View Single Post
Old 16th Jun 2011, 14:10
  #8211 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edinburgh and 3C
Age: 67
Posts: 195
rv500 might not use the language I'd use, but then that's a comment on the messenger and not the message, in the same way that we see comments on the climate sceptics, and not on the data or statistical analyses they provide that cast doubt on the veracity of CAGW.

I take the comments on shrillness and so forth as referring to the non-reviewed material from the warmists. There is a growing body of properly-reviewed material which is discrediting the inner-circle-cosily-reviewed material of the warmists.

Their strident pronouncements about CAGW don't bother me; that fact that their published material is being pulled apart by other scientists and statisticians is of considerably more interest.

I say again:
- there is some evidence of warming, but it has reversed;
- correlation with CO2 is not causation;
- imminent catastrophe is utterly unproven, and only comes from models that are discredited by real data.

Where stands CAGW now?
MagnusP is offline