In Reply to: The funny thing is - it very well might be the evidence of GW... BUT... not the proof of YOUR MODEL posted by Victor Khomenko on January 18, 2007 at 13:04:04:
What are the criteria and assumptions that allow you to draw such a conclusion? Do you have access to either the data or the models? Or is this just based on a distrust of popularized science and the gut feeling that "we can't be that important in the grand scheme of things"?You have absolutely no objective reason to conclude that climate scientists on the whole are overestimating anthropogenic effects.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- How do you determine if they overemphasize the human effect? - GliderGuider 01/18/0713:35:10 01/18/07 (7)
- He-he... I believe I do - Victor Khomenko 14:06:13 01/18/07 (6)
- Could you point me to one of those "noise level" estimates? - GliderGuider 14:21:56 01/18/07 (5)
- Look through the archives - they have been posted here many times before - Victor Khomenko 14:40:46 01/18/07 (4)
- You're right, I was just fucking around. - GliderGuider 16:41:01 01/18/07 (3)
- Same here... - Victor Khomenko 16:54:00 01/18/07 (2)
- You'll have to wait, I'm afraid - GliderGuider 16:58:55 01/18/07 (1)
- OK, I'll consider voting for a dem, then... - Victor Khomenko 17:07:26 01/18/07 (0)