Quote:
|
Originally Posted by raveneye
No, you are missing the point, because you simply haven't bothered to read any of the relevant papers. If you had read the Rasool paper you would have seen that all they used of Hansen's was a little computer code he wrote that calculates the value of a basic physical function, the Mie function, which describes how light scatters off a spherical object. Needless to say, this is not a "climate model" and it says nothing about climate change on earth.
|
You seem to minimize the Mie function. In a predictive climate model it is difficult to know when other variables will start to have a bigger and bigger impact. In my opinion there is a paradox in the current singular focus on CO2 while stating the issue is settled. Just as a reliance on the Mie function lead to an erroneous conclusion so could the current models be leading to an erroneous conclusion, especially given a 9 year prediction of doom.
Quote:
The real story here is that the entire right-wing blogosphere has fallen for it. A nice example of how an overwhelming desire to believe something can make one as gullible as a seven year old.
Hansen was sure right about the "court jesters" 
|
Someone who presents questions on an issue where a leading scientist is saying in 9 years we will reach a point of no return, is a "gullible seven year old"? Why the ad hominem from those who think the issue is settled?
And when you say all the questions regarding global warming and the cause are answered and the issue settled, does that mean that you think no further research and analysis is needed, or are you just exaggerating? At one point I thought you were just exaggerating a little, now I am not sure.