|
| Reasoned<a
href="htt
|
|
 |
|
 |
Reasoned wiritngs ha. Give me a break. Lindzen wiritng for CATO. His are in regards to climate change are well known.Some rant (which repeats some fully debunked talking points) from William Happer, who may have a science background, but according to his own at Princeton has NO experience with climate. He isn't better than our random astronaut friend. [UPDATE: And just in case anyone had any lingering doubts about Happer, that because 80 million years ago when CO2 levels were higher the planet was productive, increasing CO2 levels today shouldn't be an issue. Of course there are several things wrong with this, the main one being that 80 million years ago the sea level was substantially higher covering some major populated areas as seen by the dark blue areas in the image above.]And your coup de grace of an example of reasoned wiritng is the perpetually dihonest Mark Morano. I for one find these far more persuasive than anything I’ve read from an AGW proponentThat doesn't surprise me. You refuse to read the real science.But you are right I wouldn't call this band of deniers gullible, I would say they are the dishonest variety of denier, though given some of the tripe Morano has sent me he may be both dishonest and gullible.As for the debate'. Who cares. Science isn't settled by debates like that. Real scientists debate with research. This becomes abundantly clear when deniers start using denialism tactics.We already established that noise of 0.18 degrees in a decade is perfectly normal and not worthy of an explanation. So why is the 0.3 degrees in two and a bit decades evidence for anything?The answer is complex and not easily simplified so that a layperson can understand it. But if you insist on the one line answer it would be attribution studies. In fact the first two IPCC reports were completed before comprehensive attributions studies were completed, and thus while anthropogenic causes were seen as more likely explanation for the warming trend (due to several less concrete lines of evidence) they clearly state that the observed warming could be explained by natural variability.If you truly wanted to know what the attribution studies say, and why there results have such a high degree of confidence, you would have read the IPCC chapter dealing with attribution. That is where your answer lies.Is what you said earlier about all the popular arguments for AGW being wrong the answer to this? I can buy that to an extent.Yes that is basically what is going on here. As for what Brenda and Richard said during the debate it doesn't matter (as far as the science is concerned). Such a debate is as much a test for their debating skills as anything else. The fact that they apparently don't do so well under such pressure means nothing.As I said before if you truly want the answers to your question you need to read the IPCC report, and possibly more.
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(VISITOR) AUTHOR'S NAME
Iful
MESSAGE TIMESTAMP
19 december 2014, 03:06:08
AUTHOR'S IP LOGGED
211.174.220.70
|
|
|
|
