Ugh....

Two misleading articles. The first guy is a crackpot and struggles with basic logic. Just a loony op-ed piece. The second article deceptively portrays a scientific consensus against global warming. That is nonsense.

I don't know enough about the science to have an opinion one way or another, but my gut tells me global warming is politics. So take that for what it's worth. I just don't see how humans could bring about such dramatic changes in the earth's atmosphere. The earth and its atmosphere is pretty big. I also know the environmental movement's modus operandi. For example, saying we don't want any more old growth cut for purely aesthetic resons isn't saleable with the public or in court. So they have to create apocalypse to get results--spotted owls will be extinct soon. Same with stellar fishing and sea lions. They do this over and over again. They said Prince William Sound was destroyed. It wasn't. But that's okay. I'm sure they've made a positive difference overall. And the earth goes through cycles.

So you think that global warming is primarily due to human influence?

Aren't you the one that stated due to the difficulties of stochastic modeling we don't have enough data to determine if man is contributing to climatic changes?

http://www.cougarboard.com/noframes/...tml?id=3803794

http://www.cougarboard.com/noframes/...tml?id=3803808

Maybe I'm selling Lebowski short, but my guess is he doesn't have a clue what stochastic modeling is.

LOL. If you only knew.

I outlined some of the difficulties and inherent uncertainties in this type of modeling. Those uncertainties often get overblown by skeptics and folks with a political axe to grind. That doesn't mean that the science is useless.

So you did make that comment about stochastic modeling and therefore you agree with the Cougarboard links I just posted?