More scientists stating the obvious

[BrilloPad]

http://http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-weather-britain-must-be-ready-for-worst-droughts-in-modern-times-9746455.html

Look forward to some dry weather predicted by the climate scientists.

I remember 1976. Supposed to be a once in 50 year occurrence.

The solution is o move the population to an area with high rainfall. Starting with parliament. It needs about £10bn worth of work. Just move it to Manchester. It rains there every day....

[pjclarke]

All well and good so presumably you can explain therefore quite easily why he is wrong instead of smearing him personally. Or do you prefer your ad hominen technique that you so criticise everyone else for using?

I already gave three examples: He claimed climatology 'ignores' water vapour in GHG calculations, false, I linked to the IPCC FAQ where it is discussed. He said CO2 readings are suspect because they are only taken in one location, a volcano, I gave a link explaining that CO2 is monitored worldwide, and he asserts that any gas molecule with more than 2 atoms is a GHG is laughable to anyone whose opened a chemistry textbook. There are many many more howlers but surely three is enough?

Then there's 'the smell test', anyone who can disprove over a hundred years of physics and chemistry and demonstrate that placing the planet in a radiative imbalance is not going to cause it to heat up will earn a Nobel, minimum, plus the undying gratitude of governments and the fossil fuel industry. This guy posted his essay on LinkedIn where it sank without trace, until you stumbled upon it ....

[DodgyAgent]

I already gave three examples: He claimed climatology 'ignores' water vapour in GHG calculations, false, I linked to the IPCC FAQ where it is discussed. He said CO2 readings are suspect because they are only taken in one location, a volcano, I gave a link explaining that CO2 is monitored worldwide, and he asserts that any gas molecule with more than 2 atoms is a GHG is laughable to anyone whose opened a chemistry textbook. There are many many more howlers but surely three is enough?

Then there's 'the smell test', anyone who can disprove over a hundred years of physics and chemistry and demonstrate that placing the planet in a radiative imbalance is not going to cause it to heat up will earn a Nobel, minimum, plus the undying gratitude of governments and the fossil fuel industry. This guy posted his essay on LinkedIn where it sank without trace, until you stumbled upon it ....

For a start water vapour is consigned very much to the back of the alarmists debate as are so many other factors. Are you saying that a molecule consisting of more than one molecule does not absorb light/heat?.
I notice that your argument shifts the onus on "disproving" science rather than proving it which is why you people latch onto any extreme of climate behaviour and try to link it to the burning of fossil fuels. This guy may not be the worlds greatest scientist but he is playing you lot at your own game.

[BlasterBates]

he asserts that any gas molecule with more than 2 atoms is a GHG is laughable

Perhaps you should open a chemistry textbook.

[EternalOptimist]

Perhaps you should open a chemistry textbook.

Usually it's good form to let things slide, but pj laughing at this guy is execrable considering that only last week he had to be educated about 'dry steam'.

go and plant a tree pj.