By "discuss" I assume you'll give me reasons as to why every one I may offer up is wrong, regardless of who it is and what credentials they may have.
I'd also assume that if the world's most eminent climatologist was to make a public statement claiming that their modelling was flawed and the climate situation isn't as dire as we've been led to believe you'd suggest that they'd been "got at" by some organisation and they were a crank.
Don't worry Trev. I don't expect such a thing will ever happen. If it did *millions* of dollars of research funding would suddenly evaporate, and we can't have that :)
Really? I must have blinked and missed them.
Yes. Lets.
Bzzzt. *Plenty* of dispute. Just none that you're prepared to accept :)
Uh-huh.
Lol :) Mythbusters :)
The definitive scientific research team :)
Nasty.
Bugger.
The ultimate "gift that keeps on giving" if you will....
dispute.
Interesting.
Nicely summed up there Trev.
But here's the thing that there's no getting around for me: For all that "indisputable fact", why is the "science" so uncertain about the effect?
Okay, try this on for size for a moment, and look at the issue from a layman's perspective.
Here we have a situation whereby data has been collected over a period of years. That data has been examined by people who are experts in the field and has lead to some theories, but no one can say for sure what the effect, if any, will be. In fact we can't even get universal agreement amongst the experts themselves. Yet we're advised that there is a issue that needs to be dealt with, and we should change the way we do things today (read -> Spend squillions of dollars) to adopt a "just in case" policy rather than leave that "issue" (if any) for future generations to deal with.
Do you see a problem with any of this Trevor?
What, guilt by association?
Just because my neighbour and I might not like the taste of Broccoli doesn't mean we have anything else in common.