On 6/12/2009 11:55 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
ArSee wrote:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...the-world.html



Once again you refer to a most dubious source of information on your
quest for climate change denial. Perhaps once or twice you could check
these people out before uncritically posting their fluff.

From wikipedia:

quote
Via his long-running column in the UK's Sunday Telegraph, Booker has
claimed that man-made global warming was "disproved" in 2008, that white
asbestos is "chemically identical to talcum powder" and poses a
"non-existent risk" to human health, that "scientific evidence to
support [the] belief that inhaling other people's smoke causes cancer
simply does not exist" and that there is "no proof that BSE causes CJD
in humans". He has also defended the theory of Intelligent Design,
maintaining that Darwinians "rest their case on nothing more than blind
faith and unexamined a priori assumptions".
unquote

One of the reasons that Booker makes such absurd claims could be that he
is not climate scientist, in fact not a scientist at all. The
asbestos-talcum powder confusion shows an appalling lack of even basic
knowledge of chemistry, not to mention denying the many studies showing
the ill effects of white asbestos. He joins Miloy in holding the
peculiar duo of ideas of climate change denial and second-hand smoke
denial. He also joins Miloy in making a living through journalism and
books "debunking" science. As for Intelligent Design there is no more
thoroughly discredited and ludicrous so-called theory. ID is a religious
scam so unrelated to actual science that it is not even wrong.

It would not have taken you very long to find numerous articles
debunking Booker's stupidity but you don't bother looking.

David
Well as I said youre a hard man to convince.
What about this.


In short, the laws of physics don't seem to allow CO2 it's currently
assumed place as a significant "greenhouse gas" based on present
concentrations. The other "greenhouse gases" such as methane, nitrous
oxide, tetrafluoromethane, hexafluoroethane, sulfur hexafluoride,
trifluoromethane, 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane, and 1,1-difluoroethane
exist only in extraordinarily smaller amounts and aren't even up for
serious discussion by any segment of the scientific community. And,
since the other components of the atmosphere (oxygen, nitrogen, and
water vapor) aren't materially affected by human activity, the
"greenhouse effect" is essentially a totally natural phenomenon,
unaffected by human activity. We could repeat the spectral analysis and
calculations for Oxygen, or O2 ( The percentage of oxygen in the
atmosphere remains exactly the same at all heights up to about 85 km,
and is about 20.9% by volume ) and Nitrogen (N2) which is the whopper at
78.1% - but we won't. We'll leave that as your homework problem now
that you know how to do it. Just look up the atomic absorption spectra
for both, and do the math. You'll discover that Oxygen and Nitrogen
aren't even "greenhouse gases", so that leaves the principal greenhouse
gas... you guessed it.... Water Vapor. Curiously enough, the UN IPCC
reports don't even mention water vapor, since it is technically not a
"gas" in the atmosphere. Dr. Roy W. Spencer has one of the best
comments we've read on this subject:

"Al Gore likes to say that mankind puts 70 million tons of carbon
dioxide into the atmosphere every day. What he probably doesn't know is
that mother nature puts 24,000 times that amount of our main greenhouse
gas -- water vapor -- into the atmosphere every day, and removes about
the same amount every day. While this does not 'prove' that global
warming is not manmade, it shows that weather systems have by far the
greatest control over the Earth's greenhouse effect, which is dominated
by water vapor and clouds."
There are none so blind than those who will not see.
Also: Those who think they know everything, upset those who do.
Taken from this, (shortly be discredited by ***) website
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html