Quote from: hofor on April 14, 2015, 08:39:34 AM

Quote from: tvbcof on April 14, 2015, 03:37:45 AM

Dr. Salby seems to be a source of highest terror to the climate science establishment/cult, and his presentations demonstrate why. This one is somewhat less dense in math (no Lagrange integrals, fewer non-time-domain plots, etc.) I find it fairly convincing because of the inherent simplicity of his logic chains.

Isn't Salby the professor who claims that there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect, and who has been fired for fraud or similar violations a few times (misusing grant money to enrich himself, etc.)?

Kills puppies also most likely.

Quote from: hofor on April 14, 2015, 08:39:34 AM

Quote

Just generally, the hypothesis that temperature drives CO2 rather than the other way around has better explanatory power, and makes more intuitive sense to me as well.

So, do we believe you or thousands of scientists and thousands of scientific papers? Isn't it a bit more relevant what makes sense to people who are actual experts?

Firstly, many of the 'thousands of scientists and thousands of scientific papers' don't say what most Warmistas have heard that they say.

Secondly, 'thousands' of people confessed to witchcraft over the years and were punished appropriately. 'Thousands' of experts in witchcraft formed a strong 'consensus' about the subject and used state-of-the-art science to deal with the various catastrophes that witches brought about.

Thirdly, if one is ejected from the ranks of 'expert' by going against the grain then no, the surviving hypothesis is not especially relevant.

In my mind, the jury is out on the science behind current atmospheric changes and the associated risks. It's a complex and (likely by design a) poorly understood subject. Two things I can say with confidence at this point:

1) The science is NOT settled

2) The issue is currently being totally abused to run a variety of scams in which by this time TRILLIONS of dollars have changed hands. Somehow it seems to be the case that everything the 'scientific consensus of experts' produces supports more scammery rather than less and promotes certain projects of certain of those in unrelated fields of politics and social science.