> Eeyore wrote:
> > > snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > Eeyore wrote:
>
> > > > > You write as if only one possible conclusion exists.
>
> > > > There are a large numbers of ways of looking at the data.
>
> > > You mean the very limited data we have ?
>
> > > > All the rational points of view seem to sugest that anthropogenic g=
lobal
> > > warming is real and should be reduced and ideally reversed.
>
> > > So, you have instantly on a whim considered your view rational and ev=
eryone holding a contrary or 'sit on the fence' view to be idiots eh ?
> > You don't have to be an idiot to hold contary or "sit on the fence"
> > views, but you do have to be ill-informed.
>
> Far BETTER informed IMHO.
Graham's implicit claim to be well-informed isn't supported by his recent performance. He's claimed that the current rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels comes from carbon dioxide coming out of solution from the warming oceans, when the changing carbon isotope ratios make it perfectly clear that the extra CO2 is coming from the combustion of fossil fuels and CO2 levels in the oceans are rising rather than falling.
This isn't his only erroneous assertion, but it does make it entirely clear that his claim to have researched the subject can't be taken seriously.
He could do with a little more humility.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen