The reasonable doubt only keeps on amassing and amassing...
Using the world's oldest recovered DNA, a new study suggests Greenland was much warmer than previously thought during the last Ice Age and natural global warming trends may be as significant as human-induced warming.
The international study, published Thursday in the journal Science, was co-written by University of Alberta glaciologist Dr. Martin Sharp.
(....)
The DNA samples suggest the temperature of the southern Greenland boreal forests was probably between 10 C in summer and -17 C in winter. By comparison, the temperatures at the ice surface in Greenland today are -8 C in summer and -30 C in winter.
(...)
"It provides further evidence that natural processes can and do produce climate change, and that this can be large enough to produce effects similar to those predicted to result from anthropogenic warming."
Hey... notice the difference (in bold) in that last paragraph... between the language concerning natural climate change (of course it's real- only an idiot would deny that the earth's climate has changed over its history, despite the absence/presence of human activity) and "anthropogenic" (wow- what an impressive big word popular with such fine leftist folks as "Balbulican"!), or manmade change. Balby, in the future, please lose the stereotypical windbaggy pomposity and pretentiousness for which your liberal brethren are infamous, 'k? It only makes folks roll their eyes. How hard can it be to simply use the word "manmade"? Too snobbish, eh, pal?
"Can and do" is a whole lot more confident and positive a statement than "predicted to result".
It's the same as saying that "Bears can and do shit in the woods" and then saying "Vomit is predicted to result from seeing and hearing Rosie O'Donnel and Michael Moore". The one about the bears is indubitable- bear crap has actually been found in the woods and hadn't been tampered with, indicating that bears had actually shat in the woods and left the proof right there on the ground, whereas I only assume that some folks could and might've actually lost their lunches upon encountering Rosie O'Donnel and/or Michael Moore...
Gotta take a rational, logical approach here to scientific claims. So I predict, with 90% confidence, that the IPCC Report isn't any better than this one, which is, in my opinion, scientifically sound as can be, or so we're supposed to believe, as we're being told by scientists and the MSM...
What to think... what to believe... will you take the easy route and simply believe what everyone else seems to believe? Don't forget that the IPCC "scientists" themselves indicate (in fine print, mostly) that they're only about 90% confident that they're right. Perhaps Chicken Little, too, was 90% confident that the sky was falling... which we learned as kids it was not!
The sky didn't fall. And I predict, with 90% confidence, that the horrendously terrifying, explosively powerful climatic transformations which are claimed by moonbats to be of the kind that'll wipe out much of the human race, will not happen, either, and that emissions of GHGs will continue to increase and that Kyoto will prove to be about as worthy as the paper it's written on.
Ten years from now, we'll see no difference. Ditto in twenty, thirty, perhaps even centuries... hell, millenia.
How arrogant can the human race become... believing that it holds the power to control the climate?
Of course, liberals are very, very arrogant...
