Rebuttal to Micheal Francis « Peace, Order and Good Government
I think you should take climategate more seriously – here is what I consider to be the most damning email from the climategate event – and it has nothing to do with fudging data. But a side point before you read this email – do the “real” scientists you know hide and destroy data, lie, and generally have little regard for the scientific method? You should ask them sometime.[On Oct 14, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Kevin Trenberth wrote]
Hi Tom
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
Kevin
Posts
1 comment:
I have to agree with you, Tom. And the really crazy fact of it is that the IPCC admits is doesn't understand yet the msm and politicians don't pay any heed to that.
IPCC itself says it has either 'low' or 'very low' scientific understanding of 80% of known climate forcing agents yet somehow has a crystal ball telling them CO2 is the bad guy of the bunch.
Readers ought to check the table in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001) under ‘Radiative Forcing agent, Level of Scientific Understanding.’ It is also entitled IPCC TAR WGI SPM (figure 3). The table proves they’ve got no clue over an astonishing 8 out of 12 forcing factors! >>>
Greenhouse gases High
Stratospheric ozone Medium
Tropospheric ozone Medium
Aerosols – Sulphate Low
Aerosols – CO2 from fossil fuel Very Low
Aerosols – Biomass burning) Very Low
Aerosols – Mineral dust Very Low
Aerosols – indirect effects Very Low
Aviation-induced contrails Very Low
Aviation-induced cirrus Very Low
Land use – albedo only Very Low
Solar radiative forcing Very Low
After 22 years of 'research' these jokers woefully ignored obtaining ANY scientific findings that distracted the blame away from CO2- its not science - its political advocacy.
Post a Comment