The first state of denial was that it's not happening. Most all "skeptics" have dropped that, because of data.
The guy who takes pictures of surface stations has a bad problem. He can't show any difference in the data between undeniably well located stations, and arguably bad ones. The data shows exactly the opposite, that the differently situated stations say the same thing. He's like a tourist, going around giving a boring slide show.
In the satellite data, ACRIM versus PMOD is an unimportant discussion, unless your analysis picks two arbitrary points on a continuous curve and draws a straight line through them, ignoring the rest of the data. In science, that's just not acceptable.
The next stage was that it isn't mostly caused by us. The problem with that, is that the contribution from man made greenhouse gases is now so strong, you can't explain the data any other way. Respectable skeptics like Lindzen and Christy have moved on.
2007-11-02
09:22:01
·
12 answers
·
asked by
Bob
7
in
Global Warming