Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparrow
|
No but it may be the original source of the list. Whatever you think of the source of the list it remains of course that the studies are real and peer reviewed in respected journals. Along with the most recent paper on the ENSO that i posted about earlier.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...JD011637.shtml
Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyc
I'm not sure if you are accusing me of calling you names, but I have not and will not. I respect you as an individual but your opinion on this issue is wrong.
|
Actually you have
Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyc
the results are not about duplicating the Earth you silly boy,
|
well you brought in the huffington post of all places so i'll put in the WSJ. At least this is written by a scientist- granted one that the AGW believers think they have discredited.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000...917025400.html
And for some elightening conversation between some of the actual climate scientists involved in the papers/debate etc i give you this discussion from 2005 on realclimate.org
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ge-2/#comments