That's true in my opinion, and he keeps repeating the same unproved arguments, that are inconsistent with observation, over and over.
Exactly! The people who support these laws don't anticipate that they would apply to religions other than their own.
NASA and NOAA are government agencies, and they publish many reports that are not subjected to outside peer review. They also publish the opinions of their scientists in simplified form that is not subjected to critical technical review, but rather is intended to inform the public or the media of the work going on within these agencies. I am accusing you of relying on Junk science because there is a distinct lack in your posts of references to the latest findings reported in the primary literature. All blogs are not worthless, but you've posted repeatedly diagrams from work done years ago; stuff that appears routinely in the common media that has long been shown to have been defective by later publications in the primary, peer reviewed literature.. Just because something is published in the primary scientific literature, however, does not mean it is necessarily correct. Once there is a later publication retracting, refuting, or calling into question, previously published work, one has to take that into account in deciding what is correct and what isn't. You've treated this topic as though it were static and settled. It isn't. That is something you're going to have to accept if you want to be listened too.
Again, there is no reason to read any further than past this point. Crap assumptions in......crap results of thought. "CO2's trace concentration and its relatively weak greenhouse gas properties" ^ this is simply red-herring (trace concentrations? And you are supposedly a scientist?) and wrong (weak ghg properties?) These two core initial points of your argument are wrong. Thus your argument is completely without merit. And no, positive feedback is NOT needed for additive factors to an equation for the product to increase. And no, it is not needed for the greenhouse effect to increase. And no, Hansen has nothing to do with the fact that CO2 is a strong ghg. These basic, easily proven, faults of your argument - such as it is - renders it completely invalid. I like to call your argument -such as it is - what it is, just plain ol' BS. The source of which of course is a faithful almost religious adherence to Libertarianism.
Since the earth has warmed in the past, I am assuming that this wobble won't have unintended consequences [fingers crossed behind back]. Gulp Scientists just figured out what's causing Earth to wobble "Droughts are causing Earth to wobble on its axis, according to new research. Scientists have long known that the axis on which the planet spins is prone to wavering, but some of the reasons have escaped understanding. But researchers at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory say droughts and heavy periods of rain in different places around the planet are causing Earth to shake in space. "We are going through this massive global-scale climate change, to such a degree that the change in climate has been strong enough to affect the rotation of such a giant planet," said study co-author Surendra Adhikari of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California"..." http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/09/scientists-just-figured-out-whats-causing-earth-to-wobble.html
No shit Sherlock. And nothing has come up to change the fact that AGW is very real. You are accusing me of using junk science....from NASA and NOAA. I'm accusing you of at LEAST intellectual dishonesty. You are just a slightly less crazed and more impressive sounding jem. Washington (AFP) - Global warming could make the planet far hotter than currently projected because today's scientific models do not correctly account for the influence of clouds, researchers said this week. The study in the journal Science was led by researchers at Yale University and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. When climate scientists look ahead to how much the planet's surface temperature may warm up in response to a doubling of carbon dioxide -- a byproduct of fossil fuel burning -- they typically predict a rise of between 2.1 and 4.7 degrees Celsius (3.75 to 8.5 degrees Fahrenheit). But these models overestimate the ability of clouds to reflect back sunlight, and counteract warming in Earth's atmosphere, researchers said. https://www.yahoo.com/news/earth-could-become-hotter-thought-study-warns-012305983.html?nhp=1
From the above study....which will not be found on C3 headlines but IS from Lawrence Livermore and Yale. You know, junk science. Researchers said their findings add to previous studies that have suggested clouds may make warming worse, rather than lessen it. "The evidence is piling up against an overall stabilizing cloud feedback," said Zelinka. "Clouds do not seem to want to do us any favors when it comes to limiting global warming."
I'm not going to comment on the Yahoo version, but if you'll give me the citation to the paper it is based on, I'll be happy to take a look at it. Nevermind. I've found it.