Yes, it served his purpose in pushing the GW agenda in a subtle manner.

Exactly the point Prof! I think this guy was trying to get there, maybe his gravity thing threw things off. But his point is that those with a vested (financial) interest (which is seemingly a lot of Democrats) have made it into solid, proven, foundational science. I think there is climate change in process, but no proof is on the table that man has anything to do with it. The CFC issue was provable by in situ measurements, the CO2 theory has not.

Good points +1

Indeed, Ol Dino is on a roll...

You may be correct that the analogy is not the best, but it does serve his purpose, and that is that the statement that something "settled" is very often only in the minds of those with the vested interests.

Yet "all" scientists are in agreement about climate change. Right? You just illustrated the point this guy was making. Water vapor may not be the final answer, but it is another bit in the puzzle. And, yes, no one is educating the public, although I think a lot of people may not want to know, so they just move to "scientists all agree", thus validating the end state by default.

Thanks for an alternate view...

bltzlfx!

Bwahaha! My work here is done.

I'm sure I have a snappy comeback, but somehow your post is so goofy that it makes my mind go blank.

Me dino can cope with space-time crazy and maybe start a business too.
On sale at all fine stores: Space Cadet Tights cut from the fabric of space.
Our top quality line of No, No, Not Warp 6! Klingons will be coming soon to put Victoria's Secret to shame.

I still think it's Einstein's fault. Space-time, the fabric of space, what kind of craziness is that?

There are those that propose that gravity is a relatively weak force operating locally according to strength. I would agree that the "Gravitational system" needs to be rethought...seems more likely that what they think they see is actually electromagnetic according to the Electric Universe Theory.

One thing that was really interesting some 10 plus years ago is that it was discovered via satellite, that gravity is not consistent over the entire earth. It fit the experiences I've had on my sailing yacht over 12 years...no such thing as a standardized "Sea Level" don't ya know.

Karl Popper +1; E. M. Goldratt +1

Forty years ago the prediction was that by now we would be in an ice age, twenty years ago the same data proved without doubt that warming would have our coastal cities up to their ankles in water by now. No mention of the time between @900 and 1300 when Greenland was geen and growing grapes or the the Renaissance began. And what about those fossilized tropical plants and animals found in Canada and Siberia? If 98% believed in the climate conensus, they must have been drinking the drugged coolaide before the vote.

But there is a standard calculation that given the atmospheric gases, and incident radiation, you can calculate the steady-state temperature. It works pretty well, but under predicts slightly. It is a text book calculation to do Venus, Mars and the Earth. This calculation will show an increase in temperature for higher CO2, but it is a fractional power (weaker than sqrt) and additional CO2 has little affect.

Many scientists like to point to the "greenhouse" effect of CO2 which is a reflection of energy. The problem with that whole notion is that the majority of our energy comes from the sun. If CO2 were reflecting energy to the degree they claim, it would be reflecting energy from the sun away from Earth - preventing it from reaching the surface - way before it would be reflecting it back toward the surface. It's an argument that sounds good - until you actually look at the entire picture.

Me dino sez the pull of gravity on this planet is way too fast.
Drop something breakable and it shatters at your feet in hardly more time than the blink of an eye.
The slower gravity of Mars and especially the Moon is way better as long as you can reach down to catch that coffee cup quick enough. Heck, come to think of it, that coffee cup may not even break upon impact
This is clearly not fair. Since our lib amoral betters say 97% of scientists agree we humans have the power to make Earth hotter, we should also be able to make gravity safer so granny won't fall and break her hip.
Granny lives matter!

Mike, if you are curious about alternatives to the current scientific explanations about "gravity," you may be interested in the electric universe theory. A number of researchers and scientists around the globe exchange information on it, and it's published as videos on the "Thunderbolts of the Gods" youtube channel.

Yes there is climate change. It is a deceit of certain humans that mankind had anything of relevance to do with it. At various times, the earth has been a fireball, a waterworld, an iceball and a steam bath. All that was way before man made an appearance on earth. Perhaps it was the insect's fault. They grew pretty big during the steamy era. As to gravity, Dr. Einstein screwed that up so that poor old Newton should have eaten the apple and forgotten about it.

I don't know about cooling. Where does that come from? My research said that the first-order affect of CO2 was warming, but the fraction of frequencies it retains is saturated, and adding more CO2 has ever diminishing effect.

I agree with Lucky - gravity is not a rational analogy.
But what is important here is what is omitted: that the real climate data says that warming is not serious and they don't show that man is the primary contributor to it.

Yup. They like to point to CO2, but CO2 actually contributes to cooling - not warming. It's also plant food and science points pretty clearly to the time of the dinosaurs where CO2 as a percentage of the atmosphere was 5x higher than it is now and plant life flourished.

That was a great book - especially when you find out that the first writing of the book was how global warming was going to destroy the planet. While Crichton was doing his research (which if you'd read any of his other books shows up in each chapter heading) he had to go back and re-write the entire book because the research contradicted his initial plot.

This was also the last book he wrote. He died after advocating that instead of spending billions combating climate change we should spend billions addressing poverty and living conditions around the world because they were things that would actually help people and have a real outcome.

Well done, Mike! +1