[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying Binghi
What does due diligence have to do with anything....  |
You see darling boy, "due diligence" is exactly what is missing from the sceptics. "Due diligence" involves admitting
all the data, following
empirical methods, and contributing to the peer review process. That's science.
See, in "the world in which
I live" there is a discipline to science and rules to observe. We don't blame serious climate scientists for silly newspaper reports and poor journalism. We don't throw out the baby with the bathwater, and the baby in this situation is objectivity. We don't ignore serious data because, in that famous phrase of Pauline Hanson, "I don't like it".
Quote:
|
I am a firm believer that the climate does, and is always changing.
|
So are the climatologists. Don't try to claim any special unique status in this, or that it means more than it does... climate changes for a variety of reasons, and both natural Co2 variations in the "long carbon cycle" and unnatural Co2 variations are important forcings. Milankovitch cycles are another important forcing, but far longer term and not something that concerns us at this stage. There are many, many forcings, and guess what? I don't think you understand how small a range in Co2 variation can interact with and influence other forcings.
Quote:
I'll just point out that I you replied pretty much exactly as I predicted in post 1017. However, you still haven't done your homework FB.
Quote:
Now, again, if you feel GW due to CO2 is 'bunk' then you must believe either:
A) CO2 does not absorb long wavelength radiation (heat)
B) CO2 doesn't absorb the amount of long wavelength radiation chemists and physisists calculate it does.
C) CO2 isn't increasing year to year
This really is the root foundation of GW. Knock one of those out and you debunk GW. So, which one is it? (or feel free to mention another if I missed it)
|
