"There is just not very much substantial peer reviewed research supporting a climate model with zero radiative forcing for CO2"
I wonder why that is true? (See the start of this thread if you really wonder why, although I'll add that you just don't get funding if you disagree with the "consensus" (that based off a friend's interview of MIT professor Lindzen at the end of the '80s).)
I agree and have noted elsewhere in this thread that the observations of the last 10 years are not definitive. However, they don't match the confident predictions of the "consensus" and the leaked emails show them quite concerned about that.
Which suggests keeping an open mind about all this instead of declaring the science is settled and using the "consensus" to bludgeon people who disagree, keep them out of the peer reviewed literature, call them "deniers" and call for a new Nuremberg, etc. etc.
I wonder why that is true? (See the start of this thread if you really wonder why, although I'll add that you just don't get funding if you disagree with the "consensus" (that based off a friend's interview of MIT professor Lindzen at the end of the '80s).)
I agree and have noted elsewhere in this thread that the observations of the last 10 years are not definitive. However, they don't match the confident predictions of the "consensus" and the leaked emails show them quite concerned about that.
Which suggests keeping an open mind about all this instead of declaring the science is settled and using the "consensus" to bludgeon people who disagree, keep them out of the peer reviewed literature, call them "deniers" and call for a new Nuremberg, etc. etc.