This site is a reference point for those with a cool head for climate science, arguably the most political science ever. When the government and most of the media concentrate on alarmism, this site is the antidote for those who don't believe the scare stories - YOU ARE NOT ALONE! (blog started on 7/11/07) We have over 2 million hits and blog is updated regularly most weeks.
The paper by Archibald you refer to, is commented hundreds of time here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/my-model-used-for-deception/#more-477
The problematic number seems to be climate sensitivity to CO2.
It will always be (until we understand everything!) difficult to predict the future and because of that, we will debate for ever.
We should debate on the measurements we do today, for example the satellite temperature measurements that show a cooling for the past 10 or so years. While we see the media still talking about GW caused by CO2.
For all your unbiased, hard hitting and insightful scientific analysis and social commentary, don't go past Derek Tipp's "climate science" blog. No propaganda or straw men to be seen!
The paper by Archibald you refer to, is commented hundreds of time here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/my-model-used-for-deception/#more-477
ReplyDeleteThe problematic number seems to be climate sensitivity to CO2.
It will always be (until we understand everything!) difficult to predict the future and because of that, we will debate for ever.
We should debate on the measurements we do today, for example the satellite temperature measurements that show a cooling for the past 10 or so years. While we see the media still talking about GW caused by CO2.
Real climate is a GW propaganda site.
ReplyDeleteFor all your unbiased, hard hitting and insightful scientific analysis and social commentary, don't go past Derek Tipp's "climate science" blog. No propaganda or straw men to be seen!
ReplyDeleteThanks Tim - Your endorsement means a lot to me.
ReplyDelete