Originally Posted by psr
Well done Derek!!! Spoken like a true ostrich!! Now will you please get your head out of the sand honey??
I'm not surprised to see there is more than one prepared to lower the tone around here.
Taking a stance that the science is settled, is completely unscientific, and by far and away the WORST lowering of the tone possible.
That stance in itself is far, far worse than anything I can write (OK, type)
or insults that can be thrown at me. Hence I won't loose site of the bigger issue, the science.
To delete a link (as done elsewhere on this site) to
Jeffrey A. Glassman PhD - The Acquittal of CO2
plainly is not in the interests of expanding our knowledge or understanding.
The scientific method, as I understand it, is the proposal of a hypothesis,
that is then tested against empiracal data and / or observation.
The hypothesis either passes or fails these tests.
AGW has failed these tests.
The denial of this is anti-scientific.
Lord Keeling famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir."
Undeniably the science has moved on.
AGW and Climate change are also two completely different ideas, that in any real sense are actually mutually exclusive. ie It's one or the other, NOT both.
The recent change of phrasiology to Anthropogenic Climate Change is an obvious attempt to bridge this, (logically) unbridgable gap.
I am no oestrich, but I do seek the truth, that is THE truth, or at least a far better idea of what it might be,
not an unproven (and failed) hypothesis's version of the truth. ie AGW.