Quote:
Originally Posted by Argonavis
The IPCC projections of scary increased temperatures have decreased markedly over the years. So some reality is intruding into the models. But they are models, based on hypothesis that still need to be tested.
|
Once, again that isn't correct. As our understanding of the climate and the changes we are generating has improved the predictions have got tighter and the most likely scenario worse. Also we are tracking the worst case scenario of the ones proposed by the IPCC.
Quote:
Considering you are so big on the scientific method, perhaps you could advise what tests the AGW hypothsis has passed, and what tests have failed to falsify it.
And if you think skeptics are so ignorant, perhaps you could hold you discussions with Bob Carter or Ian Pilmer. Bob has a number of videos available on youtube.
Once again it is all ad homeniem attacks. It shows how poor the evidence is for this scam.
|
Without meaning to be rude (and adding to your unfounded accusations of personal attacks), and I mean that sincerely, your questions really just demonstrate that you have little understanding of the what is or isn't known, how we do or don't know it and what the likely outcome is.
I suggest you and anyone else who is interested read this:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...r4-wg1-spm.pdf
It is the summary of the 4th Assessment report for policymakers and is the simplest way of expressing what we do and don't know and how uncertain we are or aren't. It is only 18 pages and has plenty of figures.
If you have specific questions you can then refer to the main report, or I am happy to point you at the correct bit. If you want clarification I'll do my best, though I am a plant biologist not a climatologist so clearly my direct knowledge is very much greater of plant responses than climate responses.