BROUGHT TO THE FRONT TO SHOW THE SORT OF POSTS TIM LAMBERT FINDS A LITTLE TOO RUGGED. ONCE YOU WHIP HIM IN THE ARGUMENT YOUR DAYS ON HIS SITE ARE NUMBERED.
Here is the thread from which the FORBIDDEN POSTS WERE EXCISED. Tim Lambert is such a fucking fraud
Forbidden Post 1
No they have no such onus.
We are in an ice age. The results have come in and they show that on any decadal level the CO2 effect is just negligible.
Now with these Chinese guys some allowance must be made for translation.
I think their point here is that the energy is still going to be transferred out of the climate system.
That CO2 only blocks some range of Infrared need not matter all that much since it doesn’t block EVERY range and it does not stop the upward transfer of this energy by brownian motion and convection.
Now perhaps if we are questioning them we would find that they don’t mean that that self-same CO2 molecule that was heated up at the bottom of the troposphere that morning will be at the top of the stratosphere come the afternoon.
I don’t think thats what they were saying at all.
I think thats just alarmists playing silly-buggers and not making allowances for the difficulty with English.
But it is likely the case that some of those joules may well be right out of the system before the night is over.
That CO2 molecule does not have to travel all the way up. What they must be saying instead is that the energy will have found its way there. And that seems more then plausible.
It hardly matters if a CO2 molecule blocks a small range at a certain heat if later on it cools down and emits an whole other frequency of radiation….
Or if it knocks into other molecules and is cooled down and then THEY emit the radiation.
And I think this is a very good point to be making.
Perhaps if it was always noon this CO2 effect would be more pronounced then it is. But the fact is its barely noticeable on the global level.
So other then alarmists just being pedantic…… Is there any evidence that you guys have to rubbish this report?
Or are you guys just going to be smug about it.
Forbidden Post 2
Looks like you are just going to be smug if Jeff is an indication.
Jeff how about try and refute what they are actually saying instead of bullshitting about the magazine….
You going to have a shot at their paternity as an argument?
Forbidden Post 3
“It is up to them to demonstrate that their claims are correct…”
No thats not right guthrie.
The evidence is not on your side.
Its up to you to bring evidence to bear against their contentions. And make some allowances for the English for goodness sakes.
Now do you have any evidence. Or are you just going to arbitrarily assign the burden of proof in your smug bully-boy way.
You see none of you have come up with the evidence.
And Jeff is just embarrassing himself with this magazine-rating non-argument argument.
Forbidden Post 4
“The K and C rebuttal paper (linked by Frankis) is in Environmental Geology, with an impact factor of 0.654. Again, stark mediocrity.”
You are being ridiculous Jeff. You ought to come up with ACTUAL valid arguments or just give it away.
“You are aware that humans live over a decadal period, and that we have caused most of the warming for the past 3 decades, and therefore this is of concern to us?”
1 You haven’t proved that and don’t pretend you have.
2 No its not the least bit concerning and obviously so since we are in an ice age and ought to accept with good grace any warming we can get.
“What they’re saying GMB is self-refuting, risible, not even wrong, somewhat short of brilliant. The rebuttal of it that was published in the same journal in October 2006 is very well written, I commend it to you.”
Well then why is no-one here able to make the case (while being charitable to their English) in their own words?
Why not argue it yourself without hiding behind a link.
Thats the best way to sort out your own logic.
Forbidden Post 5
“I’ll repeat myself. It is the duty of those contending something, to bring up the evidence for it.”
Well then I’ll have to repeat myself.
YOU ARE WRONG.
You see we are ALL contending something. Actually your statement is AXIOMATICALLY wrong by self-reference since your statement is itself a contention.
Now can we have some EVIDENCE or are you all just going to continue to play smug-buggery?