Cecil Moore wrote in news:blSci.19753$C96.3758
@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net:

John Smith I wrote:
I would hold back just a bit on that "theory."

Quoted from: http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=221

"Three scientific studies that have recently appeared may well
spell the beginning of the end of global warming theory:"
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com



As a group whose defined mission is "to dispel the myths of global
warming by exposing flawed economic, scientific, and risk analysis", I
give them credit for not hiding what they have already decided.

But they are without a doubt a political organization.

Herre is Some info on them:

Formed in 1997, is currently hosted and financed by Consumer Alert,
member and organizer of the National Consumer Coalition. The Coalition
publishes the bi-weekly "Cooler Heads Newsletter" in conjunction with the
Competitve Enterprise Institute. Current members a 60 Plus
Association, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition
(junkscience.com), Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, Americans for Tax
Reform, Association of Concerned Taxpayers, Atlas Economic Research
Foundation, Capital Research Center, Citizens Against Government Waste,
Citizens for a Sound Economy, Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow,
Competitive Enterprise Institute, Consumer Alert, Defenders of Property
Rights, Foundation for American Liberty, Frontiers of Freedom, Fund for a
New Generation, The Heartland Institute, National Center for Policy
Analysis, National Center for Public Policy Research, Political Economy
Research Center, Public Interest Institute, Small Business Survival
Committee, United Seniors Association, and Women for Tax Reform.

Reading the articles was a little like reading Creationist
effluvia.

1. Decide your desired outcome.

2. Anything that appears to discredit your opponents position is
trotted out to do just that.

3. Pull out old research. The latest on this site was from 2001,
although there was stuff that was over 12 years old.

3. But for heavens sake, don't apply the same metric to yourself!


I've issued a challenge before (not that anyone would be paying
much attention to my challenges, but whatever.

Heat retention in an atmosphere will vary in relation to the percentage
of certain components of that atmosphere. This is an experimentally
proven fact. Not a theory nor hypothesis, but a fact.

These gases, which vary in the amount of heat retention they afford, are
collectively known as "greenhouse gases".

Given the above as a fact, (unless you wish to dispute the entire
concept) perform research that shows that the effect does not exist.

You fail if you call politics. All that is saying is that You are the one
with a political agenda. Note that the "you" in this is the group doing
the research, not you personally.

Hasn't happened yet. The political groups such as the Cooler Heads
Coalition just do the same as the Creationists and Intelligent Design
crowd. I'm expecting debate challenges soon. Everyone knows that we can
change scientific fact by debate! ;^)

BTW, a most interesting side effect of the Water Vapor feedback, the
report from 7 years ago that the CHC calls "new", brings up an
interesting dilemma. If the ocean temperature rises, the cloud cover
changes to allow more heat to escape. If this mechanism occurs, and
prevents temoeratures from rising, why would the oceans rise in
temperature at all? Seems like either the feeedback should keep land and
ocean temps pretty constant. But the temperature seem to rise, because
they know that a 1 deg C ocean temp rise causes clouds to compensate by
losing more heat. This cannot happen, because global warming doesn't
exist, right?

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -