From: slider@nanashram.com

Most global warming is natural and even if there had been no Industrial Revolution current global temperatures would be almost exactly the same as
they are now, a study has found.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/22/delingpole-global-warming-is-almost-entirely-natural-study-confirms/

The paper, by Australian scientists John Abbot and Jennifer Marohasy,
published in GeoResJ uses the latest big data technique to analyse six
2,000 year-long proxy temperature series from different geographic
regions. “Proxies” are the markers scientists use – tree rings, sediments,
pollen, etc – to try assess global temperature trends in the days before
the existence of thermometers. All the evidence suggests that the planet
was about a degree warmer during the Medieval Warming Period than it is
now; and that there is nothing unnatural or unprecedented about late 20th century and early 21st century “climate change”.

This contradicts the claims of alarmist scientists at the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that “man made” global warming
is a worrying and dangerous phenomenon.

Time-series profiles derived from temperature proxies such as tree rings
can provide information about past climate. Signal analysis was undertaken
of six such datasets, and the resulting component sine waves used as input
to an artificial neural network (ANN), a form of machine learning. By optimizing spectral features of the component sine waves, such as
periodicity, amplitude and phase, the original temperature profiles were approximately simulated for the late Holocene period to 1830 CE. The ANN
models were then used to generate projections of temperatures through the
20th century. The largest deviation between the ANN projections and
measured temperatures for six geographically distinct regions was
approximately 0.2 °C, and from this an Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity
(ECS) of approximately 0.6 °C was estimated. This is considerably less
than estimates from the General Circulation Models (GCMs) used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and similar to estimates
from spectroscopic methods.

In fact as the chart shows, recent warming is well within the planet’s natural historic climate boundaries:

According to co-author Jennifer Mahorasy – who was behind the recent
exposure of the scandal in which Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology was
found to be erasing record-breaking low temperatures from its records – global temperature has moved up and down quite naturally for the last 2000 years.

(paper)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214242817300426#!

We began by deconstructing the six-proxy series from different geographic regions – series already published in the mainstream climate science literature. One of these, the Northern Hemisphere composite series begins
in 50 AD, ends in the year 2000, and is derived from studies of pollen,
lake sediments, stalagmites and boreholes.

Typical of most such temperature series, it zigzags up and down while
showing two rising trends: the first peaks about 1200 AD and corresponds
with a period known as the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), while the second
peaks in 1980 and then shows decline. In between, is the Little Ice Age
(LIA), which according to the Northern Hemisphere composite bottomed-out
in 1650 AD. (Of course, the MWP corresponded with a period of generally
good harvests in England – when men dressed in tunics and built grand cathedrals with tall spires. It preceded the LIA when there was famine
and the Great Plague of London.)

Up until the 1990s, this was widely accepted by the climate science
community. But then came a concerted effort led by alarmists including
Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann to erase the Medieval Warming Period from the records. Scientists who argued otherwise – among them Willie Soon and
Sallie Balliunas – were harassed for their “incorrect” thinking.

However, the new study would appear to confirm that the skeptics were
right all along – and that it’s the alarmists who have some apologizing to do.

To be clear, while mainstream climate science is replete with published
proxy temperature studies showing that temperatures have cycled up and
down over the last 2,000 years – spiking during the Medieval Warm Period
and then again recently to about 1980 as shown in Figure 12 – the official IPCC reconstructions (which underpin the Paris Accord) deny such cycles. Through this denial, leaders from within this much-revered community can
claim that there is something unusual about current temperatures: that we
have catastrophic global warming from industrialisation.

In our new paper in GeoResJ, we not only use the latest techniques in big
data to show that there would very likely have been significant warming to
at least 1980 in the absence of industrialisation, we also calculate an Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) of 0.6°C. This is the temperature increase expected from a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. This is an order of magnitude less than estimates from General Circulation Models, but in accordance from values generated from
experimental spectroscopic studies, and other approaches reported in the scientific literature [9,10,11,12,13,14].

The science is far from settled. In reality, some of the data is ‘problematic’, the underlying physical mechanisms are complex and poorly understood, the literature voluminous, and new alternative techniques
(such as our method using ANNs) can give very different answers to those derived from General Circulation Models and remodelled proxy-temperature series.

### - curious :)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

Breitbart? Rightfart?

That study is published by Elsevier, in a journal 'GeoResJ'
that's about to be discontinued in about 6 months.
So I'm not sure it's... credible.

And you think that's interesting. You should have been
a far-right winger. :) You do seem to hold most of their views...
At least, when you're not wringing your hands over how we're
destroying the earth (a curious contradiction going on there).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

From: david.j.worrell@gmail.com

Breitbart? And published by Elsevier? In a journal that's going
defunct in about 6 months. (I'm not researching those authors.)

You sure know how to pick 'em. :) Are you positive you're not a
right-winger? It's baffling how you go look for stuff like this
and then turn around and wring your hands over destroying earth.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

From: slider@anashram.org

On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 23:12:48 +0100, <dworrell@theuprise.net> wrote:

Breitbart? Rightfart?

That study is published by Elsevier, in a journal 'GeoResJ'
that's about to be discontinued in about 6 months.
So I'm not sure it's... credible.

And you think that's interesting. You should have been
a far-right winger. :) You do seem to hold most of their views...
At least, when you're not wringing your hands over how we're
destroying the earth (a curious contradiction going on there).

### - seems to be a genuine paper nevertheless?

and no, am not right wing (like you are hah) am just left of center
('pink' (as opposed to red) i think they call it? heh, which one's
pink?;), the fact that the right wing doesn't get absolutely 'everything'
wrong being neither here nor there! (except perhaps in your head that is hehehe...) i mean, we need 'some' law & order + even stopped clocks etc
etc, n'cest pa? ;)

but then you: 'jumping to conclusions' (heh) IS par for the course, is it
not?

that if you'd only taken your time and 'examined' things properly you
likely wouldn't have gotten into 'half' the trouble you ultimately did;
over quite silly things?

perforce you hate/abhor this potential paper because it directly
contradicts, well, just about everything you stand for innit tho' 'hah,
the very possibility' that you 'might' just be 'wrong' never even enters
your head! that is, until it all falls over whereon you're immediately on
the opposing team like greased fucking lightning hahaha, pointing the
finger??

yup, that's what you do (and have done all along) alright!

and i don't see any spots changing as yet! :)))

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

From: david.j.worrell@gmail.com

On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 4:03:54 PM UTC-7, slider wrote:

On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 23:12:48 +0100, wrote:

Breitbart? Rightfart?

That study is published by Elsevier, in a journal 'GeoResJ'
that's about to be discontinued in about 6 months.
So I'm not sure it's... credible.

And you think that's interesting. You should have been
a far-right winger. :) You do seem to hold most of their views...
At least, when you're not wringing your hands over how we're
destroying the earth (a curious contradiction going on there).

### - seems to be a genuine paper nevertheless?

and no, am not right wing (like you are hah) am just left of center
('pink' (as opposed to red) i think they call it? heh, which one's
pink?;), the fact that the right wing doesn't get absolutely 'everything' wrong being neither here nor there! (except perhaps in your head that is hehehe...) i mean, we need 'some' law & order + even stopped clocks etc
etc, n'cest pa? ;)

but then you: 'jumping to conclusions' (heh) IS par for the course, is it not?

that if you'd only taken your time and 'examined' things properly you
likely wouldn't have gotten into 'half' the trouble you ultimately did;
over quite silly things?

perforce you hate/abhor this potential paper because it directly
contradicts, well, just about everything you stand for innit tho' 'hah,
the very possibility' that you 'might' just be 'wrong' never even enters
your head! that is, until it all falls over whereon you're immediately on
the opposing team like greased fucking lightning hahaha, pointing the finger??

yup, that's what you do (and have done all along) alright!

