effects in the climate multiply this initial relatively small amount of man-made warming by 3, 5, or even 10 times (depending on the computer model). I can’t speak for some Conservative talk show hosts, but the vast majority of science-based skeptics accept part one, where man-made CO2 causes some incremental warming. What they do not accept is the science behind part 2, the massive positive feedback effects. And it is part 2 that causes the catastrophe. Without these feedback effects, there is no catastrophe.
Click to expand...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenm...that-is-wrong-with-the-global-warming-debate/
 
Last edited:
Don Quixote said:
please read the entire article before commenting

http://news.yahoo.com/experts-global-warming-means-more-antarctic-ice-194009890.html
Click to expand...

I guess if you start with the illogical premise that 100 years of man using fossil fuels has induced heart wrenching, untold horrors on an earth presumably billions of years old, then yes you can concoct any conclusion you wish.

Let's review

Global warming causes:

Arctic ice to melt
Arctic ice to form
More hurricanes
Fewer hurricanes
More tornadoes
Fewer tornadoes
More snowstorms
Fewer snowstorms
More sea turtles
Fewer sea turtles


You get the drift dontcha puddin. Now I am gonna go cruise in my Suburban so I can give the F250 a break
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
This article highlights exactly why the AGW debate is so full of obfuscations and weasel words. The easiest way to explain the situation is to think of a greenhouse which has black paint applied to the glass. The first coat cuts the amount of infra red light substantially yet subsequent coats have less and less effect until there is no further attentuation.



http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenm...that-is-wrong-with-the-global-warming-debate/
Click to expand...

did you notice the part where man made pollution has produced the ozone hole
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top