Separate names with a comma.
No, no. The difference between those two arrows is the temp increase in this decade. You said it was el niño. Why? I gave you the most...
The problem is, as usual with contrarians, your references don't back up what you say. The reference you offer now shows that global temperature...
Funny. Since we started our discussion you have not provided a single valid reference for any of your statements.
In the past you mean like thousands of years ago when warming occurred for other reasons. None of the reasons for temperature to rise (Milankovic...
Why does that matter? Temperature is the result of many factors. That is the point. By all accounts temperature should be decreasing but is...
No. This: [IMG]
Not the same. The experts are experts because they convince with evidence. Financial advisors are not scientists and I can tell the difference....
It is not the same. The global cooling scare was never a scientific consensus or recognized broadly as a problem by climatologists. There were a...
It has not being documented. It has being noted in a few specific instances but it does not apply to the vast majority of temperature measurements...
Looks to me it keeps rising after 2000 just fine. It plateaus in the last couple of years but as you can see in the graphs it has plateaued in...
Two things. First, note the disconnect between the paper's conclusion and the wild extrapolation done by you and contrarian blogs. The paper...
Yes. All work in the IPCC is backed by the research included in the report. The conclusions of each individual part where agreed upon by the...
Where in that paper is that a conclusion? What they are looking for is a reason for ocean level increase and the paper is arguing that it is not...
They are not, if they don't back up their "beliefs". Is not that you have published A paper. Your paper has to back up your claims. Did you...
It is not a contrarian with any reference what should be looking for. It is a contrarian with a recent published paper that backs what he is...
Note the lack of published work to back their "beliefs".
What about it? Gore's movie although accurate, is not a peer reviewed publication. The problem is that after you saw the movie you looked for...
According to you there could never be a consensus about anything. If the organization's statements were contrary to a large number of members...
It is a consensus with the majority agreeing on a course of action. There will always be people that disagree with anything. That does not mean...
That sounds about right. With actual published work to back what they say: zero.
