[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're a big boy and can discuss directly. I would like your comments on the NAS quote. Would you agree that it clearly states that there is no definitive link between human activity and global warming?
[/ QUOTE ]
I really can't. I'm not a climate expert, so I don't really feel the need to critically examine the issue when huge scientific bodies like the IPCC and others proclaim MCGW to be 90% certain. Frankly, 90% certain is more than enough to take action. Fortunately, there is a climate expert on the board who can help us all out.
As for the NAS quote, its not saying anything significantly different than the IPCC.
[/ QUOTE ]
What ever happened to the scientific method? Your reasoning here isn't anything like the scientific method in making conclusions. Yet you want to basically have people spend alot of money (anything green seems to always cost more money) on something that is basically at the hypothesis stage IMO. The climate models are unproven and I find it laughable to the point of absurdity that anyone can vouch for these models being gospel when we're modeling something as complex as the climate and the models are in their early stages of development.
One thing that we do have experience with and know very well, the special interests that stand to benefit from laws that are passed in the name of solving the problem of "climate change" are lining up at the trough. Laws that we have no idea or proof of that they'll do a bit of good regarding "climate change."
[/ QUOTE ]
Adios, Dr. William Gray is the most distinguished climate change skeptic with experience in forcasting yet his performance lately has been ranked as "the bottom of the barrel".
http://tinyurl.com/ywp8c3
If you can point me in the direction of a climate change skeptic that can predict hurricanes as accurately as climate change models then I will listen to you. Until you accomplish this, your claims of "unproven models" aren't going to hold a lot of water.