climate change worse than previously thought, page-15

zzzedzzz,

Read that post. It has some merit in that water vapour is indeed a greenhouse gas and how the clouds behave is a variable in how much heat gets trapped in the atmosphere. Also there are natural oscillations at play which contribute to falling or rising temperatures on a periodic basis.

However I'm unwilling to give it too much weight for the folowing reasons :

1. It is one argument amongst many in the skeptics armoury and they seem to swap from one to another at a moment's notice. The world isn't heating, it's cooling but if it is heating then it's solar flares or cloud cover or undersea volcanoes or alien ray guns, anything but our CO2 emissions. Too many protests and too many of them lack any sort of scientific rigour.

2. If these observations have true validity then where have they been published (apart from the internet) and validated and why haven't they been taken up by the scientific community at large ?

3. He claims that the IPCC temperature range is an overestimate whereas the veidence being presented in Copenhagen is showing quite the opposite which rather shoots holes in his dubious model.

4. Roy Spencer has two big 'scientific' causes - global warming scepticism and intelligent design. Oh yes, he's a big creationist. So not only are today's scientists wrong but so is Charles Darwin. I find it ironic that global warming is often accused of being a religion when most of the opposition seems to come from religious fruitcakes.