"Jim Logajan" wrote:

So which of his numbers is wrong?

Which of his numbers is relevant?

I thought they were all relevant. Warmer air holds more moisture,
therefore
presumably more cloud formation and precipitation might occur.

Why do you presume that? The relative humidity of the global atmosphere is
fairly constant. If the temperature of the atmosphere increases, the amount
of water vapor it can contain also increases. That does not mean
"presumably" that more cloud formation and precipitation will occur.

The odd thing is, if cloud formation and precipitation increase to
"offset" an increase in CO2, I expect it would happen precisely because
the
atmosphere _had_ warmed. So his numbers are "merely" useful in determining
the equilibrium point that the atmosphere might warm to - not that no
warming would take place or that it isn't a concern.

He knows more than the scientists. Impressive!

"Locus ab auctoritate est infirmissimus"

I would say the argument from cluelessness is weakest.

Rutan charged that climate scientists have it wrong, setting himself
as a superior authority. Is he?

Why not comment respectfully on his alleged facts and line of argument
rather than do the online equivalent of sneering?

I don't agree with Rutan, but I'm not a climate scientist either. Are you?

Indeed not, but I have seen Rutan's assertions refuted by people who are.
When I see a naive layman such as Rutan proclaiming that the scientists are
wrong, I am skeptical. Am I wrong to be so?

--
Dan

"How can an idiot be a policeman? Answer me that!"
-Chief Inspector Dreyfus