re: #262 Bagua

And you pointedly avoided all the science that makes us 100% certain. PLease strop whining and changing the issue. Either we are certain of this or we are not. I have told you why we are certain. NOw you can try to adress this, or you can continue with the politically motivated preamble to IPCC that many scientists were infuriated with. Again. IPCC has some very good science in it, but it was softened in terms of its language for political reasons.

Also, as far as the science in IPCC is concerned, it does not represent consensus on a number of points. It is well known that it did not take the Siberian bog or non-linear ice melts into account. It is the consensus of the community that IPCC was low ball. This has been covered here many times.

Just repeating that IPCC is the consensus with know understanding of what the consensus is, particularly when I am explaining all the actual science to you again and again, is frankly stupid Bagua. How about you check your ego at the door and look up the science?

Why not go look that up, do some actual research and stop talking out of your bottom?

And in the mean time, you can address the science.

If you don’t cer to, the only one making a faith based argument is you. But of course you are too arrogant to see that.