Be interesting to see how Dumbo reacts--
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/...l?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/...l?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share
Afaik, the NYT released the latest draft of the USG Climate Change Special Report, which is still in process.
The previous draft, dated December and posted in March, is here:
https://archive.org/details/CSSRTODALL
It will be interesting to see what changes, if any, are made from the earlier version.
The latest draft has increased from 413 to 673 pages, or 63% — no doubt reflecting the ever-growing consensus of those contributing to the report.
Afaik, the NYT released the latest draft of the USG Climate Change Special Report, which is still in process.
The previous draft, dated December and posted in March, is here:
https://archive.org/details/CSSRTODALL
It will be interesting to see what changes, if any, are made from the earlier version.
Of conspiracy theories (and the accompanying unscholarly language) there's no end! AGWers aren't just wrong, they're liars and scammers in service of some vaguely (if at all) specified "political" agenda.
Homewood, for God's sake, there's a source for you!!
Fugl, that's unworthy of you.
Ad hominem in an argument is not the way.
Elkcub objected to the methodology used, not the data.
I'm at a loss to understand the relevance of your comment to what I've said in my post. What in it strikes you as "ad hominem" (not the reference to Homewood, surely, but if so I plead guilty!) and, for that matter, what are the conspiracy theories branding the entire AGW "community" with self-interested motives (which elkcub has done more than once in his posts), but the argumentum ad hominem writ large?
Don't you see that starting with the statement 'Of conspiracy theories...' and then mocking Homewood, presumably one of the references, might be seen as an Ad hominem attack rather than a measured response?
I saw nothing in Elkcub's posting about conspiracy, at most a claim that the document expressed conclusions not clearly supported by the actual evidence.
Having participated in some of these advisory group processes, that does not surprise in the least. Indeed, it is the default course for committees, to support the existing theme.
..
--Paul Krugman
What a preposterous article...'could'...'might'...."scientists think"...not a modicum of proof of anything. 'Melting ice might 'trigger' an eruption.' Laughable.