Quote:
Originally Posted by bizaro86
|
So conclusions change with more information and better models? Shocking!
The original estimates for ice-free summers in the Arctic were way far out and now have to be revised to the next decade instead of the next century (because of direct observations, see graphs I posted).
Does this article mean the National Post now agrees that AGW is real? Since they're talking about some of the consequences rather than the thing itself?
Or just a case of picking out the cases where some estimates of consequences were too pessimistic to fallaciously cast doubt on the whole thing?