- Why is U.S. preparing to attack Iran?
- Woman’s view on abortion needed
- Sexual harassment “training” unnecessary
- Rally to protest war wasn’t covered
- Sen. Reid’s Rush Limbaugh letter
- Sad to see “chief executive” is male
- Over population hurting the environment
- School “reforms” not helping
- More voting info. needed
- Audit raises questions for Episcopal Church
Mike Rosen on Al Gore & Nobel Peace Prize
This letter has not been edited.
"I know you are but what am I !"
Not a single argument in your letter. No rebuttal, no facts and no sense. If you want to call names, feel free. But, to make your point, you will need some facts and some actual debating strategies.
Mike Rosen has had more Global Warming debates on his program showing that the "science is NOT settled" and that the "peace prize" Al Gore received is simply a political statement.
Go back to the drawing board and say something useful next time.
Posted by Nostra Damus on October 31, 2007 02:08 PMCall me crazy, but on a scientific question like global warming I am going to put more credence in the opinions of hundreds of climate scientists (as summarized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) than in a political hack like Mike Rosen.
Posted by Romulus on October 31, 2007 02:26 PMRosen reminds me of something I found on the bottom of my shoe
Posted by on October 31, 2007 02:28 PMAl Gore is a modern day Elmer Gantry and snake-oil salesman. This fraud peddles "carbon credits" like the medieval church sold indulgences. Having failed out of both Vandy Divinity School and Vandy Law, this self-appoinnted Pope of the environment couldn't find his own ass in a shower. This alarmist's 4-homes, jet planes, family tobacco ranch, Armand Hammer/USSR oil connections and his polluting, illegal zinc mine in Tenn. all scream volumes about his integrity, honesty---and hyprocracy!
America ducked a bullet in 2000 and 2004. Let's all hope that God is watching in 2008.
Posted by Hank on October 31, 2007 02:31 PMINTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC)
From their website: "Recognizing the problem of potential global climate change, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988."
A product of the UN., the IPCC is the same crowd that brought you OIL FOR FOOD, BRIBES FOR FOOD, KICKBACKS FOR FOOD. And since George Soros bought, paid for and bribed NASA's James Hansen to cook the data (its all over the internet), the global warming moonbat crowd has absolutely no credibility.
Posted by Hank on October 31, 2007 02:41 PMits all over the internet
Hank's criteria for determining accuracy?
Posted by CL on October 31, 2007 02:54 PMAmerica 'ducked a bullet'? Sorry Hank, but America took a bullet and a hard one in the ass from the Bush Mob. Bush heads a bunch of corrupt thugs and con-men who's sole purpose was to fill their pockets. Bush isnt a snakeoil saleman, he is just a palin old OIL Saleman, a puppet for your rich Oil industry.
Posted by Anyone but Bush on October 31, 2007 02:55 PMAmerica ducked a bullet in 2000 and 2004. Let's all hope that God is watching in 2008.
Posted by Hank
Really?? I think we got hit between the eyes. George W is the worst President we have ever had. Started a bogus war, blew our debt out of the water. Neoconservatism has been a disaster and they have been wrong about absolutely everythingw
Posted by Rude G on October 31, 2007 03:19 PMSteve Bober of Arvada ought to call Mike Rosen sometime to debate the global warming issue. If Rosen of so wrong, and if Steve is so right, then he ought to have no trouble proving it. Rosen is on 850 KOA from 9 AM until 11:45. Their talk show number is 303-713-8585.
Romulus,
Yes, you are crazy. Christopher Monckton, former advisor to Margaret Thatcher and IPCC subject matter expert, was on Rosen’s show on Monday, Oct. 29. He told Rosen that he is much better informed on the subject of global warming than anyone else who had interviewed him. Just because you don’t like the message Rosen puts out does not make it false information. Like it or not, the debate is definitely NOT over.
IPCC stands for InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change. Notice the term "GOVERNMENTAL?" That means that the IPCC is a governmental organization, not a scientific organization. Hence, bureaucracies are trying to make decisions about global warming, and they pick and choose what they want to submit in their summaries which are released for public consumption.
Rude G is a fart sniffer
Posted by on October 31, 2007 04:14 PMIt always amazes me to what lengths folks will go to denounce science in an attempt to shelter their politically and theologically based fantasies.
Posted by jay on October 31, 2007 04:32 PMsteve,what a total idiot.How do you trashed somebody who is full of garbage?
