Quote from: Spendulus on October 03, 2016, 06:35:18 PM

Quote from: dwma on October 03, 2016, 06:31:50 PM

Quote from: Spendulus on October 02, 2016, 07:32:38 PM

Quote from: dwma on October 01, 2016, 06:06:49 AM

Quote from: tvbcof on September 30, 2016, 06:31:41 PM

In my relatively short lifetime the scares have already been through a 'coming ice-age' to 'catastrophic warming' to 'climate change' cycle. The latter being a good catch-all I suppose.

This is more logical fallacies. Just because some very small percentage of scientists talked about global cooling doesn't discount the overwhelming current consensus going on now.
...

Small percentage?

Nope.

Listen to the solar scientists on their area of expertise.

The opinion of a guy working glaciers or bugs or dirt science is irrelevant on this subject.

Lol Spendalus. Hows your spell checker treating you?

So where would I find a list of "solar scientists" and further inspect your claim?

Google is your friend.

Lol oook. Google has tons of biases in itself. I'll just assume I'm right and there isn't more contrarians than one would expect. Maybe there is like 2-3 guys who call themselves solar scientists?? hehe

I was googling up other climate change models vs observed stuff and this is the first article I found. I would like to see more stuff like John Cristy's graph but I assume the work cited on theguardian was actually peer reviewed. Now I understand you guys don't buy into that system so much and it is a valid belief, but I suspect John Cristy did something wrong. This is a real basic thing that we should be able to find an answer for. I'll keep at it, but I'm limited in the time I have available.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/oct/01/ipcc-global-warming-projections-accurate

vs

the chart posted here and made by John Cristy of U of Alabama.