What the real GW discussion looks like

The Coffee Shop
3

Looks like a rather disturbing article, actually. Thanks for posting the link.

It’s not an easy read. I mean, I only read the abstract - it’s pretty dry, and a .pdf, so I don’t know how many people are going to check it out. It also does what I think a lot of scientific studies are doing - it’s not trying to deal with a debate that’s already settled in the scientific community (but not, sadly, here in the LR). But if I read it right it’s saying that the changes in rainfall patterns are larger than predicted and outside the potential national variation - well, that’s pretty troubling.

4

Don’t worry Ken. The study is percolating through a variety of right-wing blog sites and hate radio networks. It takes a while to run a pdf through the appropriate filters to strip out and detect red herrings and the like. Once Rush is over in an hour or so you’ll get your responses. I’m interested to see the responses and questions myself, as much of this was over my head.

I’m guessing the standard complaint will be that computer modeling was done and that we all know that computer models cannot be trusted.