Oh, about Harlan Bretz, what is exactly your point ? Are you saying that because "mainstream" scientist have been wrong in the past (I don't know anything about this case, so I won't question it for now), they are necessarily wrong today ?
But even If carbon emissions are as bad as the IPCC says they are, I don't think there is a chance that we can appreciably cut them.
Take your time to check all of the site of Jean-Marc Jancovici. After all, even if you don't blindly believe everything (and you shouldn't), it will let you know most of the arguments of "the other side". You'll then be more able than ever to make your choice.
Well. If it's so easy to stretch a model, why the "honests" scientists haven't be able to show us a model that correctly simulate past observations, and yet doesn't come to the same conclusions ?
Yeah, I'm quoting this site a lot, but it's because all your "arguments" are already answered there. It's a pity the english translation is a little rushed, but it's still understandable.
Now if you don't care, just say it, we'll both gain time. Enjoy the nice weather while it's here, just make sure your children don't get too accustomed to it.
As for your book suggestion, it seems very interesting and I very well could read it, so I thank you for it. But I fail to see the connection with this discussion, except that by bringing Ice Age into it you make a really good job at giving the impression you didn't read the link.
You obviously didn't read the fucking link.
Here it is again :
http://www.manicore.com/anglais/documentation_a/gr eenhouse/only_action.html
Go to the end and look at the "model" and "observations" figures. Wow, the right one reproduce the real observations.
Theses figures comes from the IPCC:http://www.manicore.com/anglais/documentation_a/g reenhouse/IPCC.html
Could you explain me how sensationalism is supposed to help them ? And before giving any answer, take into account that even the USA is a member of the IPCC. And do read at least this quote from the link :
Before being published and declared "official reports" of the IPCC, these assessment reports are explicitely approved by the full assembly of the member countries, where representatives are generally competent - but not always - in science. Up to this day, all the assessment reports of the IPCC have been unanimously approved by the member countries, including by the USA, or by Saudi Arabia.
Slashdot Mirror
First on the models and greedy scientists :
How can we know what will happen later on ? (is this the link you were searching ?) :
http://www.manicore.com/anglais/documentation_a/g
Should we trust climate models ? :
http://www.manicore.com/anglais/documentation_a/g
Hope it will make you think, at least.
Oh, about Harlan Bretz, what is exactly your point ? Are you saying that because "mainstream" scientist have been wrong in the past (I don't know anything about this case, so I won't question it for now), they are necessarily wrong today ?
You may be right, but I'll let you search the site on some possible solutions to effectively cut thoses emissions (you can try starting here : http://www.manicore.com/anglais/documentation_a/g
If you really try to consume as less as possible, you're on the right track... On this subject this link is interesting (just to check if you're close to the "goal") :
http://www.manicore.com/anglais/documentation_a/g
Take your time to check all of the site of Jean-Marc Jancovici. After all, even if you don't blindly believe everything (and you shouldn't), it will let you know most of the arguments of "the other side". You'll then be more able than ever to make your choice.
Well. If it's so easy to stretch a model, why the "honests" scientists haven't be able to show us a model that correctly simulate past observations, and yet doesn't come to the same conclusions ?
r eenhouse/scientists.html
And while we're at it, where are those "honests" scientists ? What actual knowledge do they have on this subject ?
Here's a hint :
http://www.manicore.com/anglais/documentation_a/g
Yeah, I'm quoting this site a lot, but it's because all your "arguments" are already answered there. It's a pity the english translation is a little rushed, but it's still understandable.
Now if you don't care, just say it, we'll both gain time. Enjoy the nice weather while it's here, just make sure your children don't get too accustomed to it.
As for your book suggestion, it seems very interesting and I very well could read it, so I thank you for it. But I fail to see the connection with this discussion, except that by bringing Ice Age into it you make a really good job at giving the impression you didn't read the link.
You obviously didn't read the fucking link. Here it is again : http://www.manicore.com/anglais/documentation_a/gr eenhouse/only_action.html
Go to the end and look at the "model" and "observations" figures. Wow, the right one reproduce the real observations.
Theses figures comes from the IPCC :http://www.manicore.com/anglais/documentation_a/g reenhouse/IPCC.html
Could you explain me how sensationalism is supposed to help them ? And before giving any answer, take into account that even the USA is a member of the IPCC. And do read at least this quote from the link :
Before being published and declared "official reports" of the IPCC, these assessment reports are explicitely approved by the full assembly of the member countries, where representatives are generally competent - but not always - in science. Up to this day, all the assessment reports of the IPCC have been unanimously approved by the member countries, including by the USA, or by Saudi Arabia.