"NobodyYouKnow" wrote in message
.. .
Bill McKee wrote:
"NobodyYouKnow" wrote in message
.. .
Bill McKee wrote:
"Coby Beck" wrote in message I have
presented references to all the best scientific organizations that
deal with climate. You don't read it, call it "junk science" and
then tell *me* that *my* mind is locked?? Very rich...

--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")



As I repeat, if it was so simple

Not simple, but definitive.

then there would be no argument on
the causes of Global Warming.

There aren't. Most of the debate in the sciences is in the effect on
climate, since there has been little doubt of the warming or the
causes.


Wrong, big time.

The "did not" response is typical of children who cannot give arguments or
rational explanations for their fantasies. The facts under discussion
would
require actually referencing the science or at least an authoritative
condensation such as http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm.



And the first part of the summary negates the complete paper!

"Projects scenarios of future climate change using a wide range of models of
future emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols"

The total focus is on greenhouse gases and aerosols. Not what is the actual
global warming and what are the causes. There is no mention of sun
activity, or ocean temp cycles (El Ninos, La Ninas), Magnetic field affects.
Is a biased report. If you did that in university, you would not receive an
A.