Normal
No Bas, did you read any of it?It highlighted how none of the IPCC models take this cycle into account.As for the unprecedented part, that is plain BS.I presume you meant unprecedented in modern times, aka last 250 years, because we mostly only have proxies to work out what the global warming nay have been beyond that era.You can gather what you like, I can't stop you gathering, but don't put words into my mouth.If you want to pal up with Rederob, thats fine,.Problem is , like him, you criticise the paper because of what you reckon it does not say, not because of what it does say.It highlights a problem that many see with the IPCC and modelling, they cannot possibly put in all the variables that go into climate.And your statement about the importance level of the impact of massive amounts of CO2 cannot be supported as "science".Models are not proof, never have been , never will be.They may turn out to be correct, plenty of people like yourself believe they do, but just as the people who believe they do not cannot back it up as scientific proof, neither can you.I am skeptical of everything, but even more so of evangelists who cannot see anything other than supporting arguments.Mick
No Bas, did you read any of it?
It highlighted how none of the IPCC models take this cycle into account.
As for the unprecedented part, that is plain BS.
I presume you meant unprecedented in modern times, aka last 250 years, because we mostly only have proxies to work out what the global warming nay have been beyond that era.
You can gather what you like, I can't stop you gathering, but don't put words into my mouth.
If you want to pal up with Rederob, thats fine,.
Problem is , like him, you criticise the paper because of what you reckon it does not say, not because of what it does say.
It highlights a problem that many see with the IPCC and modelling, they cannot possibly put in all the variables that go into climate.
And your statement about the importance level of the impact of massive amounts of CO2 cannot be supported as "science".
Models are not proof, never have been , never will be.
They may turn out to be correct, plenty of people like yourself believe they do, but just as the people who believe they do not cannot back it up as scientific proof, neither can you.
I am skeptical of everything, but even more so of evangelists who cannot see anything other than supporting arguments.
Mick
Hello and welcome to Aussie Stock Forums!
To gain full access you must register. Registration is free and takes only a few seconds to complete.
Already a member? Log in here.
