View Single Post
Old 08-23-2013, 01:05 PM   #114
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 21,071
Default

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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