It's not just "opposing teams", dumb shit. On one 'side' are virtually
all the major international scientific organizations, and the most
prestigious science journals and peer-reviewed publications on earth,
and on the other 'side' are a few fringe dissenters, most of whom
are somehow in the pocket of industry, and/or are demonstrably wrong.

and i don't see any spots changing as yet! :)))

You seldom see anything clearly. Moreover, you put hard WORK into
being an a-hole. :) You out of your way to do it, any chance you get.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

From: thangolossus@gmail.com

On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 15:56:20 -0700 (PDT), "Jeremy H. Denisovan" <david.j.worrell@gmail.com> wrote:

Breitbart? And published by Elsevier? In a journal that's going
defunct in about 6 months. (I'm not researching those authors.)

You sure know how to pick 'em. :) Are you positive you're not a
right-winger? It's baffling how you go look for stuff like this
and then turn around and wring your hands over destroying earth.

Here's some of Dr Marohasy's publications (non-exhaustive). She
specialises in advanced neural network learning as a mode for the
accurate prediction of weather. She may have ideas which go against
the anthropogenic climate change grain, but then again, where would be
all be without iconoclasts?


Abbot, J. & Marohasy J. 2017. The application of machine learning for evaluating anthropogenic versus natural climate change, GeoResJ,
Volume 14, Pages 36-46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gf.2017.08.001

Abbot, J. & Marohasy, J. 2017. Skilful rainfall forecasts from
artificial neural networks with long duration series and single-month optimisation, Atmospheric Research, Volume 197, Pages 289-299. DOI10.1016/j.atmosres.2017.07.01

Abbot, J. & Nicol, J. 2017. The Contribution of Carbon Dioxide to
Global Warming, In Climate Change: The Facts 2017, Institute of Public
Affairs, Melbourne, Editor J. Marohasy, Pages 282-296.

Marohasy, J. 2017. The Homogenisation of Rutherglen, In Climate
Change: The Facts 2017, Institute of Public Affairs, Melbourne, Editor
J. Marohasy, Pages 132-146.

Marohasy, J. & Vlok, J. 2017. Moving in Unison: Maximum Temperatures
from Victoria, Australia, In Climate Change: The Facts 2017, Institute
of Public Affairs, Melbourne, Editor J. Marohasy, Pages 147-162.

Abbot, J. & Marohasy, J. 2017. Forecasting extreme monthly rainfall
events in regions of Queensland, Australia, using artificial neural
networks. International Journal of Sustainable Development &
Planning, Volume 12, Pages 1117-1131.DOI 10.2495/SDP-V12-N7-1117-1131.
(Open access.)

Abbot, J. & Marohasy, J. 2017. Application of artificial neural
networks to forecasting monthly rainfall one year in advance for
locations within the Murray Darling Basin, Australia, International
Journal of Sustainable Development & Planning. Volume 12, Pages
1282-1298. DOI 10.2495/SDP-V12-N8-1282-1298.

Abbot, J. & Marohasy, J. 2016. Forecasting monthly rainfall in the
Bowen Basin of Queensland, Australia, using neural networks with Nino
indices. In AI 2016: Advances in Artificial Intelligence, Eds. B.H.
Kand & Q. Bai. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-50127-7_7.

Abbot, J. & Marohasy, J. 2016. Forecasting monthly rainfall in the
Western Australian wheat-belt up to 18-months in advance using
artificial neural networks. In AI 2016: Advances in Artificial
Intelligence, Eds. B.H. Kand & Q. Bai. DOI:
10.1007/978-3-319-50127-7_6.

Marohasy, J. & Abbot J. 2016. Southeast Australian Maximum Temperature
Trends, 1887–2013: An Evidence-Based Reappraisal. In Evidence-Based
Climate Science (Second Edition), Ed. D. Easterbrook. Pages 83-99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-804588-6.00005-7

Marohasy, J. 2016. Temperature change at Rutherglen in south-east
Australia, New Climate, http://dx.doi.org/10.22221/nc.2016.001

Marohasy, J. & Abbot, J. 2015. Assessing the quality of eight
different maximum temperature time series as inputs when using
artificial neural networks to forecast monthly rainfall at Cape Otway, Australia, Atmospheric Research, Volume 166, Pages 141-149. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosres.2015.06.025.

