I've said it before-if you don't want a balanced and dispassionate view don't ask a climatologist.He's probably doing the job in the first place because he believes.His job, career and reputation are on the line.
It's all got to be theoretically based and it's not disputed that climate change is subject to many forces , some large some less powerful.These seem to work in cycles.It is therefore an extremely difficult background in which to determine causes of temperature change.
The climatologists cannot carry out the "crucial experiment" by removing all CO2 and getting humans to stop what they are doing so they can gauge the difference.All they can work on is correlation.
What I find annoying is the hyperbole employed The notion that recent warming has been at an unprecedented rate. It has not. The statements that it has been "the warmest on record" when records are barely 300 years ago and began in a little ice age.Records in any case were kept in only a few places on the planet until recently.In my opinion (as a genuine scientist well trained in the rigour of the scientific process) the argument for significant human contribution is not convincing.
It's all got to be theoretically based and it's not disputed that climate change is subject to many forces , some large some less powerful.These seem to work in cycles.It is therefore an extremely difficult background in which to determine causes of temperature change.
The climatologists cannot carry out the "crucial experiment" by removing all CO2 and getting humans to stop what they are doing so they can gauge the difference.All they can work on is correlation.
What I find annoying is the hyperbole employed The notion that recent warming has been at an unprecedented rate. It has not. The statements that it has been "the warmest on record" when records are barely 300 years ago and began in a little ice age.Records in any case were kept in only a few places on the planet until recently.In my opinion (as a genuine scientist well trained in the rigour of the scientific process) the argument for significant human contribution is not convincing.