Twisty wrote:I am curious as to why you brush aside the report from the US national academy if science anf the Royal Society without even a single word...
because the same experts/etc. have constantly been wrong in the past...
their models have continually been incorrect.
their predictions have fallen completely apart.
their data has been proven invalid/modified/exclusionary/incomplete.
their ASSUMPTIONS of what they BELEIVE impacts climate have changed nearly every single new report.
it's poor science, and if I were a professional scientist I would be ashamed to sign my name on such "scientific reports" knowing full-well they don't actually KNOW very much about what they espouse as fact. these reports should be much less about "this is what we are saying is scientific fact" and be more in-line with "we don't know, but these are our experiments and in full scientific disclosure we don't know WTF we're doing, but we'll get there."
this is a journey of discovery and understanding, and it's very much in the early stages of what we comprehend as "climate". this continual barrage of negativity from climate alarmists, which is typically followed by a tactical backtrack when claims fail miserably to match fact, is only crying wolf. when some kind of factual and predictable model is found (and they probably eventually will) a majority of people will simply not believe it due to these current reports and false claims of fact...they have very little believability now and lose more every time something like this is released and eventually gets exposed as "incomplete" or missing very key aspects of data.