of course, instead of addressing the science the resident leftist troll goes for the for the ad hom / character attack. Don't you ever get tired of attacking character instead of addressing the science.
part of the reason I first read that analysis is because of things you said here. I knew you would find it interesting.
Yes, when someone is known asshole, like you, I think that has some bearing on how seriously to take them. Like you for instance, not at all. You don't even believe the shit you say. You believe in AGW.
What I believe is that month by month the theory of man made co2 is causing warming on earth is looking less and less viable. 1. right now even the nutters have admitted the climate is less sensitive to co2 than they proposed. 2. land temps have not gone up in 17 years further showing the agw nutter models failed. 3. there is no science showing man made co2 is warming our environment. 4. Think about this... We know as oceans warm they release co2. if co2 kept causing warming... we would have a disastrous feedback cycle and we would turn into a venus like hot house. Why not? Because... NASA told us. CO2 also cools. I think we will find, most likely, that CO2 is an important part of a negative feedback cycle.
Stu, thanks for discussing the science rather than personalities. I don't know who Monckton is but he admits he is not much of a scientist. I guess he is a global warming "hobbyist" as some of us here are. But I did think that much of his critique of Pettersson and Born was scientifically sound. I noticed a number of obvious errors but I didn't think they were substantive. Pettersson on the other hand is a well trained scientist and his training makes him especially qualified with regard to using radioisotopes as a label. I want to look at Petterssons work more carefully, because I am still unclear on how he was able to distinguish disappearance of Bomb C-14 due to more rapid turnover, from disappearance due to dilution from anthro-CO2 with slower turnover. The argument is there I'm sure, I just have to dig for it. Salby's work seems to me almost genius in its consistency and its meticulous consideration of phase shifts. His finding that CO2 mirrors very closely the integrated Temperature with the temperature leading and CO2 lagging is a beautiful price of work as far as i'm concerned.. Going forward, I think any models that are inconsistent with Salbys work will have to be seriously questioned. Salby has never intimated that that's all there is too it, or that Anthro CO2 plays no role at all, but it is apparently less important than previously supposed.
Thereby admitting you're one of those haughty closed minded holier than thou know it all types who think they're always right about everything all the time. Making me right, this time.
this how important anthropogenic CO2 is. Plain as day. To objective eyes that have even a smidgeon of intelligence and the knowledge that CO2 is the earth's most important greenhouse gas.