Abbot J. & Marohasy J. 2015. Using artificial intelligence to forecast
monthly rainfall under present and future climates for the Bowen
Basin, Queensland, Australia, International Journal of Sustainable
Development and Planning, Volume 10, Issue 1, Pages 66 – 75. DOI: 10.2495/SDP-V10-N1-66-75

Abbot J. & Marohasy J. 2015. Using lagged and forecast climate
indices with artificial intelligence to predict monthly rainfall in
the Brisbane Catchment, Queensland, Australia, International Journal
of Sustainable Development and Planning. Volume 10, Issue 1, Pages
29-41.

Abbot J. & Marohasy J., 2015. Improving monthly rainfall forecasts
using artificial neural networks and single-month optimisation in the
Brisbane Catchment, Queensland, Australia. WIT Transactions on Ecology
and the Environment, 196: 3-13.

Abbot J. & Marohasy J., 2015. Forecasting of monthly rainfall in the
Murray Darling Basin, Australia: Miles as a case study. WIT
Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, 197: 149-159.

Abbot J. & Marohasy J. 2014. Input selection and optimisation for
monthly rainfall forecasting in Queensland, Australia, using
artificial neural networks. Atmospheric Research, Volume 138, Pages
166-178.

Abbot J. & Marohasy J. 2013. The application of artificial
intelligence for monthly rainfall forecasting in the Brisbane
Catchment, Queensland, Australia. River Basin Management VII. WIT
Press. Editor C.A. Brebbia. Pages 125-135.

Abbot J. & Marohasy J. 2013. The potential benefits of using
artificial intelligence for monthly rainfall forecasting for the Bowen
Basin, Queensland, Australia. Water Resources Management VII. WIT
Press. Editor C.A. Brebbia. Pages 287-297.

Abbot J., & J. Marohasy, 2011. Application of artificial neural
networks to rainfall forecasting in Queensland, Australia. Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 29, Number 4, Pages 717-730. doi: 10.1007/s00376-012-1259-9



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

From: david.j.worrell@gmail.com

Dude, almost anyone can PAY Elsevier to publish their work.
And that journal it was in is literally going away next year.

If that study is ever referenced or validated by say...
Nature Climate Change, or Scientific American, or NASA,
or National Geographic, or the National Academy of Sciences,
or the IPCC, or the Yale Program on Climate Change, or the
MIT Program on Science and Policy or etc. etc. ... then I'll listen.

Otherwise, you're just doing exactly what I said - going out
of your way to hunt down some contrarian data anywhere you can,
just to be an asshole. It's totally what you do. :)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

From: slider@anashram.org

On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 00:49:31 +0100, Jeremy H. Denisovan <david.j.worrell@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 4:03:54 PM UTC-7, slider wrote:

On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 23:12:48 +0100, wrote:

Breitbart? Rightfart?

That study is published by Elsevier, in a journal 'GeoResJ'
that's about to be discontinued in about 6 months.
So I'm not sure it's... credible.

And you think that's interesting. You should have been
a far-right winger. :) You do seem to hold most of their views...
At least, when you're not wringing your hands over how we're
destroying the earth (a curious contradiction going on there).

### - seems to be a genuine paper nevertheless?

and no, am not right wing (like you are hah) am just left of center
('pink' (as opposed to red) i think they call it? heh, which one's
pink?;), the fact that the right wing doesn't get absolutely
'everything'
wrong being neither here nor there! (except perhaps in your head that is
hehehe...) i mean, we need 'some' law & order + even stopped clocks etc
etc, n'cest pa? ;)

but then you: 'jumping to conclusions' (heh) IS par for the course, is
it
not?

that if you'd only taken your time and 'examined' things properly you
likely wouldn't have gotten into 'half' the trouble you ultimately did;
over quite silly things?

perforce you hate/abhor this potential paper because it directly
contradicts, well, just about everything you stand for innit tho' 'hah,
the very possibility' that you 'might' just be 'wrong' never even enters
your head! that is, until it all falls over whereon you're immediately
on
the opposing team like greased fucking lightning hahaha, pointing the
finger??

yup, that's what you do (and have done all along) alright!

