The 3% is from a doctored Wikky

I remember when we had one of these threads before and I read that most of the scientists who sit as representatives on these round the world freebie meetings aren't actually eeer...scientists.

Anyway, you have twisted my arm.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...arming-crisis/

That is very interesting. Did you note that in the post before this I mention that The Heartland Institute is a major promoter/funder of Climate Change Denial "Science"? James M Taylor (who wrote that piece) is a senior fellow of that institute. Now this doesn't matter too much to me but those who are talking up the vested interest angle should well take note.

I can see why you don't like posting links very much

Aren't the Universities, and therefore Scientists who receive millions of pounds in grants guilty of having vested interests Works both ways.

If you cant trust the scientists - which its hard to know who you can and cant trust, then use your head! Look at historical claims of global warming - the Al gore thing, the IPCCs predictions of the doom and gloom expected by 2015, the failings of nearly all their predictions. So if they cant get those right - or even nearly right, why can they be trusted to get anything else right!? Then look at history - right back passed the mini ice age, waaay back passed the other ice ages and warmings, when the Sahara was under water, when dinosaurs were around, meteor hits, the Pangaea, the absolute devastation when it all started to split, earth quakes, volcanic erruptions on a massive scale.................... Now look at the future. Yes, we can expect more of the same, regardless of what we do

Jo xxx

I think you'd be hard pressed to find a recent (last 20 years) reference from peer reviewed scientific literature that cast doubt on the scientific basis for anthropogenic climate interference.

But feel free to contradict my knowledge that this is true.

Please note, links to grey websites hosted by cranks are not quite the same thing.

Here's a little test suitable for an average O-level science student.

What would be the mean surface temperature on Earth if there was no influence from infrared active trace gases in the atmosphere?

Just a starter for 10.

Well according to some research. its increased over the last 200 years or so by about 0.5k, altho its a crazy way to evaluate when the readings are not able to show the total surface from all over the globe, In the last 20 years its started to show a decline apparently!? The IPCC predicted it would rise by another 1.5 creating the "hockey stick effect", which it hasnt. However, air temperature is another issue.

Jo xxx

0 out of 10. You didn't even understand the question.

Which was "what would the temperature be in the absence of infrared active greenhouse gasses"?

Try again. This is an open book exam and you can google.

As a hint, you'll need to find out the blackbody temperature of the Sun, the Stephan-Boltzmann equation and Kirchoff's Law.

Also, find out how far the Earth is from the Sun and the radius of Earth, then remember that the Earth is a sphere.

I personally havent a clue, but my husband studied volcanology at uni, he told me what to write, but said he didnt understand the relevance or the wording of the question, but suspected it was written by someone trying to be a smart arse (his words not mine lol)??

Jo xxx

He doesn't understand the relevance of the use of science to explain the situation?

Very good Jo Jo! Yes, they dug the Jubilee river here for the Olympic games a decade ago and it has really helped eliminate the flooding Maidenhead used to experience. The flood defence ditch now the town was neglected neglected after this but luckily while full of vegetation the banks were sound. It is now full of water, acting as an additional store.

I like your style Jo.

your husband is right, i.e. 0/10 for the question setter - nowhere near enough information provided to constitute a valid GSE exam question. However, as an attempt to be a smart ass - it was elegant in its simplicity and, of course, a complete red herring.

I actually liked what you did there Novo nice work!

You so need to learn the art of debate - all you do is post your supposedly "correct" links, which I dont ever even bother to look at, let alone go to the trouble of "proving" they're incorrect. Then you disregard all those links that dont agree with yours - you actually havent a clue. While there is doubt, while there are supporters, scientists, engineers, politicians, laypeople, while its an hypothesis, then its not a fact or conclusive, ........ And most importantly for those observers, so far the predictions havent happened as the IPCC said they would.

So criticise the links you dont like if you want - but think about what sacrifices "believers" should now make to back up their belief!

Jo xxx

Is this you or your hubby posting JoJo?

But Jo, the evidence is overwhelming! All of these supporters, scientists, engineers and politicians you mention are becoming a tiny minority.
Infact, I don´t know of a politician still doubting the scientific claims being made.
On a side note, let´s just say´just for fun, that´s it´s all bs. We go on living the way we do allowing the snowball of world distruction continue to roll and hey, who really cares because nothing happened....right?
Or, let´s say the world is approaching very dangerous levels of global warming/climate change, call it what you will and again, we do nothing. Only this time we all die. Including the planet!
Being the sucker I am, I´d be inclined to err on the side of caution.