Where are the sun spots?

[MikePA]

But that doesn't blind me from seeing a real problem at the heart of the matter.

This is the crux of the debate. I do not see a problem, I see normal temperature changes.

 

[texbaylea]

This is the crux of the debate. I do not see a problem, I see normal temperature changes.

MikePA

I agree with you.

A little anecdotal information. I am scientifically trained and for nearly a decade I was a research manager in a particular area. The research scientist were continually running in, figuratively yelling and screaming, we just found out that we have this terrible situation and we need MONEY to find out how bad it is and what to do about it. Their progress was monitored of course and when the resulting data did not support their premise the response was invariably, we think that we now have a better protocol that will give better results. GIVE US MORE MONEY! Eventually everyone concludes yes or no, there was a problem but never as bad as originally promoted. Also, Frequently I got political pressure to fund certain scientists.

Scientists are living off "global warming" right now - they are self serving people like many others. Look for the mavericks, they frequently have a better handle on what is going on.

Vernon

P.S. When something becomes "accepted scientific thought" in the popular press, or by politicians, something is wrong. Science advances by discourse and argument. When one side can suppress opposing thought, real solutions can be greatly delayed.

 

[Eagleview]

And it all comes back down to them justifying their own exsistance .

 

[SPYDERLK]

MikePA

I agree with you.

[[[A little anecdotal information. I am scientifically trained and for nearly a decade I was a research manager in a particular area. The research scientist were continually running in, figuratively yelling and screaming, we just found out that we have this terrible situation and we need MONEY to find out how bad it is and what to do about it. Their progress was monitored of course and when the resulting data did not support their premise the response was invariably, we think that we now have a better protocol that will give better results. GIVE US MORE MONEY! Eventually everyone concludes yes or no, there was a problem but never as bad as originally promoted. Also, Frequently I got political pressure to fund certain scientists.]]]

Scientists are living off "global warming" right now - they are self serving people like many others. Look for the mavericks, they frequently have a better handle on what is going on.

Vernon

P.S. When something becomes "accepted scientific thought" in the popular press, or by politicians, something is wrong. Science advances by discourse and argument. When one side can suppress opposing thought, real solutions can be greatly delayed.

So youre saying the scientists were NEVER right?? Somehow, an example based on so specious a premise makes me suspicious of its scientific validity.
larry

 

[texbaylea]

So youre saying the scientists were NEVER right?? Somehow, an example based on so specious a premise makes me suspicious of its scientific validity.
larry

Larry
Read what I said
. Yes there frequently were problems but rarely as bad as the initial sell job. There is so much competition for research money that a lot of puffery is used.
It was **** making priority decisions because of the puffery.

I firmly believe that a lot of the "global warming" is puffery. Notice it has now become "climate change" so that they can swing either way.

I think we know who the biggest puffer is!

Vernon

 

[SPYDERLK]

Larry
Read what I said
. Yes there frequently were problems but rarely as bad as the initial sell job. There is so much competition for research money that a lot of puffery is used.
It was **** making priority decisions because of the puffery.

I firmly believe that a lot of the "global warming" is puffery. Notice it has now become "climate change" so that they can swing either way.
Vernon

I did read what you said, and with extrapolation and interpolation recognized it as a weighed statement, however camouflaged. Altho its garnered meaning is compatible with your 2nd post I think only the 1st deserved some rebuttal.
larry

 

[CurlyDave]

Larry

I firmly believe that a lot of the "global warming" is puffery. Notice it has now become "climate change" so that they can swing either way.

Vernon

Absolutely right. And, it now turns out that we had a century which averaged out to a slight warming, and now the last 10 years have reversed that warming.

The truth is we don't even have "climate change" -- we are right back to where we were about 110 years ago. And going colder, not warmer. We may be very thankful for all those SUVs and pickups in a few more years.

 

[alchemysa]

I guess some of you guys think the hole in the ozone layer was a big hoax too, and that banning chlorofluorocarbons in spray cans was an over-reaction.

 

[MikePA]

I guess some of you guys think the hole in the ozone layer was a big hoax too, and that banning chlorofluorocarbons in spray cans was an over-reaction.

The 'hole' is there. It's importance and the banning of CFCs should have been debated. Since CFCs have already been banned, the question is irrelevant.

 

[Eagleview]

Back in Alberta one was able to see the Northern Lights. After an unusually nice light show weather changes like storms usually occurred within four days time. I do miss seeing them in Nova Scotia as they can be quite spectacular!

Of course you folks Down Under don't see the Northern Lights! It's the Aurora Australis isn't it?



Thats one of the things i want to see before the Carbon in my body is "Sequestered" back into the soil . But while ever you have got those big nasty Grizzly bears running around i might do it from a window in a bus . Why do'nt you have soft cuddly Koala bears like us . Everything on your side of the planet wants to eat you . As for the Aurora Australis , it's a little South of us .