<Fact is, you have not even tried to read the sources I offered.>
DJ, that didn't sound like me, because I enjoy links and sources and data and read a lot and I like first principles and boundary conditions. It's the engineer in me.
Message 16200201
Sure enough, you can see from that that I did read your source and analyzed it and commented on it, explaining that 1.7 degrees over a century isn't a big deal to me.
Then you went on to say that a computer modeled the available data and I should accept the computer's output. Garbage in, garbage out comes to mind. When the input isn't established [I haven't got access to it] and the method the computer uses to model it is in the black box category, I'm not about to hand my life over to such a dodgy idea thanks. Which, I hasten to add, doesn't mean I'm against computers, modeling and data, it just means that some hand-waving and a computer programme are not convincing to me, especially when my immaculate reasoning is ignored, not refuted and I'm excoriated for not mindlessly joining the doomster Club of Rome and fleeing to the hilltops because of CO2 in the air [I'm already there because I'm fleeing something worse, which is bolides making waves].
So, you are wrong again! I did read your reputable source. 1.7 degrees? Yawn... [even if true]
So, what did you think of the ideas which you have ignored? I guess you'll just continue to ignore reasoning and not answer the questions.
Search function is great! We can find the beginning of the discussion and where you went wrong [poke, poke].
Mqurice |
