[chessplayer]

As to be expected, Schwartz`s paper is coming under scathing attack as being the work of an incompetent fool.

http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2007/08/schwartz-sensitivity-estimate.html

[xcamel]

FReepmail me to get on or off

Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown

New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH

Ping me if you find one I've missed.

---

[Uncle Miltie]

[sauropod]

review

[Always Right]

The only studies that actually get peered reviewed are the ones which are negative towards the catastrophic global warming. Pro global warming studies are rubber stamped.

[Paleo Conservative]

We’re all gonna die!

[Publius6961]

Are Scientists Overestimating — or Underestimating — Climate Change, Part I

Neither.

Computer models are wild guesses to 8 decimal places.

Just saying.

[Luke Skyfreeper]

I challenge the conventional wisdom (on this board) that man-induced global warming is a myth.

I freely admit I haven't seen all of the evidence on both sides of the issue (and don't have time to and don't want to) but the articles referenced appear credible in support of human-induced global warming, and the entire attitude on this board has for some time now seemed to me to be suspiciously like a bandwagon that about a zillion people have jumped onto simply because they just don't want human-induced global warming to be true.

Declaring something to be a particular way simply because that's the way you want it is not an intelligent position. It's garbage when the libs declare 9/11 to be an inside job because they wish it had been, and it's garbage when conservatives declare a particular scenario to be reality out of wishful thinking as well.

I withhold judgment on the issue until and unless I understand the whole thing well. Which isn't going to happen, because I don't have time to study it to that degree.