Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="UnconTROLLed" data-source="post: 1040218" data-attributes="member: 18708">It's a very misleading title,   biased anti-GW,   therefore I would imagine you never bothered to read the content.  ;P The most important idea from that piece,  which is largely a rehash of already known scientifically clad data,  is that 16 years is not near enough analog samples for data.    I have been saying over and over again.    No,  the previous 16 of warming also have zero bearing of long-term climate trends.   Also climate modeling does not  have much accuracy with the same extremely limited data for input.     It's simply too sparse and unreliable.    That was buried deep within the article,  and that is the sole thing to focus on right now.</blockquote>