Originally Posted by HokieMSG
Do not forget that we are relying on the scientists to INTERPRET the data for us. As I said earlier, there are quite a few "scientists" here in America that have made their reputations on the Global Warming Gloom and Doom platform. I am encouraged that other scientists are willing to read the studies and conduct their own independant evaluations.
BTW Monty. If you have ever taken statistics you would understand that there are lots of ways to interpret the same data set.
I have taken statistics classes which is why I know this is a pointless argument and the primary reason I only recognise raw data as that way I can draw my own conclusions without being directed by people with vested interests on either side.
You would rather just comment?
Can't comment on a book I haven't read.
Hundreds of thousands? Where did that come from? We only have hard (empirical) climate data from the last coulple hundred years. The rest of this "data" is from "estimates" or "best guesses" and is therefore suspect. If it is included then I would seriously question any conclusions derived.
I disagree, ice core data stretches back hundreds of thousands of years and is a good indication of climate variation.
Besides just the fact that it exists makes the Intelligent Design argument invalid which in turn leads me to believe that his argument will be skewed by belief.
Just as I would be skeptical of someone telling me the world is round after claiming to believe the Easter Bunny is scientifically valid, it doesn't mean he is wrong but it makes it him hard to take at face value.
I am not saying he is wrong, I am saying he is skewing his conclusion (or the reviewer is) to create sensation and sell his book.
I agree with him that global warming is largely if not almost entirely natural but then I think you will find that most people believe this what we need to figure out is how much "almost" is and what effect that is having on a balanced system, all your book review has given us is a guy that says "almost" is irrelevant and that he has made a huge break through in discovering global warming is a natural cycle.
I look at the earth a little like the Titanic, it can take on a lot of water and as long as the pumps are functioning the boat wont sink however if 1ml per minute more water is coming in than the pumps can pump out then the boat is going to sink, 1ml is "almost" irrelevant right?