Anectdotal evidence in a hobbyist magazine lacks any merit, period.
That a body as influential as the IPCC and supposedly responsible to the nations of the world would stoop to using unreviewed anecdotal evidence to promote it's agenda....while decrying the lack of "peer reviewers" for anti-AGW papers, while it controls who the reviewers are, is a complete corruption of the scientific method.
BTW, why does the IPCC have a pro-global warming agenda, anyway? Would not the world be best served by a panel that seeks the truth rather than promote a cause?
The question is why do so many nations (all of them) tolerate the arrogance of these people when their goals are so obviously damaging in both the short and long runs?
I understand and agree with your explanation of the greenhouse effect. However, I disagree with the inferences you have made based upon that explanation. If you would like to provide some evidence to support those inferences then I welcome it.If you do, you've already stated that you understand my explanation, and to understand is hardly a far cry from agreeing with.
So, you admit the data is not clear at this time?Already, you agree with my logic in this situation. Therefore, as pointed out in my logic previously, this is in fact taking place, rate and casuality chain aside. It is merely a matter of time before the data becomes clear.