Posted by Keith on October 31, 2007 05:56 PMNot one well thought out rebuttle supporting the letter writer. How about watching national Goegraphics new show on Solar Rays and the effects on climate change being shown this week.
It is so easy to dog Al Gore because he walks around with his foot in his mouth all the time. Then all the kool aid drinkers who folow along with his nonsense and histarical conclusions of man made global warming, not giving credit to more plausable theories and FACTS.
Posted by The Shadow on October 31, 2007 06:32 PMFor those that fell that there is a climate change lets look to the past. Like the first ice age what stared that and ended it? Then there was a second ice age that did not last as long it started in 1200's and ended in the 1850's. In both cases man could not have started nor ended them. Then to say it has to be man-made, when we look at how old the earth is does not make sense. Where the earth does go through cycles. Then to say we caused all this right now. how?
Posted by brad on October 31, 2007 07:23 PMHank jerks off in public again with his 1" penis and 15 point IQ.
Posted by on October 31, 2007 07:44 PMYes, there are some 'scientists' who say Global Warming is not happening, just as there are some 'historians' who say the Holocaust didn't happen.
The nice thing about reality in America nowadays is there are so many to choose from.
Posted by on October 31, 2007 09:00 PMWhat should humans do to stop "GLOBAL WARMING"?
Posted by brain on October 31, 2007 09:23 PMBrad, do you think that the scientists are just stupid?
Don’t you think they look at past cycles and events, and then make the claim that this event is different based on knowing a lot about other possible explanations, or do you think that the more one studies the stupider one gets?
So for example, when the Antarctic ice cores, reflecting the past 650,000+ years of climate history, show that the year by year mean CO2 content of the air is highly correlated with subsequent changes in mean temperature ranges, do you think they are studying past climatic cycles?
When they show that dropping CO2 levels down to the low of 180ppm are highly correlated with subsequent and concurrent ice ages, and that rising levels to the max of 300ppm was highly correlated with reversal of ice sheets, and maximum temperatures, do you think they are making it all up or just too thick to understand?
Then when they show that we are now at 380ppm and climbing and show no previous record of such a high in the last 650,000 years, does that sound like they just don’t know anything about sampling or measurement, or how to draw conclusions from a gas analyzer or spectrometer?
They could all just be stupid or poorly educated, or just a bunch of left-wing dreamers, right?
Bangalore Skank,
Correlation does not mean causation.
Furthermore, the temperature is not subsequent to the CO2. From
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/about/position/globalwarming.jsp
"In thus considering the seven greatest temperature transitions of the past half-million years - three glacial terminations and four glacial inceptions - we note that increases and decreases in atmospheric CO2 concentration not only did not precede the changes in air temperature, they followed them"
Dan said ” Correlation does not mean causation”
Indeed, but if there is no causation there will also be no correlation.
The only way we can claim causation is with a theoretical mechanism plus correlation.
In this case they have both a theoretical mechanism that interlocks and agrees with other mature theory, and strong correlation.
With those two in hand the only trump would be a simpler or more comprehensive theoretical model.
Elegance or power.
” Furthermore, the temperature is not subsequent to the CO2”
Oh but it is, if you want a model that is accurate and predictive, that is.
If you take a model that predicts otherwise you wind up with the conclusion that CO2 is a coolant and has a low opacity to infra-red, which would be contrafactual. Since we already know that CO2 is highly opaque to infra-red (easily tested in the lab), such a model must be wrong. So obviously the claim that CO2 lags heating is bollocks.
I suggest you go to Nature or Science, rather than a group dedicated to denial.
The theoretical models that best reflect actuality are those that show CO2 driving warming.
Naturally, warming produces increased CO2 through increased fermentation, which is what you are fixating on, but that is a well known phenomenon and easily controlled for.
The increase is usually accommodated by the ability of plant growth and natural water bodies to soak CO2, but this time there seem to be a loss of absorption, so CO2 is now past historic highs, as I said, at 380ppm in the Antarctic.
Look Dan, the simple thing is that unless you are a primary researcher, you have to take your stance from the consensus position of the science academies and boards. They are overwhelmingly supportive of the assertion that this is a novel heating event driven by human activity.
To go looking for an alternative position is just plain perverse, unless you plan to do primary research. Neither Gore nor Rosen are in that game or of that intellectual level, so what they say is irrelevant. Groups that want to argue one side or the other are also irrelevant.
