I go where the evidence takes me. If a thoroughly researched and methodologically sound article came out tomorrow stating, "hey turns out we may have been wrong. The source of the warming is probably geothermal," you bet your bottom dollar I would consider it.Audub, who you are right. It's impossible to make a good case to someone whose mind is made up already. I don't feel bad about that. It is what it is. You have your arguments and counter arguments neatly lined up and citations organized (probably by category). I get it. You are obsessed.
I am not going to lie, I do keep a cheatsheet file on my iPad. Not neatly organized, but it works. I am also an excellent Google jockey. I understand you're trying to insult me (obsessed?), but there's nothing wrong with actually attempting to understand what you're arguing before wading in.
No. I do not.Ok. I'm sure you know better than the scientists who were there.
We both made claims. I said there was a consensus on warming, you said there was a widespread consensus on cooling.
Unlike you, what I do have is evidence to support my claim in the form of a comprehensive analysis of scholarly publications that broached the subject from that era. You know, the place that these debates actually take place and the best possible indicator of what they were thinking at the time.
You have the words of a few scientists and 7 scholarly articles on the subject. I have the words of a few scientists and 44 scholarly article on the subject. And even if all of the neutral articles skewed your way, the warming position still has more.
If I still had access to the journals I might do my own analysis. Maybe I'll have it again in the future. Could be an interesting project.
Last edited: