Scott Seidman wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
There is not one single credible climate scientist in the world
who disagrees that the contribution of human activities to global
warming is significant. If a climate scientist questioned this in
the face of the overwhelming body of facts that proves it beyond
doubt then he would no longer be a credible climate scientist.

Unfortunately, Ken, when you make absolute statements like that, they can
prove a little problematic.

Yeah, I read the Science section of the Times this morning too
and I'll still stand by that statement. There will always be a
a crackpot or two on some faculty somewhere but having tenure
doesn't make them credible.

Of course, we can dicker about whether this guy acknowledges human
intervention as a contributor at all, but hw most definitely does not
recognize it as the main cause. There are at least four or five other very
prominent climatologists/meteorologists who share Lindzen's opinions.

Lindzen does not recognize that human activities contribute at
all to global warming. Like I said, a crackpot. The others you
talk about have doubts that human activities are the *main cause*
of global warming but that's a different debate than whether human
activities are significant at all.

For me at least, "weather patterns" and "proven with certainty" should be
banned from appearing together in a sentence.

Crackpots aside, it has been proven with certainty that human
activities have increased global atmospheric concentrations of
greenhouse gases and that greenhouse gases are a factor in global
warming. That's fact. Period.

--
Ken Fortenberry