tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9188642669907788257.post1572929234874763191..comments2024-03-20T14:47:34.192-07:00Comments on Reading the Washington Landscape: Don Easterbrook is not a SkepticDan McShanehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17044037213245602667noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9188642669907788257.post-48880407534373598692013-04-08T08:00:11.151-07:002013-04-08T08:00:11.151-07:00Thanks Doug. One of the points Easterbrook made in...Thanks Doug. One of the points Easterbrook made in his testimony was that he had facts and the CO2 impacts were all theory. Easterbrook has demonstrated he has no understanding of CO2 in the atmosphere. I am still shocked that a glacier scientist would be so ignorant.Dan McShanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17044037213245602667noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9188642669907788257.post-76279043494086886182013-04-07T08:17:20.387-07:002013-04-07T08:17:20.387-07:00Another great post, Dan. You could add this figur...Another great post, Dan. You could add this figure from an article by Harris (2001) and reposted on SkepticalScience.com (Fig. 1; http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm) <br /><br />It shows the change in outgoing radiation from the earth (measured by satellite) between 1996 and 1970. Note the bands where all the absorption is. This is the clear fingerprint of an energy balance problem, related to CO2 and Methane.<br />Doug Clarknoreply@blogger.com