The only mouthpieces for science are the journals, academies, and boards, and they are all saying warming event, human activities, and of concern.
Who in the blazes are you to disagree?
Bangalore Skank,
I suggest you read from those other than the ones dedicated to manipulated data.
Bangalore Skank,
[CO2 being opaque to infrared]
While true, it is irrelevant. The heat comes from the amount of infrared, not the amount of CO2. Less CO2 also means less opacity to infrared which means more of the infrared from the sun reaches the earth's surface directly, which would still generate heat. For a given amount of infrared, we'll get the same amount of heat regardless of how much CO2 is present.
In Al Gore's movie, there is a scene that shows two graphs, one of CO2 and the other temperature.
Examine those two graphs closely when placed together. You will find that it is the CO2 graph that lags the temperature graph by several hundred years.
The main reason is due to the fact that warm liquids release the gases they've dissolved. As the oceans warm, they release the CO2 and other "greenhouse gases" they've stored back into the atmosphere.
Posted by Dave on November 1, 2007 10:01 AMIf man was going to mess-up the planet it would have been during the industrial revolution. When man was sending all types of stuff in to the atmosphere,it should have started then not now. But not all scientists feel the same as Gore or those that follow him.
Posted by brad on November 1, 2007 12:56 PMDave:
[CO2 being opaque to infrared]While true, it is irrelevant. The heat comes from the amount of infrared, not the amount of CO2. Less CO2 also means less opacity to infrared which means more of the infrared from the sun reaches the earth's surface directly, which would still generate heat. For a given amount of infrared, we'll get the same amount of heat regardless of how much CO2 is present.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!
This isn't just wrong, it's fundamentally wrong.
Energy from the sun striking the earth is converted to infrared (heat) which then gets radiated back out into space. What more CO2 does is allow less of the infrared (heat) to escape into space - and so the temperature rises.
- Same energy in
- Less heat out
- Temperature goes up
Increasing CO2 (or methane or water vapor) is more like running the furnace of your house at the same rate and adding more insulation (CO2) - the house is going to get warmer.
Posted by CL on November 1, 2007 01:38 PMCL,
For CO2 to be able to trap heat, the atmosphere would have to be absolutely stable; it could not be allowed to move.
As is pointed out in http://www.geocities.com/atmosco2/error.htm , if the atmosphere moves, as it always does, it will let the heat out. It would be like someone opening the windows in the middle of winter. It wouldn't matter how much insulation is in the house -- you're still going to get cold.
Posted by Dave on November 1, 2007 03:13 PMDave said ” Less CO2 also means less opacity to infrared which means more of the infrared from the sun reaches the earth's surface directly, which would still generate heat”
Understandable error.
The sun pumps out a wide spectrum of radiation, and an amount of most of that spectrum having hit the planet will then convert to infra-red, and as CL pointed out, this is heat.
So you wind up with orders of magnitude more infra-red than came in.
Raising the amount of insulation (as CL put it), by increasing CO2 levels, will result in higher proportions of that converted infra-red staying in the ecosystem, thus raising temperatures.
So the key concept is the wide bandwidth coming in resulting in higher amounts of infra-red.
” You will find that it is the CO2 graph that lags the temperature graph by several hundred years”
Again, if you propose a model in which CO2 doesn’t lead heating, then you must conclude that CO2 has a lower opacity to infra-red than the other gases, which we know is false. To save the model and accommodate the opacity index of CO2, you would need to add an ad hoc mechanism to explain the difference. That would require something sucking up the extra energy.
What do you propose?
Another gas that decreases opacity in direct ratio to the increase in CO2?
A gas with very low opacity that gets added to the atmosphere in direct proportion to the increase in CO2?
Some other heat-absorbing substance or process as yet unknown?
Parsimony recommends that we take the simpler and more elegant explanation that CO2 is leading, and since there is no t0 or start-time, that’s the most logical conclusion.
We can also test the ramifications of this, and in fact we have.
” … that warm liquids release the gases they've dissolved. As the oceans warm, they release the CO2 and other "greenhouse gases" they've stored back into the atmosphere.”
Yep, it’s a known positive feedback loop and a function of Henry’s Law.
So you might want to ask why this doesn’t always lead to thermal runaway, and the answer is more complex than I am capable of.
My question to you is why are you taking a position opposite to that of the sciences?
Do you think they are misinformed or stupid, or is the conclusion unpalatable in some way? After all, a spinning, orbiting spheroidal planet makes no sense whatsoever from anything you could have directly observed, yet this you accept.
When science tells you that the planet is heating up due to human activities, this you question.
Why?
What indigestible thing are you faced with if you were to accept the argument that the planet is undergoing a heating event of our own making?
Bangalore asked the following question of someone else, but I'll answer it for him:
"What indigestible thing are you faced with if you were to accept the argument that the planet is undergoing a heating event of our own making?"
The fact that something needs to be done about it that may require personal sacrifice.
By the way, despite the haters, great thread...
Posted by Charles B. on November 1, 2007 07:48 PMBangalore Skank, "The sun pumps out a wide spectrum of radiation, and an amount of most of that spectrum having hit the planet will then convert to infra-red"
I don't buy that at all. Infra-red is just a part of the electromagnetic spectrum. To say that some amount of that spectrum converts to infra-red is like saying that x-rays convert to blue or ultra-violet converts to yellow. It's just silly.
If you meant convert to heat, well, that's a whole different kettle of fish.
"if you propose a model in which CO2 doesn’t lead heating,"
I've proposed no such thing. All I've done is point out that the CO2 graph lagged the temperature graph. That could be explained by by the CO2 and other gases being released from the oceans. Just like a pot of water takes a while to heat up on a stove, the temperature of the oceans will change sometime after the global temperature has changed.
It is obvious that the reason this does not get into a positive feedback loop is because there is something independent of CO2 that is driving the temperature change.
What that is, is beyond my expertise.
"My question to you is why are you taking a position opposite to that of the sciences?"
I am just opposed to activists who use science as a means to political power. Particularly when there is evidence that their position is a crock.
I also acknowledge that science is not limited to the opinion that human beings are the major cause of global warming. There are scientists in the fields of meteorology, climatology, geology and others who are convinced that the amount of human activity being responsibile for global warming is minimal at worst.
Posted by Dave on November 1, 2007 09:43 PMDave said ”I don't buy that at all. Infra-red is just a part of the electromagnetic spectrum. To say that some amount of that spectrum converts to infra-red is like saying that x-rays convert to blue or ultra-violet converts to yellow. It's just silly.”
Ok, so here is how this works.
When electromagnetic radiation hits a body, part of the energy is reflected, some gets absorbed, and much of what gets absorbed causes the body to heat up. Hot bodies emit some of that energy as infra-red. In fact for hot bodies, infra-red is the “frequency band of choice” so to speak. The microwave oven uses electromagnetic radiation and this turns into heat in your potatoes, and your potatoes then radiate infra-red as they heat up. That’s also why infra-red goggles see body heat and heat coming from engines, etc. This mimics how some animals see heat. A rattlesnake has infra-red pit-sensors that can see prey’s body-heat.
Infra-red does not propagate well in a vacuum though – hence how vacuum thermos flasks work, and several kinds of material are somewhat opaque to infra-red, such as methane, water-vapour, and CO2. (Hence the term “greenhouse gas”)
So too glass and plastic, which is how hothouses work and why cars get so incredibly hot inside when they are parked out in the sun. Radiation towards the ultra-violet end of the spectrum, but including visible frequencies can all pass through the windows with ease, but get converted into infra-red when they heat up objects inside the car, then the infra-red can’t get out well because glass is largely opaque to it.
Far from silly, frequency shifting is a very common occurrence, and reflected or emitted radiation can change frequency due to things like the composition of the material, the speed and direction of the body relative to an observer, and a few other things.
For example, we know the universe is expanding because of the Doppler shift effect makes thing moving away look more red, and things coming towards us look more blue.
Same kind of thing is at work with sound and why an approaching train horn sounds higher pitched than when it is going away. Hence the “weeeyooow” sound effect.
The way we can tell what faraway stars or planets are made of, or how we tell what something is made of in the lab by using spectroscopy, is that all elements give off signature frequency bands. That’s why if you heat or burn sodium you get a yellow colour light. Hence coloured fireworks. Remote sensing for mineral exploration, and spectroscopy for lab work are very common tools.
So back to the climate change issue, a very wide band comes in, and an appreciable amount gets converted into infra-red due mainly to hot surfaces, and then the resulting infra-red is less able to escape back out into space.
Hope that makes things clearer.
