I commented on the new NIPCC report
here. It is full of old and tired arguments that have been debunked over and over again. Moreover, it is built on a very strong and unfounded faith in negative feedbacks from nature, which are hypothetical with sometimes sketchy, often contradictory, and sometimes no evidence of actually operating at a globally significant scale. This highlights an inconsistent view of uncertainty, and an unwillingness to weigh the evidence: “If it causes cooling, the uncertainty (or lack of evidence) doesn’t matter; if it causes warming, it’s too uncertain (and no evidence strong enough) to matter”. Not a very scientific way of looking at the world.
Just thought I would chime in before you are bashed here on FreeRepublic for being a new poster. Most here are extreme GW Skeptics, I am only a skeptic of the hysteria over GW, and the political and social goals of the liberals worldwide who will use GW to achieve their goals.
I must say, at least you have the guts to post who you are. There is a need for a "pro GW" voice, we have lost a previous poster who no longer seems to add his thoughts to the debates.