Science Forums 2

[InfiniteNow]

Turtle - You seem to understand what you're talking about.

In the spirit of science, and knowing this thread is in a science forum, the onus is on you (as the one making the claims) to tell us precisely which models are faulty, and precisely how significantly the results of those specific models are flawed due to the missing data you reference.

You raise valid points, but you have continued to do so with the tone of a denialist. If your intentions are sincerely to enhance a scholarly and accurate approach to global climate then you must show us specifically which study is wrong, erred, or inaccurate.


Your continued conceptual painting with the broad brush of doubt does little to enhance your claims or deflate those of others. You are a very cunning linguist, but your absence of specifics and lack of references serves to make your stance weaker, as it implies to the rest of us that you haven't even read the works which you are challenging... works specifically regarding natural forcing factors. Surely... that couldn't possibly be the case.