The climate police insist that “the science is settled.” Any disagreement with their position is censored. Of course, these people aren’t real scientists. Real scientists are skeptical. They know that science is never “the truth.” Instead, it’s a method to construct ever-improving approximations that allow ever-improving computations of observable phenomena. The only thing you can “prove” about a theory is that it’s false, or that a better one produces more accurate results. Ask the ghosts of Newton and Einstein. Especially for (most) academic scientists, proving that “science” is
"They wrote this at the time when “scientists” were worrying about the coming ice age. If burning fossil fuels couldn't prevent the coming ice age, how could burning fossil fuels cause global warming? If this is still a mystery, re-read the section above about how much CO2 warms the Earth."
Good introduction to the article. I’m a warming skeptic in both pro and contra directions.
I can believe that CO2 levels were a result, not a cause, of temperature changes in millennia past. Today’s situation differs, with such rapid injection of CO2 into the atmosphere.
I didn’t understand why the Mann hockey stick graph was different from the prior one. Because it was northern hemisphere?
I’ve seen Happer’s graphic before and read the paper. I’m not competent to judge whether it’s accurate, but it seems reasonable. 1) Why is not that Happer paper in a “peer reviewed” publication? 2) Why is there no serious detailed critique of his method? Who agrees or disagrees with his logic?
Regarding insufficient dilution of cosmic-ray-generated C-14 in the mostly C-12 atmospheric CO2, it seems to me that the “respiration” effect of seasonal vegetation growth/decay might explain that. You can see the “breaths” on the Keeling curve at seasonal and even daily intervals. There’s a lot more C in the the earth (and sea) than the atmosphere.
"They wrote this at the time when “scientists” were worrying about the coming ice age. If burning fossil fuels couldn't prevent the coming ice age, how could burning fossil fuels cause global warming? If this is still a mystery, re-read the section above about how much CO2 warms the Earth."
Follow the money, they did!
Good introduction to the article. I’m a warming skeptic in both pro and contra directions.
I can believe that CO2 levels were a result, not a cause, of temperature changes in millennia past. Today’s situation differs, with such rapid injection of CO2 into the atmosphere.
I didn’t understand why the Mann hockey stick graph was different from the prior one. Because it was northern hemisphere?
I’ve seen Happer’s graphic before and read the paper. I’m not competent to judge whether it’s accurate, but it seems reasonable. 1) Why is not that Happer paper in a “peer reviewed” publication? 2) Why is there no serious detailed critique of his method? Who agrees or disagrees with his logic?
Regarding insufficient dilution of cosmic-ray-generated C-14 in the mostly C-12 atmospheric CO2, it seems to me that the “respiration” effect of seasonal vegetation growth/decay might explain that. You can see the “breaths” on the Keeling curve at seasonal and even daily intervals. There’s a lot more C in the the earth (and sea) than the atmosphere.
Bob Hargraves