Why don't you get Limpbaughs pooch, Morano, to explain it to you?
See this is the part that rationale people just can't explain or figure out about you cowardly lot. I don't know if you're just being obtuse. I liken it to a little kid that will only eat his sandwich if it has the crusts cut off and it's cut into four squares. it really doesn't change what's in the sandwich it's just done for the purpose of appeasing an irrational child that thinks it matters.
Anyway, As much as you would like for my link to be about Morano, it isn't. The peer reviewed research you asked for is in the second paragraph. You have to click on the big bold letters that say 'LINK'. This is where you will find a pdf format (which is why i can't directly link to it) PEER Reviwed study by Stephen Schwartz which appeared in the PEER REVIEWED 'Journal of Geophysical Research". Again I don't know if it was you being obtuse, hasty or just plain cowardly that you conveniently skipped over that. if YOU require clarification (what a truly laughable retort that was from you) Dr. Schwarts I believe is the one you would need to inquire with.
Bernie baby, the abstract is from the paper by Schwartz. And it says that the amount of heating observed can be attributed to the green house gases in the atmosphere. That other sources have contributed only a very minor amount of the heating.
In other words, Morano is lying about what the paper says, and you are too ignorant to be able to tell that from the abstract of the paper.
And why can't you download a pdf file? The program for it is free. PDF Download - Free software downloads and reviews - CNET Download.com
No I said I can't LINK to it numb nuts because you can't link to a pdf.
However i assume you are referrring to this sentence:
For this forcing considered the sum of radiative forcing by incremental greenhouse gases, 2.2 ± 0.3 W m-2, and other forcings, other forcing agents, mainly incremental tropospheric aerosols, are inferred to have exerted only a slight forcing over the twentieth century of -0.3 ± 1.0 W m-2.
I assume you think you understand what the entire paper is about based on this one sentence. I suggest you double check that you are right lest you and your pole polisher friend Red, up there found your foot in your mouth.
The following was stated by astronomer Ian Wilson about this study:
“Previously, I have indicated that the widely accepted values for temperature increase associated with a doubling of CO2 were far too high i.e. 2 – 4.5 Kelvin. This new peer-reviewed paper claims a value of 1.1 +/- 0.5 K increase for a doubling of CO2,” he added.
This is what Wilson has said is stated in Schwartz paper. Can you point out the portion of the paper that renders this statement incorrect?
Also while you like to pick on Morano (even that is a lame argument. it's the equivalent of saying Gore must be wrong solely because he's a liberal), the article has direct quotes from several actual scientists and their direct quotes commenting on the paper. Can you please explain to us how they have interpreted Schwartz research incorrectly when they say CO2 doubling will force a much smaller temp increase than what the alarmists are reporting?
Last edited: