In article ,
Rex B wrote:

Lloyd Parker wrote:
There is evidence, strong, overwhelming evidence of AGW. You can never
"prove" something in a statistical sense without doing controlled
experiments.

I've not followed this thread, but I'm currently reading Michael
Crichton's novel (the title escapes me) about global warming and
eco-terrorism. The preface states that (paraphrasing) "the characters
and actions are works of fiction, though they may resemble real people
and occurrences. The science is real" and heavily footnoted with cites
and references.

Crichton writes fiction. He relies on a small handful of people who dispute
every aspect of GW. Kind of like depending on one economist for a view of how
the economy is doing, an economist who really has no credentials in that area.


Basically, I'm halfway through the book and global warming is bunk.

I'd like to hear from anyone who's read the book and has a sound counter
-argument to the points raised. Maybe there is a relevant forum?

You might try reading science instead of fiction. Look at the National
Academy of Sciences, NASA, IPCC, the American Geophysical Union.

If you believe Crichton is factual, then do you believe:

1. Dinosaurs can be cloned?
2. There's a sphere from the future at the bottom of the ocean?
3. We can travel back in time?