Harry,
I will be honest with my limitations. I neither have the knowledge or the
requisite background to make sense of raw data, as I am not a
climatologists. Neither are you, unless you can correct me. In fact, I
don't believe there are any climatologists in this list.
But like I said. If people would do the suggestion I've outlined, it will
go a long ways in minimizing controversy and "settle" the science.
First, Don't fudge the data. (At least, don't get caught fudging the data.
LOL...)
Second, Open up the discussion. Don't stifle research into contrary views
by unilaterally declaring it "settled science". This is the best way to
bomb your credibility. By refusing to discuss as if you have the last word
on the subject. That is what Bob Parks, et al, do with cold fusion, and
don't you think it is "so" annoying.
Third, Open up the raw data to other experts. Open up your models. Discuss
your data gathering techniques. Don't hide these things and only put out
your "conclusions", which is just your opinion.
What is wrong with what I am asking. You will convince me and people like
me if people would simply implement these suggestions. The more you hide
behind your "settled science" position, the more people like me become more
recalcitrant and stubborn. People instinctly know you are trying to pull a
wool over their eyes; and this AGW propaganda smells of that.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harry Veeder" <hveeder...@gmail.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 7:55 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data "Worrying" 2000 climatologists about Global
Warming ....
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Harry, You said it best yourself. It "may still" .....
Here is the paper on which the article is based.
Check the graphs and judge for yourself whether the steady
temperatures from 1998-2008 is strong evidence there that is no AGW .
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/stock/files/PNAS_Paper_Final_with_figs.pdf
Why not settle the science before forcing draconian measures? To fix a
"may" and a "possibility" is both expensive and irreponsible.
What is so unreasonble with that stand? as if I am some rabid anti-AGW
and
oil producer puppet as some have implied. In fact, I can assure you, I
am
doing more to lower my carbon footprint than almost all here, including
that
most rabid AGW propagandists in this forum. And I am doing it
voluntarily.
I am set to spend over $50,000 for some biogas, wind and solar systems to
wean myself from my carbon footprint. I dare you to find anyone of the
AGW
propagandists in this forum willing to make that level of commitment.
Like
I said, going green is sensible if you give people a choice; not force it
down their throats.
So, enough of this AGW propaganda. If you devote as much effort in
weaning
yourself from raghead oil than the amount of effort you put into
promoting
it, you would have gone a long ways.
Everyone doesn't enjoy direct command over their power resources as you
do.
Most people have to act "collectively" through their government to
effect change.
Harry
----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry Veeder" <hveeder...@gmail.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 4:09 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data "Worrying" 2000 climatologists about Global
Warming ....
I guess a true global temperature would
be an average over all altitudes... which may still be rising?
Harry
