Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard
Did you watch the NOVA video I posted? Climatologists are every bit a rigorous as all other scientists, and their work is based on observable data. I am not confusing the issue.
|
Oh, but you are. Leave it to you to belittle one television channel because it reports things that you don't agree with, yet use another television channel because it happens to report things you agree with. Did you watch these same shows, Neil. Their AGW language was covered with "projected to" and "could" and "might" and "it's possible that." Hardly a convincing argument for AGW. They don't know any more than you do what will happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard
You just want to ignore the inconvenience of their results.
|
And you don't want to acknowledge any bit of dissent. Even the IPCC report stated that variations in the Sun's output and variations in Earth's orbit could account for as much as 75% of the observed warming that was seen to the point that report was published. You can't even do that much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard
They all go through the same rigorous peer review, and there is no scientific doubt about anthropomorphic climate change.
|
The blue line represents average global temperature. The black line represents carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. Look very closely at the results of the past 50 million years, Neil. They show steadily lowering carbon dioxide levels, with no observed causal change in temperature.