” It is obvious that the reason this does not get into a positive feedback loop is because there is something independent of CO2 that is driving the temperature change.”
Well that may be true, but citing some mysterious unknown mechanism of action will always rank way at the bottom of the pile as preferred explanations in science. Since we have a mechanism that is much simpler and clearer and largely agrees with other mature theories, we don’t go for the mystery mechanism explanation. We know that one part of runaway-inhibition is plant growth. Plants use energy to grow and use CO2 to build. So that is part of what limits the effects of heating releasing dissolved CO2 from water bodies. We are reducing the net plant coverage, and continue to release previously captured CO2 and energy, so we are pushing the warming rather than letting it balance.
” I am just opposed to activists who use science as a means to political power. Particularly when there is evidence that their position is a crock.”
Go ahead, be opposed to political activists if you like, but I am talking about a broad array of science journals and bodies, and a vast range of research, all saying the same thing.
I read about a dozen different scientific publications as part of work and continuing education, and I haven’t seen even one paper or editorial taking the position you do. In addition, the range of completely different fields reporting climate change is just remarkable. I have never seen a single concept do it to this degree.
Fields as far apart as agriculture and study of frogs, both talking about phenomena that clearly signal increase in temperature and broad climate changes.
” There are scientists in the fields of meteorology, climatology, geology and others who are convinced that the amount of human activity being responsibile for global warming is minimal at worst”
I am sure there are.
However, they are either not publishing much research, or they are publishing in journals that neither I nor any of my friends or colleagues are reading.
Fact is, the various science bodies have all made their official statements, and none of them are seeing it as you do. They are all saying that it’s a warming event, and that human activity is the significant factor.
So here is my suggestion to you: ignore Gore and Rosen, but every Saturday, go to your local library, take Science, Nature, and any other of the science journals, and just thumb through the abstracts. You will see study after study after study saying what I just told you.
Bangalore Skank,
If CO2 is blocking infrared from escaping the earth, then infrared photographs taken by satellite of the earth's surface would appear dark. They don't. The only dark areas are over bodies of water, because water absorbs infrared. The fact that land masses are clearly seen can only happen if the infrared is escaping. That says that either CO2 isn't as good an insulator as is claimed, or its presense is easily disrupted by motions of the atmosphere. In any case, the infrared is getting out.
"citing some mysterious unknown mechanism of action will always rank way at the bottom of the pile as preferred explanations in science. Since we have a mechanism that is much simpler and clearer and largely agrees with other mature theories, we don’t go for the mystery mechanism explanation."
That's the same kind of attitude that was used to persecute people like Galleleo. There was a time when prevailing wisdom had it that the earth was the center of the universe. He thought differently. But the ruling class didn't go for the mystery mechanism either. To them, all that was needed was seeing the stars, the sun and the moon rise, move through the sky, and set to convince them that the earth sat motionless at the center. That explanation was also simple and clear, and none the less wrong.
Posted by Dave on November 2, 2007 10:28 AMBangalore:
Infra-red does not propagate well in a vacuum though hence how vacuum thermos flasks work, and several kinds of material are somewhat opaque to infra-red, such as methane, water-vapour, and CO2.
Infra-red propagates through a vacuum quite well, otherwise the Spitzer Space Telescope would be useless.
http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/
A vacuum thermos works not because it inhibits IR, but rather the vacuum is a barrier that keeps the hotter, faster vibrating molecules outside the thermos from banging into the colder, slower vibrating molecules inside the thermos which would make them vibrate faster (and thus be hotter).
Dave:
...The fact that land masses are clearly seen can only happen if the infrared is escaping. That says that either CO2 isn't as good an insulator as is claimed, or its presense is easily disrupted by motions of the atmosphere. In any case, the infrared is getting out.
It's neither. All that's required is that some percentage of the IR get out, not all of it. All that is required for an IR ray to escape is that is doesn't run into something that stops it (like a CO2 molecule). The probability that any particular IR ray will be stopped is a function of the distance it travels and the percentage of that space which is occupied by something that will stop it (like CO2 molecules). Increase that percentage (ie add more CO2 molecules), and the probability that an IR ray will escape goes down. That means for a given number of IR rays, increasing the percentage of space with IR blocking stuff (ie CO2) fewer IR rays will escape.
It's sort of like bowling - the more pins there are, the more likely your ball will hit one.
Posted by CL on November 2, 2007 11:30 AMBangalore mistakes someone’s opposition to certain findings as a claim that those scientists are “stupid.” It’s a sure bet that he is losing his grip when that is looked upon by him as a strong retort.
CL,
Please explain how CO2 will allow IR rays to enter the atmosphere but still traps it within the atmosphere.
Please explain how CO2 will allow IR rays to enter the atmosphere but still traps it within the atmosphere.
I'm not sure what you're getting at - since the CO2 is in the atmosphere how could it prevent IR from entering the atmosphere?
Technically, CO2 doesn't "trap" IR, it absorbs it - the IR doesn't exist anymore once it's been absorbed.
Lastly, CO2 doesn't prevent all the IR from leaving the atmosphere, a considerable amount (most I think) escapes into space. Conversely, CO2 doesn't absorb all of the IR coming in - much of it (again, most I suppose) gets through to the earths surface.
CL, yep you are right about propagation across a vacuum, I thoughtlessly tossed conduction and convection into it.
My mistake.
Once I posted it, I thought "hang on" but it was done and the PC was off.
Dave said ” If CO2 is blocking infrared from escaping the earth, then infrared photographs taken by satellite of the earth's surface would appear dark. They don't. The only dark areas are over bodies of water, because water absorbs infrared. The fact that land masses are clearly seen can only happen if the infrared is escaping.”
Yup, and indeed they are darker.
This analogy to insulation is good, insulation doesn’t stop transmission entirely, but attenuates it.
If CO2 was a perfect insulator and completely opaque to IR, we would have cooked a long time ago. However, it is an imperfect insulator so what we are getting is increased atmospheric insulation, and retaining more of the heat. The problem of heating is still very real.
” That's the same kind of attitude that was used to persecute people like Galleleo. There was a time when prevailing wisdom had it that the earth was the center of the universe. He thought differently. But the ruling class didn't go for the mystery mechanism either. To them, all that was needed was seeing the stars, the sun and the moon rise, move through the sky, and set to convince them that the earth sat motionless at the center. That explanation was also simple and clear, and none the less wrong.”
Not quite. The people who stood against Galileo were not swayed by what they called “internal evidence” but by scripture and received wisdom of the ages. It wasn’t observation that led them to disagree with Galileo, but the heretical nature of his claim. Scripture and biblical authorities were seen as paramount. The further back towards Biblical times, the more authority a text had. Galileo was proposing something that was observationally very close (you can’t easily tell the Copernican model from the Ptolemaic with the naked eye, and only then if you are watching Mercury), but which had a mechanism and source of authority entirely alien to those judging him. He flatly contradicted Aristotle, Ptolemy, and the Bible. For example, God did not command the earth to stand still, but rather the sun, therefore it is plain that it is the sun that is moving, not the earth.
What I described is “normal science” in which there is a distinct pecking order amongst theories. Those that mesh with other mature theories and have both power and elegance are at the top, and those arguing mysterious forces unknown to science are down at the bottom.
This is actually a rather good system since it lowers the amount of hokum polluting science. The idea is that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”.
The claim that human activities are a significant factor in global warming is no longer an extraordinary claim, but is now highly supported, has elegance, and has power.
Which is why it is the top theory.
” Bangalore mistakes someone’s opposition to certain findings as a claim that those scientists are “stupid.” It’s a sure bet that he is losing his grip when that is looked upon by him as a strong retort.”
Nah, me losing my grip would be if I tell you lot to bugger off and I stop posting here. ;)
What I am hoping to do is get you to consider why this huge body of scientists is saying something diametrically opposed to people like Rosen. If they aren’t stupid, which I assume you agree, and they are obviously deeply engaged in studying the problem, which I also assume you agree, then surely the question isn’t one of denying what they say but rather understanding it?
So all that then remains is to fill in whatever gaps exist and answer whatever questions you have. To get there I would like to be sure that you do actually know that the vast proportion of research papers and discussion all support the anthropogenic global warming assertion.
However, maybe there is a fundamental ideological barrier to your acceptance and I am hoping you would spit that up so that I could understand it.
So what I would love to see from you is a series of objections along the lines of “this could not be true because then P”.
Hope that makes sense.
One last point I want to emphasize here, is that in the “IR in vs IR out” you clearly understand that some of all the other radiation coming in is producing IR when bodies here heat up. So a lot more IR would need to get out to avoid temperature rising.
In other words there is more IR to go out than ever came in.