BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="elkcub" data-source="post: 3537863" data-attributes="member: 14473">The guy who wrote that wouldn't know a basic law of physics if it punched them in the nose.  This statement, taken from that article is sheer lunacy:He (or they) ignorantly conceptualize climate as a<a href="http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/systems/closed-loop-system.html" target="_blank"> closed-loop control system</a>, with CO2 as the controlled variable (i.e., control "knob").  Unfortunately, rising concentrations of CO2 are not, and never have been, accompanied by rising planet temperatures.  In the real world (as opposed to climate models), rising temperatures have always preceded CO2 rise by as much as 800 yrs., judging by the paleoclimate ice-core records.  In any event, if these pompous "experts" were to opine what the ideal surface temperature should be everywhere on the planet, that would really help dedicated engineers to design a wonderful planetary control system — all of which is well beyond their kill set.  For that noble objective to be implemented in the interest of humanity I'm sure we taxpayers wouldn't mind dredging up a few more billions of dollars for 'climate control engineering,' would we?  I mean, it sounds like a really nice thing to do for future generations.  Ed</blockquote>