Reply to comment
Very likely a bad paper
May 22, 2007 by Steve Bloom (not verified), 2 years 26 weeks ago
Comment id: 23724
Reply
About us
Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.Recommended
Andrew Sullivan Dan Sullivan Doug Arellanes Emmanuelle Richard Faith Sullivan Fred Bortz Heather Havrilesky Henry Copeland Kate Sullivan Ken Layne lagreenbean.com LAist.com Maggie Sullivan Matt Welch NewYorkology Opinion L.A. Ron Kaye Slashdot Steve Elzer & Family TheNewsroom.org Thor Garcia Tony Pierce Wonkette OlderThanks CNET for naming Science Blog one of your Blog 100!
Fred, have a look at these critiques by Tamino and Stoat. The paper isn't left with much of a leg to stand on.
Also, I think the current IPCC AR4 WG1 conclusions are indeed tantamount to ruling out other causes for the recent warming (as distinct from the early part of the last century). See Jerry Mahlman's remark in this article. IMHO the only reason they didn't go to the highest level ("virtually certain") was to reserve it for the next report in 2013.