Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry, but he is no longer a "real" scientist" if he doesn't agree to the nightmare global alarmist scenarios.
One is not allowed to question the accuracy of the computer models or the speculative feedback sensitivity without becoming a denier, a loon, a shill, and an oil company sell-out.
He will be written out of climate science history, thank-you-that-is-all.
You are shooting at the wrong messenger - if you look closely, you will see the article was translated from a piece in the Swiss newspaper of record, Neue Zürcher Zeitun.
you yourself have lost your claim to being unbiased long long ago.
but keep plucking those chickens!
I have never claimed to be unbiased regarding this subject anymore than you are, but that doesn't matter....It is the science that needs to be free of bias.
I'm not sure what you mean, I've always been biased against the ad hominem arguments used to silence dissent. I don't think I ever said I neutral on that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.