Skinny Puppy wrote:Fallible wrote:Do you have anything or not? Only this is getting fucking boring. No one cares about what I think of your posts, it's irrelevant.
It is relevant because you have virtually no problems with the non-stop trolling of this thread by Ani, yet you have the audacity to expect me to engage you when your objectivity is gravely in question.
'Non-stop trolling'? No, no. You have it wrong. I made one joke post because it amused me and I grew tired of waiting for straight answers. I meant all my other posts. Your beating around the bush and claiming insider knowledge and access to documents and data while not imparting any of it is exactly reminiscent of this guy -
rjk wrote:
Now.. does this mean we shouldn't hypothesize and test? Nope. It just means we should temper our conclusions with a good dose of skepticism. It IS a fact that the earth has currently warmed. No doubt. The literature I've read indicates that computers models are things driving conclusions in the field about the anthropogenic claims. Given my experience in the past of this, and given the current state of the art in atmospheric sciences in general, I'm understandably skeptical about claims that we absolutely know 'X'. This has nothing to do with climate change.. I think this about other branches of science also where little is yet known (go read about proposed processes for how ocean current work.. its at about the same state as atmospheric science.. ).