It's not just "opposing teams", dumb shit. On one 'side' are virtually
all the major international scientific organizations, and the most prestigious science journals and peer-reviewed publications on earth,
and on the other 'side' are a few fringe dissenters, most of whom
are somehow in the pocket of industry, and/or are demonstrably wrong.

and i don't see any spots changing as yet! :)))

You seldom see anything clearly. Moreover, you put hard WORK into
being an a-hole. :) You out of your way to do it, any chance you get.

### - it'd simple! you're *easily convinced* jeremy! i am NOT so easily convinced!

time and AGAIN (in history) a 'preponderance' of the truth (a consensus)
ISN'T necessarily evidence of something being correct!

“The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are
full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.” —Charles Bukowski

“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever
that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the
majority of mankind, a widely spread belief is more likely to be foolish
than sensible.” --Bertrand Russell

...is the point ok?

iow: argue/debate all you want! that's what it's all about!

get petty, however, start throwing stones and i toss 'em back and then YOU
get MAD (as above: showing more your true colours than the 'ever-so-nice' person you always 'claim' to be in real life? hah - vicious!) is something
you walk into time & again, when you could just as sooo easily have
avoided it - but just couldn't resist!

and look, i know you're HOT on GW - but then you're always sooo HOT on everything that you can't argue/debate properly?? if you're sooo SURE of yourself (and what you believe) then why get so het-up as to have to
resort to character assassination instead of just arguing properly?? if
other peeps wanna like/believe something wtf has that got to do with
YOU??? so what!

start chucking rocks though? then don't be surprised if one day ya do it
to the 'wrong' person is all! (someone who might just flick it back right atcha' and smash all 'your' windows instead of what you'd originally
intended: smashing their's! - just can't allow that old chap, know wot i mean?:)))

you 'think' you KNOW the answer! (THIS time heh! riiight...) and that's
what gives you (in your mind anyway) your 'right' to throw your weight
around! but just HOW MANY TIMES have you been WRONG!!!

and didn't fucking LEARN from that???

we 'personally' don't know! so a bunch of fucking nerds all 'agreeing with
one another' IS your evidence, is it??

like; where & when have we all seen THAT shit before i wonder?!?

you don't know and i don't know, not personally, not ultimately!

and there's 2 schools of thought on the matter: for & against!

well, in 'anything' like that, am immediately inclined to 'dis-agree' with
the herd?

like, when have they EVER been... right???

so, in the end i don't 'believe' anything!

i DON'T know! - there's a 'third' pov ok?

a true sceptic! :)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

From: slider@nanashram.com

### - yer' see jeremy?? yeah wot HE said! (ahahaha...) :D



On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 01:08:14 +0100, thang ornerythinchus <thangolossus@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 15:56:20 -0700 (PDT), "Jeremy H. Denisovan" <david.j.worrell@gmail.com> wrote:

Breitbart? And published by Elsevier? In a journal that's going
defunct in about 6 months. (I'm not researching those authors.)

You sure know how to pick 'em. :) Are you positive you're not a
right-winger? It's baffling how you go look for stuff like this
and then turn around and wring your hands over destroying earth.

Here's some of Dr Marohasy's publications (non-exhaustive). She
specialises in advanced neural network learning as a mode for the
accurate prediction of weather. She may have ideas which go against
the anthropogenic climate change grain, but then again, where would be
all be without iconoclasts?

Abbot, J. & Marohasy J. 2017. The application of machine learning for evaluating anthropogenic versus natural climate change, GeoResJ,
Volume 14, Pages 36-46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gf.2017.08.001

etc etc etc etc... heh :)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

From: david.j.worrell@gmail.com

On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 2:08:59 AM UTC-7, thang ornerythinchus wrote:

On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 17:39:21 -0700 (PDT), "Jeremy H. Denisovan"
wrote:

Dude, almost anyone can PAY Elsevier to publish their work.
And that journal it was in is literally going away next year.

