Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Layman struggles with Science
#21
[quote author=Richard111 link=topic=258.msg2048#msg2048 date=1256214991]
Richard,

Quote:I hope this explanation is clear.

Yes, but, but, splutter.. well, I will read it many times more as it seems an excellent summary of the AGW problem. Thank you.

What I have in mind is to teach myself enough physics to hopefully understand the WVF effect. This automatically reflects on the effects of CO2. For instance, the DRY adiabatic lapse rate is constant for any level of water vapour until the dew point temperature is reached.
This seems to indicate CO2 will have no effect in dry air.

As I have no previous experience or training I have envisaged a thought exercise using a one meter square column of air which I can imagine over any surface and try to work out what is happening up the column. Keeps me amused. For example. every six meters the available CO2 equates to a layer 2 millimeters deep. I can calculate the mass but I still don't know how much the CO2 will absorb and how much it will transfere via conduction and how much is radiated. Also it cannot reradiate at the same energy level it absorbed. It goes on and on but I am learning a lot. Have learned about Avogadro's Law and about the mole etc. What a mind that man must have had to work that out back then. I am in awe.

Anyway, thanks for your input Richard. Have copied it to my harddrive for easy reference.

Cheers, Richard111
[/quote]

This below is commonly called the POSITIVE feedback,of the CO2 to Water Vapor relationship:

Quote:Points 1 to 5 are are known as the Water Vapour Feedback (WVF).  The direct effect on global temperature from a doubling of CO2 in the air would b about 0.6 deg.C.  And (according to e.g. IPCC) the effect of the WVF is to increase this warming to between 3 and 6.5 deg.C.

It is that Positive Feedback angle that the alarmists pin their AGW hypothesis hopes on.But it is increasingly apparent that something is very wrong with that,is due to the lack of evidence for the "hot spot".

DR.Spenser seems to think that it is possible for it to be a NEGATIVE feedback,to be derived from such a relationship.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#22
FYI:
The supporters and the models Ass u me that the atmosphere is "WELL" Mixed! The recent satellite records show that is not the case and that the atmosphere is anything but well mixed. That "MINOR" issue destroys the AGW Hoax. Also as is mentioned the Hot Spot is not happening probably because the globe is not warming other than in adjusted reports and not in reality. The melting is related to shifting climate patterns which are normal according to historic records.

I want to admit that I have seen a "Pig" fly. That was in Pigeon Forge where the carnival ride was built like flying pigs.
Reply
#23
I saw one at a Pink Floyd concert.

Smile
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!


Reply
#24
Richard111:

You seem to have a misunderstanding when you say:

"For instance, the DRY adiabatic lapse rate is constant for any level of water vapour until the dew point temperature is reached.
This seems to indicate CO2 will have no effect in dry air."

No.  A fixed dry adiabatic lapse rate is used in some models as a simplifying assumption.

Please remember that the lapse rate results from a mechanical effect (i.e. warm air rises and expands - so cools - as it rises) but greenhouse warming is a radiative effect.

Richard
Reply
#25
[quote author=Richard S Courtney link=topic=258.msg2052#msg2052 date=1256240857]
Richard111:

You seem to have a misunderstanding when you say:

"For instance, the DRY adiabatic lapse rate is constant for any level of water vapour until the dew point temperature is reached.
This seems to indicate CO2 will have no effect in dry air."

No.  A fixed dry adiabatic lapse rate is used in some models as a simplifying assumption.

Please remember that the lapse rate results from a mechanical effect (i.e. warm air rises and expands - so cools - as it rises) but greenhouse warming is a radiative effect.

Richard
[/quote]

Yes. But I expected different rates of warming in the atmosphere for different levels of water vapour. Can you explain why this does not hapen please.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#26
I think this is interesting:

Twentieth Century Temperature Correlation with no CO2 influence (update)

It is only a two page PDF. Worth a look.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#27
Richard111:

You ask me:
"Yes. But I expected different rates of warming in the atmosphere for different levels of water vapour. Can you explain why this does not hapen please."

OK.  I will try.

The dry laps rate is always  -10K/km but the saturated lapse rate depends on the surface temperature.

For a motionless atmospher, the saturated lapse rate at 30 C surface temperature  is -3.7K/km. 

The generally accepted moist lapse rate is -6.5 K/km and is provided by a global mean radiative transfer model with convective adjustment (Manabe and Strickler 1964).  The heating effect of variations to the moisture alters the convective thermal transfer and, therefore, does not alter the lapse rate:  extra heat moves up convectively.

Please note that this is a theoretical consideration for the global average.  Lapse rates vary over time at any location and between locations.

I do not know if this is more clear, but I tried.

Richard
Reply
#28
Richard,

Many thanks for your valuable time guiding people like me through this labyrinth of climate chaos. Any lack of understanding is a failure on my part. I have ventured into this field of study without any qualifications. Many years ago I held a Private Pilots Licence and just recently I became aquainted with Avogadro's Law which might explain the direction of my questions. Only yesterday I calculated that 1 cubic meter of pure CO2 gas at standard temperature and pressure would mass 1,800 grams (excluding a few decimal points). This gave me great satisfaction even if the result is a bit off. Wouldn't even have known where to start until recently.

So I guess hanging around blogs like this is my school.  Wink

Richard111
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#29
With regard to the water vapour feedback effect, I find relying on  data from the web results in much confusion so I will discuss a personal experience and experiment that anyone can replicate.

Way back when the UK Met office forecast a “barbeque summer” I had read about a homemade cardboard box solar oven. I also happened to spot a couple of sheets of tempered glass in a skip at the local recycle centre. Since no one seemed to be looking my way the glass transferred to the boot of my car which was nearby as I off loaded my own defunct glassware. ( bottles and stuff)

Having acquired the glass this encouraged me to do the rest. Two cardboard boxes were found. The smaller one about 14 inches square and fitted inside the larger box with about a 2 inch space all round and underneath. The 2 inch gap between the boxes was packed with polystyrene sheet cut to fit. Any remaining air gaps were stuffed with cardboard on the side away from the inner box. The top of each box was trimmed off such that both boxes and the packing were level and there was a 14 inch square hole. This would be the oven and was accordingly lined with cooking foil and the bottom painted black with school board paint. As the foil was quite delicate I placed, upside down, a small black baking tray on the bottom to support the cast iron cooking pot. The lid was hardboard cut just larger than the outer box such that  lengths of half inch batten screwed to the edges made for a tight fit over the box. A square hole and a single sheet of glass, gaffa-taped down firmly, completed the oven. I also lined a separate small sheet of hardboard with cooking foil to act as a reflector.

Did it work? Yes! But with failures and the failures are what I will talk about. Firstly, a sunny day with a clear blue sky, the darker the blue the better, guaranteed a well cooked dish. Temperature in the oven would reach and hold around 200 degrees F. Any small clouds did not effect the oven temperature as long  as they did not hide the sun for more than about ten minutes or so at a time.

Now failures in detail. Obviously a cloudy day was a no-no. But there were many clear sunny days when the temperature would not rise above 150F. I noticed that these days, although the sky was clear, it was not blue-blue, it tended towards blue-white, the more white the less heat in the oven. That high level haze has a marked effect on reducing the incoming solar energy.  The most surprising failures were caused by jet contrails. This seemed to be allied to the hazy sky problem in that although the oven reached cooking temperature, if a jet contrail was in the way of the sun the temperature dropped off and the cooking had to be completed on the kitchen stove. Jet contrails during these hazy conditions could persist for hours and often expand into full blown cirrus stratus. So any jet contrails hanging about indicated another no cooking day. Out of about ten attempts only three were fully successful.

What I ended up doing was placing the oven outside and adjusting the reflector and noting the temperature change on the oven thermometer inside. With no pot inside the temperature would climb fairly quickly to about 150F and then rise more slowly. The temperature would have to rise and hold at 180F for at least an hour before my wife would consider trying to use the oven. I noticed that the glass top would get very hot to the touch which indicated heat loss from the oven. But this turned out to be a good indicator of when cooking would fail because the pot inside the oven acted as a heat store and you would not notice that incoming heat was much reduced.

So, while I have not made a very efficient solar oven, I produced a workable INSOLATION METER.
The results are quite startling. Even when you think you have a clear sunny day, that high level haze has markedly reduced incoming heat energy. That is not just into my little box but my local environment for possibly many miles around. And what is that haze? It is not water vapour. You cannot see water vapour. But you can see condensed water vapour, tiny drops of liquid water and possibly even ice. Any thickening of this layer, such as jet contrails, shows a further drop in available energy at ground level.

The exact mechanism for this energy loss I surmise is reflection. If much heat energy was being absorbed the water droplets would vaporise and you would have clear skies again.
So as far as water vapour feedback goes I find no change even though relative humidity may be different each day, but if there is any condensation causing haze or high level stratus then  energy levels at ground level fall off sharply. To me this implies negative feedback. It would be interesting to compare the performance of a solar panel at the same time.

