We’ve all been there. We try to have a rational, sensible discussion with an alarmist about the scientific merits of the CAGW hypothesis. It doesn’t matter with what particular leg we’re talking about, but, we’ll say something blatantly and obviously true, and the alarmists will challenge it stating they haven’t read the “peer reviewed” paper substantiating our assertion. Something like, glacial melt was occurring well before industrialization. And that it is suppose to be happening and that there’s nothing unusual about it.
They’d say there’s no “peer reviewed” paper that says that and therefore, our statement would be deemed false. It reaches such a level of absurdity that you give up and find something more intellectually stimulating to converse with, something like an eggplant, for instance.
Think I’m kidding? Think I’m exaggerating? Consider this piece from Environmental Research on snow extent. It’s a rather simple…
View original post 322 more words