View Single Post
Old 08-23-2013, 02:05 PM   #114
Ring of Famer
W*GS's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 21,332

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
I wouldn't classify myself as a denier at all. The theory itself makes some sense. Only the significance is uncertain. But that's a huge, and important uncertainty.
There's very little science to support the idea that increasing radiatively-important gases in the atmosphere by ~40% over the last ~150 years will not appreciably alter the energy balance of the climate system.

That's what you're claiming.

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis
Data over the last 15 years has seriously called into question large assumptions made beforehand.
Not really. 15 years is too short to assess a trend with certainty.

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis
It's not unreasonable to proceed with caution on world-bending regulation in the face of such uncertainty.
Who says we have to choose "world-bending regulation"? I don't.

Why do you assume uncertainty only goes one way?
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote