My question was spawned by this statement: “Quote a from a real scientific publication’s real article...”
That argument is what the AGW crowd attempts to bludgeon us deniers with. That and the “BUT IT’S NOT PEER REVIEWED” BS.
>>That argument is what the AGW crowd attempts to bludgeon us deniers with. That and the “BUT IT’S NOT PEER REVIEWED” BS.<<
Peer review is indeed an important facet of science. Look at chemistry, physics, geology, cosmetology and all of the rest of the natural sciences (including TToE which is the basis for all immunology).
AGW is unique in that there has never been full-scale public bribery (with power and money) on both the parts of the publishers and the reviewers. I have yet to see a proper peer review of AGW (as is anyone).
The scientific method is intact and TToE meets ALL criteria for a Scientific Theory (even more completly than, say, the Theory of Gravity).
The fact science as been hijacked makes AGW closer to “Creation Science” than TToE.