You raised a canard in an apparent attempt to deflect the discussion away from regulating CO2, which is what the alarmist crowd wants to do, and which I oppose. If I'm wrong about that, then read on.
The alarmists are scientists that are funded by governments. The UN IPPC - a political body - recommends drastically reducing CO2 emissions to combat climate change, a recommendation based largely on the work of those scientists. Our own EPA does, too. That was the basis for them declaring CO2 a "pollutant," which gives them the authority to regulate emissions of the very same gas you exhale. The alarmists told us that the science is settled. It isn't. The alarmists told us that there is a broad scientific consensus on the issue. There isn't. Not among climatologists, even those that contributed to the IPCC assessment reports, and even some of those within the alarmist cabal. Many other scientists, including climatologists, are skeptical of the correlation between CO2 and climate change. However, unlike other non-military publicly funded science, the alarmists won't make their data or their computer models available to skeptics for review. Instead, they conspired to hide or delete raw data contrary to their stated findings. They conspired to keep scientific journals from publishing findings that put the CO2-warming correlation into question. They conspired to ruin the careers of the warming skeptics. Now they're saying all that doesn't really matter because they're still right about global warming. They just don't want to prove it -- they want you to believe them. There's only one way to get to the bottom of this extremely important issue -- defund the bums and subject the entire body of their work to scrutiny by other scientists, alarmists and skeptics alike. That is the only way we'll the reliable data, analysis, findings, conclusions and recommendations we'll need to know the effects of climate change and how we can adapt to or take advantage of those changes. I've said it before and I'll say it again -- promoting AGW will eventually seriously harm the environmental movement. Even though they didn't accomplish a damned thing in Copenhagen, all environmentalists are being painted with the "revived commie" label because of the behavior of those at the conference, attendees and protesters alike. I'm an enviro, but I sure as hell ain't no commie, and I deeply resent the albatross that the AGW crowd keeps hanging around my neck. They're proposing extremely costly policies that won't achieve their stated goals. The one thing it will do, however, is enrich a very few that control carbon trading. And those scientists willing to whistle their tune, namely the warming alarmists funded by taxpayer dollars. That's where Eisenhower's government funded science warning comes into play. Bruce has argued that the government-funded science and military-industrial complex warnings are one and the same, but they're not. We need to be vigilant about both. Here's an example of the military-industrial complex you may find interesting: <http://steveblank.com/secret-history/> I'm still checking it out and thought you might find it interesting, too. Steve made his millions in Silicon Valley and has taught (or is still teaching) at Stanford. He also has a seat on the powerful California Coastal Commission. As for my initial post on this thread, I thought the relationship between cosmic rays, cloud formation and warming quite fascinating. And complex. I hope we fund more studies into such CAUSES of climate change as well as the EFFECTS of climate change. Responsible governments need reliable answers on both issues, something they're now lacking thanks in large part to Wigley, Jones, Mann, Hansen and a host of journalists that went along with their alarm ism. > you mentioned gas, not me. > why/how do/did you convert "dirt particles" into "c02"? > > dirt particulates fall on snowy surfaces. that changes the colour of snow > from white[heat reflective] to dark[heat absorptive]...and when ice gets > warm, it.....wait for it... > it MELTS. > > > > On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 4:33 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > oh, and glaciers don't vote... > > > > They don't have to. They're not affected by anything we do. > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 4:08 PM, richardsan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > nah, just scientific enough to understand, that all the man-generated > > dirt > > > > particles that land in the polar regions, cause those areas to heat > > up, > > > > because.... > > > > 'dark things absorb heat'. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 3:49 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > >> Talk about clinging to one's religion ... besides that, glaciers don't > > > >> listen. > > > >> > > > >> The correlation between cosmic rays (cause) and cloud formation > > (effect) > > > >> is significant, and far more so than that between atmospheric CO2 > > levels > > > >> (effect) and global temperatures (cause). > > > >> > > > >> The scientists that discovered the correlation make their data and > > > >> analysis available for all review, unlike the AGW cabal that > > manipulates > > > >> secret climate models, ignores temperature data other observations > > that are > > > >> contrary to their preconceived results, or uses adjusted data without > > > >> keeping the original data or keeping records of how the adjustments > > were > > > >> applied, or participates in a conspiracy to prevent the publication of > > > >> findings or theories that question theirs. > > > >> > > > >> The former group participates in a scientific process, the latter a > > > >> political process, just as Eisenhower warned us they would. > > > >> > > > >> "Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we > > > >> should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that > > public > > > >> policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological > > elite." > > > >> -- Dwight D. Eisenhower > > > >> > > > >> It's pretty clear to me you're swayed more by politics than by > > science, > > > >> richardsan. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > ahhhh tell it to the glaciers...oh wait, they're disappearing... > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 10:03 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > > A great video, no matter where you fall on AGW: > > > >> > > > > > >> > > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKoUwttE0BA&NR=1> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Francis Drouillard, PE > > > >> Novato, CA 94945 > > > >> > > > > ...never eat your türdückén if it has died. > > > > > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "StrataList-OT" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/stratalist-ot?hl=en. > > > > Francis Drouillard, PE Novato, CA 94945 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "StrataList-OT" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/stratalist-ot?hl=en.