If that study is ever referenced or validated by say...
Nature Climate Change, or Scientific American, or NASA,
or National Geographic, or the National Academy of Sciences,
or the IPCC, or the Yale Program on Climate Change, or the
MIT Program on Science and Policy or etc. etc. ... then I'll listen.

Otherwise, you're just doing exactly what I said - going out
of your way to hunt down some contrarian data anywhere you can,
just to be an asshole. It's totally what you do. :)

For contrarian, try iconoclast.

Yeah, I guess we're all iconoclasts now. Right along with the fellow
who said German Scientists proved life after death, and that last
guy who predicted the end of the world. And Carlos himself of course.

Copernicus was an iconoclast, and we all know *his* story.

Copernicus was up against religious dogma. This guy's up against
thousands of credentialed climate scientists with peer-reviewed data.
It's not even remotely similar...

We won't know the truth or otherwise of anthropogenic climate change
until it's historic fact...or not.

Taking that stance would be to fuck ourselves.

Failing to act
until it's "historic fact"
isn't an option, Jack.

:)

And yet, unfortunately, to some degree, we've already done that. :(

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-s-co2-passes-the-400-ppm-threshold-maybe-permanently/

Ten years ago, many environmentalists advocated trying to hold
the carbon line at 350 ppm to avoid the most serious damages.
We're already permanently over 400 ppm. That's a fact.

Without contrarians as you call them we wouldn't have aircraft - we'd
still be misled into believing that things that heavy couldn't
possibly fly (bumblebee evidence to the contrary).

I think the preponderance of evidence supports anthropogenic climate
change but I'm still unsure because what we are experiencing may be an aberration and geologically historic data shows much higher levels of
CO2 when we didn't exist.

According to the most recent studies from major scientific groups,
we're already experiencing serious effects of global warming *now*.
There's little point in even posting studies indicating this,
because there are *so many* , and you guys don't read 'em anyway.

At least slider throws up new ideas, most often wrong but who knows?
It's refreshing in a way. He clearly ain't cattle...

Well, he does 'throw up' a lot. :) And he ain't cattle.
What he does is to take virtually ANY contrarian position,
and defend it to the death no matter what. A one-trick pony.

The cradle rocks above an abyss, and common sense
tells us that our existence is but a brief crack of light
between two eternities of darkness.

VLADIMIR NABOKOV,
Speak, Memory: A Memoir

I don't always like your quotes, but I love that one. :)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

From: thangolossus@gmail.com

On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 17:39:21 -0700 (PDT), "Jeremy H. Denisovan" <david.j.worrell@gmail.com> wrote:

Dude, almost anyone can PAY Elsevier to publish their work.
And that journal it was in is literally going away next year.

If that study is ever referenced or validated by say...
Nature Climate Change, or Scientific American, or NASA,
or National Geographic, or the National Academy of Sciences,
or the IPCC, or the Yale Program on Climate Change, or the
MIT Program on Science and Policy or etc. etc. ... then I'll listen.

Otherwise, you're just doing exactly what I said - going out
of your way to hunt down some contrarian data anywhere you can,
just to be an asshole. It's totally what you do. :)

For contrarian, try iconoclast. Copernicus was an iconoclast, and we
all know *his* story.

We won't know the truth or otherwise of anthropogenic climate change
until it's historic fact...or not.

Without contrarians as you call them we wouldn't have aircraft - we'd
still be misled into believing that things that heavy couldn't
possibly fly (bumblebee evidence to the contrary).

I think the preponderance of evidence supports anthropogenic climate
change but I'm still unsure because what we are experiencing may be an aberration and geologically historic data shows much higher levels of
CO2 when we didn't exist.

At least slider throws up new ideas, most often wrong but who knows?
It's refreshing in a way. He clearly ain't cattle...



The cradle rocks above an abyss, and common sense
tells us that our existence is but a brief crack of light
between two eternities of darkness.

VLADIMIR NABOKOV,
Speak, Memory: A Memoir

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)