Comment: There is PLENTY of peer

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: As explained above... (see in situ)

There is PLENTY of peer

There is PLENTY of peer reviwed science out there that contradicts global warming as it is presented to us today so those European scientists may just have made some mistakes in their method.

Now I'll tell you where the confusion comes in regarding global warming. All the doomsday scenarios are not based on current rates and projections but simulated climate models. To do a simulation you must make a lot of assumptions such as cloud cover, climate sensitivity, contribution of ice to reflecting solar radiation etc.

These parameters may be manipulated to get a 'desired' result but the science remains accurate for the parameters used. Of course any paper HAS to list ita assumptions as well as how it arrived at them.

Why you see a relative consensus about global warming is real because the two factors that temperature has been rising in the last 30 years(except perhaps the last 5,I'll have to check) and carbon dioxide causes warming if concentrated in the atmosphere are undeniable.

The main question, however, is how sensitive the climate is to increased levels of CO2, and if it IS that sensitive then can we have a measurable effect by adopting the proposals outlined in the various climate conventions or if its cheaper to simply adapt.

Science is awesome. Just use google scholar when you want good scientific papers to make your point. It is my favourite tool for obtaining information =)