Originally Posted by Flightfreak
Sorry my bad, I meant this report.
If you’d followed the fifth link like I said you’d know I meant that one.
No, You did not. This is the first time you've tried to use a NOAA Report, and you've chosen a particularly disingenuous one to start with.
Most of your previous citations depended on the credentials of the United Nations and the IPCC reports.
You say I should have followed the fifth link to prove that what you wanted to use to prove your point was this particular report. You however ignore the fact that this particular report is the first link you gave, and, concomitantly the one which I criticized the most.
I will repeat myself only to the extent that you should pay particular attention to the opening summary of the report, it is full of dissembling.
Since they have "increased confidence", how long do you think it will be before they actually have proof? Proof good enough that we should go back to the energy expenditure level of the '80s?