They all have two things in common: 1) almost all show wide temperature variations in sync with solar activity (note here I write «activity» and not «irradiance», and it sure would be nice
if warmist scientists some day learned the difference) and 2) they all disagree with the IPCC CO2 - centric computer simulations.
Not exact matches
Anyway, since I'm feeling a little ranty today about the
warmist scientists, I was pleased to notice a nice little exchange on Australian breakfast telly — via Daily Bayonet
if you're interested — between a
warmist Mark Diesendorf, and a sceptic Stewart Franks: -
5)
If such interrogations go ahead, do you agree that they should include interrogations / cross examination of climate
scientists from both the «skeptical» (e.g., Christy, Spencer, Lindzen) and the «
warmist» sides?
Scott, Anyone who doesn't find himself appalled at what's going on among
scientists today is,
if not a hopelessly closed minded
warmist, someone who had to have been a profoundly cynical individual to begin with.
Personally, I dodn't findy Curry's «style» to be all that different from her «
warmist opponents» (
if by which we mean other climate
scientists blogging and op - ed - ing, most of whom, oddly enough, differ with her).
I only mention this, because you and some other
warmists pretend that
if only we just do the right thing and «believe» in AGW, everything will be all right --- when the truth is that a country like ours stands to lose its prosperity, our children's futures and our standard of living for the foreseeable future --- all on the strength of the scientific conclusions that your AGW
scientists have so little confidence in, that they're afraid to have them scrutinised and questioned by other
scientists.