Critics' review unexpectedly supports scientific consensus on global warming

[c1ue]

Re: Critics' review unexpectedly supports scientific consensus on global warming

I'd feel more peace of mind though if I could find someone who can explain how increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere won't have any consequences.

The problem with this statement is that historically we are at a low point of CO2 presence in the atmosphere.

As yet another example on how the debate has been reframed into strange terms - somehow the 'low point' is considered normal, but historically far higher CO2 rates without any corresponding 'tipping points' is somehow not relevant.

In normal science, what has gone before and is demonstrably proven is normally considered the basis by which proposed theories are measured against.

With AGW, in which a far future prediction for which 1, 2, 5, 10, and 20 year snapshots to date have been consistently wrong, is somehow considered the standard.

[wayiwalk]

Re: Critics' review unexpectedly supports scientific consensus on global warming

I guess these are the sort of threads are just made for pile on.

I'm still waiting for the computer model that predicts the sun's temperatures, solar flares etc. A model of our climate that does not include an accurate model of the primary driver for the earth's temperatures and weather is really just an estimate.

Kind of like economic models that only use limited data of pricing (when prices only go up).

So the earth is in a warming trend - shall we rearrange our economy on that basis alone? Personally I need a better reason than that. ;-)