[OT] [GW] Why the current CO2 narrative is flawed, and an alternate hypothesis

[Spike]

How dare you use the words 'error' and 'Greta' in the same sentence?

Wash your mouth out, unbeliever!

[Spike]

I put up a video[1], dismissed by being on You Tube but in any case the author/presenter gives his email address so that anyone with comments can contact him.

So far this has been countered by the You Tube jibe, a reference to an article in the not-unbiased Washington Post [2], and - yes! - another You Tube video[3].

These are, of course, not credible counters to the claims of the original paper/presentation. It raises questions as to what those who 'follow the science', or worse. 'believe in the science', are going to do with the differences that have been presented.

For example, in [3], towards the end of the video - which takes some pains to explore the effect of a trace gas, CO2, on the surface temperature of the planet, there are mentions of clouds and their effect on temperature ("we don't know which way these will go, this way, that way"), and, worse, the mention of an unexplained feedback mechanism. One has to ask the question that if the previous contents of the video are scientifically correct and largely account for the hypothesis presented, why introduce these subsequent, unexplained, mechanisms?

And a question for those that 'believe in. or 'follow; the science, which despite repeated claims to the contrary, is not 'settled', is why the IPCC/UN chose to ignore 90,000 historical readings of atmospheric CO2 levels[4], perhaps on the grounds that they do not fit with the current warming narrative, or why the Vostok ice-core record shows changes in CO2 levels*lagging* the temperature changes by up to several thousand years[5]. Note the the planet emerged from an ice age several thousand years ago.

The original video[1] finished with a detailed description of a hypothesis that links planetary surface temperatures to insolation and atmospheric pressure, in which trace gasses play no part whatsoever. From those that believe 'the science is settled' there is a deafening silence, perhaps due to an unwillingness to accept that science marches on, discarding old paradigms in favour of better ones as knowledge expands. Except in the case where the past is re-written to shore up, for other reasons, a current lucrative belief.

[1] [3]

[Tim Streater]

Death to the unbelievers, eh? She's not the Messiah, she's a very naughty girl.

[Keith (Southend]

You beat me to it, but they try hard. :-)

Keith (Southend)

[Pamela]

There isn't a decent library where you are on the Isle of Man.

[Jim Jackson]

FFS - if it was deeply scientific and correct why haven't the authors submitted a paper to a scientific jpournal for peer review?

The fact you think it's seriously scientific says more about you.