Received vis private message;
{Removed - As I was made aware it was a violation of the rules to post it.}
It is not my intention to disparage any credible information. A blog site is not credible information. Maybe a good place to find links, but not proof. I also call into question the sites that continual funding is predicated on the support of one position/opinion over the other. {Government grants and research dollars}.
I also do not intend to call into question ones convictions. But, just accepting one point of view, based on emotion or other coconscious, is not helping. While I do believe most Global Warming supporters do just that, not all have. There are some good folks out there doing some good work. Trouble is many exploit the work for there own gains {money and/or prestige}
. Anything or anyone threatens it is labeled a threat and attacked accordingly, bringing the masses along with emotional rhetoric. {I am not the one screaming where all going to die
}
For example,
In May of 1996, The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change {IPCC}, presented a draft of its report in December 1995, and it was approved by the delegations. However, when the printed report appeared in May 1996, substantial changes and deletions had been made to the body of the report to make it conform to the Policymakers Summery. Among them, two key paragraphs written by the scientists, and agreed to, were deleted.
They said:
1. None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.
2. No study to date had positively attributed all or part of the climate change to …man-made causes.
Hummmm…..
A lot of credibility in that report. I wonder who took it upon themselves to correct it and why???
I have read many reports and studies that show this apparent correlation. As a skeptic, the first question that comes to mind is, does temperature follow Co2 or Co2 follow temperature? Or are they a result of something else happening? I simply ask show me the study that says a 200,000 year old ice core is not going to have the quantity of Co2 change over time {not to mention pressure}. It is a fact that water is a Co2 sink. Ice is water below 32 deg, another fact. What is their correlation? Does the trapped air simply remain inert, or does the sink processes continue at a much slower rate. I have not found that answer in any unbiased report that didn’t start out with {if we don’t do something we going to distroy the planet} preface. They all seem to gloss over the {frozen in time part} as a fact that nothing changes. I also find it odd that the very graphs that support global warming show the sudden temperature spike happening 10,000 years ago. If I recall correctly, there were no cars, no planes, and no trains. Maybe it was natural, maybe it wasn’t. Maybe the data is flawed. Maybe Co2 has a shelf life in ice. But nothing to date can definitively point to a cause, however we are to accept it as FACT it is happening BECAUSE of us.
And yes, I am big enough to admit there are just as many of those on the other side of the issue. I give them the same consideration. Are you big enough to accept the fact you may have been duped?
Sadly I think most of the Global Warmer's have fallen for the {cart before the horse scenario}. They have accepted global warming as a man made issue. I haven’t accepted it’s even an issue yet. Any study of written history shows many climate changes in the last 5,000 years. Some suttle, some not. Some permanet, other temporary. Even more and more drastic before man walked on two legs. Beyond that, much if not all of the “ground” we stand on was the bottom of a sea at one time, is that going to be our fault when it happens again?
One last factoid, any modeling, predicting is based on a set of facts/data. Those facts/data are based on what has happened and compared to recent/current events. What they can not do is predict events that have not taken place. So, missing these future events, projections follow the prevailing curve. If it is heading down, the projection is a continual down curve. {Remember that ice age thing bout 30 years ago} Conversely, if heading up, the projection is up.
Simply put; to predict my life time income, based on the position I started, and how much my raise was in my first year of employment is possible, ONLY if there are not ANY other prevailing events and everything remains static. Any change in employment {position, company}, health, declining sales, automation, etc. makes that projection worthless. Well nothing is static, and it is always changing. I am not sure it I find it scary or foolish someone would expect different. Or that one could control it.
Now if by chance someone has some information that clearly shows 1} we are out of our natural cycle, and 2} a .7 {point 7}% contribution has pushed us out of that cycle, please by all means share it. {sarcasm - If not sit down and enjoy the ride.
}