Richard111

Quote:Water and global warming
Water is the main absorber of the sunlight in the atmosphere. The 13 million million tons of water in the atmosphere (~0.33% by weight) is responsible for about 70% of all atmospheric absorption of radiation, mainly in the infrared region where water shows strong absorption. It contributes significantly to the greenhouse effect ensuring a warm habitable planet, but operates a negative feedback effect, due to cloud formation reflecting the sunlight away, to attenuate global warming. The water content of the atmosphere varies about 100-fold between the hot and humid tropics and the cold and dry polar ice deserts.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#30
In my search for understanding how increasing CO2 in the atmosphere can cause a catastrophic rise in global atmospheric
temperatures I have come across such terms as "radiative transfer code" and "parameterization of the atmospheric heating
rate" which apparently mean the same thing. Interestingly the in depth pages explaining these terms in Wikipedia are not
available. I wonder why?

Whatever. In my searches I came across the following abstract:

Overlapping effects of atmospheric H2O, CO2 and O3 on the CO2 radiative effects

Sadly I am unable to recover the full URL so will post what I see. My emphasis in last sentence.

Quote:Title: Overlapping effects of atmospheric H2O, CO2 and O3 on the CO2 radiative effects
Authors: Wang, W.-C.; Ryan, P. B.
Affiliation: AA(Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc., Cambridge, MA), AB(Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc., Cambridge, MA)
Publication: In: Conference on Atmospheric Radiation, 4th, Toronto, Canada, June 16-18, 1981, Preprints. (A83-14626 03-46) Boston, MA, American Meteorological Society, 1981, p. 244-247. U.S. Department of Transportation
Publication Date: 00/1981
Category: Geophysics

Abstract
The overlapping effects of atmospheric H2O, O3, and CO2 on the radiative perturbation due to a factor of two increase in the present atmospheric CO2 abundance of 330 ppmv are investigated using sensitivity analysis. The effect on the perturbation of radiative heating/cooling in the stratosphere, troposphere, and on the ground due to such an increase in CO2 is examined separately. The calculations are based on the narrow band model in order to minimize the uncertainty that results when the spectral interval covers the whole infrared band with a band width on the order of a few hundred wave numbers. Results show that the overlapping of H2O, CO2, and O3 could have a large influence on the calculated CO2 radiative effect, especially in the troposphere and on the ground, and that the perturbation of solar radiation due to the increase in CO2 has a negative feedback effect on the CO2-induced perturbation of thermal radiation.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#31
Hi All,
Richard111, I know I have said something similar to you over at Greenworld trust, ie on this thread,
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Forum/...=2387#2387

Specifically you ask how is either curve derived, with reference to this plot of mine.

[Image: Slide6-66.jpg]

The red line is David Archibald's experimental data taken regarding the temperature increase in a sample of air at sea level. As I understand it no one disagrees with this particular experiment.
Expressed as, 1.5 degrees Celcius temperature rise for the first 20ppm CO2 and a further two tenths of the previous temperature rise per doubling of CO2 thereafter.
ie, 1.5C 20PPM CO2,
1.5 + 0.3 = 1.8C at 40ppm CO2,
1.8 + 0.06 = 1.86C at 80ppm CO2,
1.86 + 0.012 = 1.872C at 160ppm CO2,
etc, etc, etc..

The green plots are the IPCC / modelling assumed CO2 effect on it's own through the depth of the atmosphere.
Expressed as, 10 degrees Celcius temperature rise for the first 280ppm CO2 and a further tenth of the previous temperature rise per doubling of CO2 thereafter.
ie, 10C at 280ppm CO2,
10 + 1 = 11C at 560ppm CO2,
11 + 0.1 = 11.1 at 1120ppm CO2,
11.1 + 0.01 = 11.11C at 2240ppm CO2,
etc, etc, etc..

As far as I am aware there is no experiment or data to back up the assumed rate for the CO2 on it's own effect upon temperature through the depth of the atmosphere.
ie, 10 degrees celcius / 280ppm CO2, and the difference of one or two tenths per doubling between David Archibald and the IPCC / modelling..
I am posting this here, as I hope far better informed people than me will correct me if I am ignorant on this very, very important issue that more people should understand.

The differences between the two plotted lines is stark. What is the most important difference though. ?
I would suggest the first step figures of 20ppm CO2 and 280ppm CO2 figures are the most important difference.
The reason is that the higher the CO2 ppm figure is for the first step, the further to the right will be the resulting curve.
This simply means that the level above which CO2 (ppm) does not raise temperature on it's own is raised.
If for example the 280 figure was actually the same as David Archibald's sea level figure of 20ppm for the first step then even with a 10 degrees Celcius first step
almost all the resultant heating due to CO2 would have happened before an atmospheric concentration of 80 to 160 ppm of CO2.
Even a rough adding up in my mind suggests that if the first step was as high as 180ppm CO2
(incidentally if the 10 degrees celcius figure is too high, than a lower figure would allow a higher CO2 ppm, and
we would still be past the point where CO2 on it's own could have an effect),
then there would be no, or virtually no CO2 on it's own effect heating left in the system.

The AGW "theory" as modelled, is that a small CO2 on it's own induced temperature increase is amplified by an increased water vapour content of the warmer air.
This heating and amplification would be most obvious in the upper troposphere at the tropics,
and is the "cause" of the as modelled (but missing in reality) "hot spot" there.

IF  the assumed figure for the first step is too high, then the heating mechanism would not be observable as no initial heating by CO2 on it's own would be occurring.
This does not mean it was not ever there (it may never have been we simply do not know), but just that we have already gone past the CO2 concentration that could of induced such a heating mechanism.

Either way, the curve being too far to the right as modelled fits in with observations that can not see the assumed hot spot, and
that show water vapour falling as CO2 has been rising (for whatever reason) rather than rising as modelled.

I have started an intended simple piece to try to explain all the above in a hopefully logical and understandable sequence and once past the IPCC "explanations"
I will add Richard S Courtney's 1999 paper plus his clear, understandable, and simple description elsewhere here of what the paper shows regarding aerosols, and how modellers have used them.
Between too much assumed heating, and then after the fact tailoring of aerosol cooling to get the "right" results,
it will hopefully show what present climate modelling is really about..
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#32
Quote:The red line is David Archibald's experimental data taken regarding the temperature increase in a sample of air at sea level. As I understand it no one disagrees with this particular experiment.
Expressed as, 1.5 degrees Celcius temperature rise for the first 20ppm CO2 and a further two tenths per doubling of CO2 thereafter.

Where is that chart showing the logarithmic curve for CO2 and temperature?

I have been looking for it and for some reason it eludes me.

It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#33
David Archibald has used it in a lot of his presentations, Heartland 08 I'm sure, and 09 I think as well.

I looked in the first powerpoint presentation on this page at David Archibald dot info,
http://www.davidarchibald.info/
Page 45.
http://www.davidarchibald.info/papers/Th...202009.pdf

I also have this "copy" on photobucket, in an (as they all are) public folder
[Image: Slide8-88.jpg]
If I remember correctly it was taken from an early version of his The past and future of climate paper / presentation,
in the paper David Archiblad also names where the experiement was conducted and describes briefly the methods used.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#34
That is the one!

Now I can make that post in two forums,that I had asked people by means of a quiz.

Thanks!

Big Grin
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#35
Yes. I have a copy of that graph in my GW folder. That was the one that got me started.

How is it derived? From first principles? This knowledge is so important that it should be available on demand.

I can calculate the number of molecules in a cubic metre of air at any temperature and pressure but
I cannot find out how much heat energy is absorbed by the gasses over any period of time. Also how
much energy is radiated away before any heat is passed to the air. Also any greenhouse gas CANNOT
re-radiate above its ambient temperature; i.e. there is NO FREE ENERGY.

Another important point that that graph supports for my thinking is that greenhouse gasses CAN AND DO
radiate at any temperature thereby COOLING their local environment.

This has been noted by measurements in the upper troposphere. Ach! It goes on and on!!

WHERE ARE THE TUTORIALS COVERING THE BASIC SCIENCE OF THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT?

Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#36
Derek, I have found a graph on my computer labled 350-vs-388_logarithmic_co2.png. File size 14kb.
Blowed if I know where I got it from. I seem to collect data squirrel fashion, grab a nut, shove in a hole and forget.

It is similar to your graph above. If you are interested I can send over PM if they allow attachments.

Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#37
Here is an example of the simple level I am working at but finding problems obtaining data.

If you consider the first 5 metres of the atmosphere you can say the total CO2 at 400ppm is equivalent to a layer 2 mm deep.
Therefore 500 square metres 5 metres deep contains the equivalent of 1 cubic metre of CO2. This will mass at 1,860.86 grams
(from Avogadro's number). Now a cubic meter of air at standard temperature and pressure will mass at 1,225 grams, but we
have (500 x 5) - 1 cubic metres so that will mass at 3,061,275 grams. (3.061 tons plus with 1.86kg of CO2, trace gas indeed)

In this example we have 500 square metres of surface radiating up at that CO2 with 268 watts per square metre,
that is a total of 134,000 watts! Hot stuff! (see link below)

The interesting bit is that CO2 will ignore 92% of that radiation and a significant proportion of the remaining radiation will be
shared with water vapour and other greenhouse gasses at this low level in the atmosphere.

