Quote:
|
Originally Posted by White Doors
It's not a ratio of yes's or no's, it's what they admit that they don't know and the timeline that they are using. The former is alot and the latter is not long enough.
|
What are you basing this on? Your own copious research into climatology? So far all you've produced in terms of real scientific research is either outdated, not in a major refereed journal or produced by a conservative think tank. The other side has weighed in with the NAS, the IPCC, and
Science--which in case you don't know, is along with
Nature, the leading journal in the sciences, not some left wing screed. The conclusion? The overwhelming evidence leads to a consensus among scientists that anthropogenic global warming has been happening for 50 years.
Yet you choose to side with the fringe scientists, for reasons I don't quite get. Why won't you apply your same test to
those guys? There's a lot they don't know--because they spend more time trying to debunk the research of others than on doing research of their own. They don't admit to their lack of knowledge--they often present their fringe viewpoint as if it were accepted fact. And generally speaking they use no timeline at all.
Also, why have people like Tim Ball suddenly changed their tune from "global warming is a myth" to "global warming isn't caused by humans"? To borrow a favourite rhetorical flourish of yours--if you can't see the agenda there, it's because you don't want to.