When I said,"I admit I'm not qualified to judge the science", elfuente retorted, "How are we supposed to argue points when you state that you don't even understand your own?"
He claimed that some of the data was based on projections when contradictory actual data is available. I was impressed that he engages in the debate in the comment section. Dr Pielke's credentials are sound and his arguments seem resonable..
Here's my challenge elfuente, on what basis can we judge the validity of his points.
Cobbly, I'd welcome your views, we may differ but you have an open mind.
