KaiserJeep wrote:Again, I will simply note that the online revisionist version of History is wrong. I weary of saying this: You can't believe everything you read on the net, you can't believe most of it, and nobody can filter out what is real from what is not. If you want to learn about history, read a book.
You claim that most scientists writing in scientific journals were predicting an imminent ice age at the time. That is falsifiable.
No, I said that scientists were quoted in the popular press I was reading. There was NOBODY then reading scientific journals unless they were in a university or sprang for a print subscription of their own, it was a very different world then, which seems beyond your comprehension.
That plus the fact that you actually believe the things you read on the web I find to be reliable indications of your judgement and intelligence. If you are wondering if that was a compliment: No.
Hint: There are lots of entirely false web pages with bibliographies which link to nothing. The world is not what you read online, it has a separate and different reality. I have no doubt, when the older generations which remember existence without the web are gone, the rest of you will allow History to be edited in real time online.
It simply boggles the mind. I remember a time when online sources were NEVER accepted, even on papers written by school kids. Today every flaming rectum with access to the online world deludes himself into believing he is an expert on everything, and that he can reliably filter what he reads and pick out "truth" from the online BS, and considers himself informed.
If YOU are actually someone who is qualified to have an opinion about whether AGW is real or not, then give me links to YOUR published papers on climate, and list your post-graduate degrees. If you can't or won't, I have to assume you are qualified to wash glassware in a laboratory, and nothing else.