Well thought out response Dave. This is what I was trying to express to some apparently without success.
Yes, the science has to be settled and settled openly; not crammed down people's throats. Jojo ----- Original Message ----- From: David Roberson To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 7:27 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data "Worrying" 2000 climatologists about Global Warming .... Do you honestly think that the next 20 years will be wasted if good science is applied to the global warming problem? When I say good I mean open, honest, evaluation of the facts and not what has been substituted for it recently. How can we get at the truth when a young scientist becomes blacklisted if he does not toe the line? Why should we believe much of the data that has been presented by unnamed climatologists when they secretly refuse and prevent the publishing of information that does not match their agenda? Take a look at the ridiculous behavior exhibited by the folks in charge of the Cloud experiment at CERN. The scientists were instructed not to make any inferences of how their clearly important discovery would impact the global warming discussions? Do you think they would have been given those same orders had the results supported the case for man made warming? It is enough to make one sick. No, the science is not settled at all and we all need to understand that fact. Sure, a lot of the scientists suggest it is due to carbon dioxide, but many scientists suggest that LENR is bunk as well. The whole issue needs more study and that is what it most likely will receive if science wins the debate. I am fairly well convinced that there is more politics involved in the controversy than actual science fact. As they say, follow the money. Who stands to benefit the most from the current carbon emission plans? Dave
