* Cessna 310 wrote, On 5/31/2007 9:08 PM:
Jeff wrote:
The AR4 just doesn't cut it. They are only willing to say that "since
1750, it is extremely likely that humans have exerted a substantial
warming influence on climate" and "For the period 1950 to 2005, it is
exceptionally unlikely that the combined natural RF (solar irradiance
plus volcanic aerosol) has had a warming influence comparable to that
of the combined anthropogenic RF."

This is a far cry from the 100% certainty that Cess is looking for.
Clearly, it isn't worth doing anything if its only "extremely likely"
that we have a problem. And since the scientists can only say its
"exceptionally unlikely" that natural influences equal the human
influence, that leaves a huge possibility that the warming was really
caused by a volcano that we didn't notice.

And obviously, if Global Warming was real, the President Bush would be
calling for setting goals on greenhouse gas emissions. Until that day
comes, nobody has anything to worry about.


This particular article has been disputed and the results have been
questioned. They changed the math to meet their anticipated results.


You're thinking of the minor controversy about one chart in the Third
assessment, TAR. This version has only been out in its preliminary
form for a few months. It is a massive document, pretty unequivocal
in its support for the basics of Human causes of Global Warning. Are
you seriously claiming they would publish this huge report, including
the portions of the "executive summary" I quoted above, and then tuck
a "just kidding" in some appendix?

Sorry, read the appendices.

I found nothing like you describe. Perhaps you'd like to show your
supporting documentation.