RicS wrote:
"I am one that is not particularly impressed by attacking the veracity"
I didn't intend to indicate a lack of veracity ...rather a lack of credibility.
RicS wrote:
"I'll go back to the point that the Goddard Institute made although their graphs I believe give a somewhat misleading impression. The overall temperature change in the US over the last century has been a negative."
Global warming is about the global temperature. What is the point of bringing up the temperature in the US?
As I said above ... you lack credibility. Pointing out your PhD, as though it had some bearing on the question was an attempt to leverage expertise in one domain as expertise in another. Sort of like Paris Hilton giving her opinion on depletion of fisheries stocks.
You are entitled to your opinion but express it as an opinion. When you start trying to refute the work of experts in the field you should come prepared to meet the challenge I put to you, one that you ignored, which is to provide references to peer reviewed work that refutes what you claim is not correct.
The most important work to date has been the proven rise in ocean temperatures not the temperature of your home town. The ice in Greenland is not melting due to a temporary regional anomaly.
