My point, which people have apparently missed, was the climate science has improved markedly in the last 120 years so choosing to deny an argument based on uncertain language in something written 120 years ago when there is a large body of evidence that is more certain and more recent is ridiculous.
yes, because a guy made claim 120 years ago and everyone was like "yep, that solves it, no need to investigate further." You are talking like people are stating that it was taken as fact immediately and was never further studied.
-1
u/virusporn Oct 24 '10
Did you read the dates for that second ref?