I'm a skeptic, but this explanation of AGW actually makes sense

This link is to an article (with link to scientific paper in the article) that has fairly convincing evidence that AGW is real, but is caused by something different than what we were led to believe.

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/cfcs-not-co2-to-blame-for-glob/13648484

 

There are not many people how would disagree with global temperature changes.

However, the disagreement is on the amount of money spent to "fix" it.



Much more data needs to be realized and MUCH better studies need to be conducted on what can/cannot be fixed.

 

I think that you better read the article. Your comments don't fit with what the article says.

 

I did read it.

It just asks more questions.

 

I'm not really following what you mean by "fix" it, much less the amount of money being spent on it.

 

I read this article in the WSJ a few days ago and found it interesting also. It will be interesting to see where it goes from here. If true, it will be a welcome piece of good news.

 

for the 10 millionth time, the issue is the rate of change (acceleration) vs the change itself (velocity). They are not the same.

 

You need to read the article, also.

 

It makes sense if you believe his thesis. I don't know enough about AWG and can easily be swayed without dissenting arguments. Let's see how it holds up. I would like Red's take on this but he is dead on FSA.

 

Nothing will spin him up like a good global warming debate. He loves this shit. Especially if I say something like "its all a hoax". That should do it. He will be by shortly.