…

Its raining again, so here I am again. My day job is as a mechanical engineer. Right now, I am designing a system to pump the groundwater out of a contaminated area, run it through some ion exchangers to strip out the Cs-137 and Sr-90 (radioactive isotopes Cesium -137 and Strontium -90). I have an MS in engineering. I can handle the raw data.

The link you sent references the EPA and the IPCC report. The EPA is clearly politicized, as is the IPCC report. (By the way how many of those EPA reports you linked to were prepared by Alan Carlin or involved some of his inputs?). None of those links has what I am looking for: data that shows the clear correlation between rising global temperatures and rising CO2 levels. Right now, there is consensus (there’s that word again) that average global temperatures are falling (satellite data), so there is a negative correlation between the two. Where’s a report, any report, anything that provides a valid hypothesis that CO2 is anything other than a bit player in climate change.

CO2 is about 380 ppm in the atmosphere. CO2 does not absorb light waves in the infra red range very well (narrow bands centered around 2.9, 4.3, and 15 micro meters – approx. 5-8% of the entire spectrum of black body radiation). Human contribution to CO2 levels is approx. 3% of the total.

Just these facts alone are enough to give one pause in thinking that CO2 and rising temperatures are linked.

I work with physicists and chemists (PhD levels on a daily basis) most of them are very skeptical about AGW, and some of them are members of the bodies that you linked to supporting the AGW hypothesis. Like most governing bodies, politics tends to contribute more to their stances than science.

By the way, 200 years ago the governing bodies of advanced medicine would have certainly recommended bleeding as a way to cure certain illnesses. There would have been a consensus among doctors about the effectiveness of such practice.

“I said it, therefore it must be true!” Disagree and you are a hater, and denier.

On July 3rd, 2009 at 2:03 pm, lgm said:

The scientific literature contains climate measurements (ice, temperature) that show disturbing trends.

The raw data doesn’t show such trends.

Even this is noisy and has to be interpreted using fancy statistical models.

The fancy models aren’t used to interpret temperature data. They’re used to manipulate temperature data.

To point. Do you agree that Mann’s hockey stick has been debunked? (My link is to your beloved Wikipedia.)

On July 3rd, 2009 at 11:08 am, lgm said:

Fox news and neanderthal talk radio are pushing the idea that US and world scientists are in a grand conspiracy to bankrupt America…

lgm, I’ll agree that it’s not a conspiracy. However, it most certainly is a fraud!

On July 3rd, 2009 at 2:03 pm, lgm said:

Think of going to the doctor. She writes a prescription for drug X. You ask why she thinks drug X will work. She doesn’t cite original data, but summaries prepared by experts.

Actually, lgm. I’m the guy that needs to see the raw clinical data submitted to FDA.

It’s unlikely that the doctor…has the technical background to evaluate the raw published studies.

Kinda like you not having the technical background to debate global warming.

Think about a drug which really doesn’t work. However, a few experts and professional societies prepare summaries which claim that it does work. Doctors all buy into the belief, and patients all believe them. Yet, nobody seems able to produce the raw data to support the original claim. But that doesn’t stop people like you from continuously linking to the flawed summaries because you’re not smart enough to understand the raw data.

You’ve ignored this several times, but I like it so much, I’ll use it again.

During the scientific era there have been several very significant volcanic events. These events had clearly documented global weather effects, some of them catastrophic.

Though all of them produced immense levels of “greenhouse” gases, there is no documented concomitant period of global warming to correspond with the event–not in direct measured data, or in anecdotal evidence.

Explain that.

Given that there were immense “point-loads” of CO2 produced in each of these events, how do you explain that the earth’s atmosphere seems to have accommodated these releases? Or, is it your position that there was a lasting, measurable increase in net CO2 in our atmosphere that resulted?