The question now is: how much of that 8% radiation can CO2 absorb? I can intuitively accept that our 1.86kg of CO2 will reach
the temperature of the surface radiation, but how much heat will be passed to the local atmosphere (of 3.061 tons) which is
probably only a degree or two cooler? At this point our 1.86kg of CO2 CANNOT absorb any more radiation, it will only absorb
enough to replace what it passes to the atmosphere via conduction. Again, how much?

Remember, it needs 1,003.5 joules to raise temperature of 1kg air 1 degree C.

I think I had better stop here. If anyone is still reading I can reccomend looking at

WATER AND THE EARTH’S HEAT BUDGETS

A couple of quotes from that paper to whet your interest;

Quote:In terms of quantum thermodynamics, this means that liquids and
solids possess many, many more possible energy levels. Consequently, the
spectra of liquids and solids present virtually continuous bands. The
individual energy levels are present in these bands, but our current
technology is incapable of distinguishing them. For this and other reasons,
solids and liquids are usually converted into gases before spectrographic
analysis is attempted.

Quote:There is a very small area of overlap between the solar spectrum and
the terrestrial one. This occurs between 3,000 and 9,000 nanometers in the
solar spectrum and three to nine microns in the terrestrial one. However,
both spectra are near the respective tails of their distribution curves and are
relatively low in intensity in that area of overlap. Hence, it is both possible
and convenient to treat them as two separate streams of photons.
It should be noted that that range of wavelengths held in common is
strongly absorbed by water vapor and—to a lesser extent—carbon dioxide.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#38
Richard111, with the greatest of repsect, I think you are making it more complicated than it needs to be at present.
Above I have given as basic a description as I think is possible of what AGW assumes and models.
Patently the real world is nothing like that.
It is far, far, far more complicated, as you are finding out.

May I suggest you look at Dr Miskolczi's works, I think you would get the jist of his works far better than most (me included)
and I would hope you could get to a simple description of his revised greenhouse effect.
It would appear to me to be a massive step in the right direction, it just needs "interpretting" for the rest of us "plebs"..
Help us out Richard111.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#39
Ouch! I really am the last person to ask for assistance in this matter.

For example from Jennifer Marohasy's blog with regard to Miskolczi:

Quote:First, really for the first time in the greenhouse literature, he published a global average infrared optical depth (the exact measure of the greenhouse effect) for the Earth’s atmosphere. This calculation was a distillation of all his efforts. He published his empirical estimate for tau,  , as 1.87 (a dimensionless quantity, describing the optical thickness of the atmosphere – a technical term meaning the climatologically appropriately weighted global average number of times that a statistically typical longwave photon, emitted by the earth’s warm surface, is absorbed and re-emitted on its way through the atmosphere while escaping into outer space).

How this tau quantity relates to the "exact measure of the greenhouse effect" leaves me completely baffled.

But when I read Jim Tyson on his global energy budget paper I find I can attempt more reading.

Quote:A Cautionary Note on “Re-radiation”: Scholars who should know better (I have done it myself) sometimes use the term reradiation to describe the absorption of a photon by a molecule and the subsequent emission of a photon. This usage is almost always false and misleading. It does sometimes happen that a molecule will absorb a photon of a specific wavelength and subsequently emit a photon of the identical wavelength, but this is relatively rare.

The wavelengths of emitted photons are highly temperature dependent. A molecule of water or carbon dioxide or ozone may readily absorb a short wavelength/high energy photon of solar radiation, but is extremely unlikely to emit such a photon. Instead, the molecule will most likely emit several photons of a longer wavelength and lower energy
content. Therefore, neither the atmosphere nor the Earth’s surface absorbs and reradiates radiant energy. Both absorb radiation and both emit radiation. Over a sufficient period of time, the total energy content of the absorption will equal the total energy content of the emission if the temperatures remain constant. However, the number of photons absorbed and their wavelengths will not equal the number of photons emitted. Moreover, the set of wavelengths absorbed will not be the same as the set of wavelengths emitted.

For all practical purposes, re-radiation does not take place in the Earth-atmosphere system.

Note that the wavelength of the photon is temperature dependant, not the photon itself, all photons have the same quantum of energy. Note the caveat "if the temperatures remain constant".

Anyway, nil desperandom and all that, may the force be with you and if you find out what the force is do tell.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#40
Richard111, care of the Does CO2 trap heat thread at Greenworld trust (Ferdinand's comments are an absolute hoot...)
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Forum/...=2387#2387
I wait for you to tell............
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)