both sides of the issue usually by writers or politicians, with no scientific background, "interpreting" volumes of data gathered by true scientists.
Perhaps this is true in some cases but the data gathered by named scientists (ie. probably not what he means as 'true scientists', but scientists nonetheless) has been proven to be cooked either by the methods of collection (esp. temp data) or by 'steering' historic data by interpolation from computer models and in some cases, just changing the actual data to fit the politics.
Without question, man's use of fire (wood), dating from 1.5 million years ago; coal, from about 3000 years ago; and petroleum for the last 150 years have contributed to the most recent cycle of warming.
1. This is not 'without question'. In fact there are many scientist questioning this conclusion or questioning the baseline upon which this conclusion is made. The 'political' scientists that create the trend, cherry pick the starting point and now, since we've been cooling for the last 10 years, the end point as well.
2. Related to the above many actual scientists refute the "150 year cycle of warming". Giving this just 'buys into' the "Green's" premise and frankly there is no reason and no evidence to state categorically that this is the case.
I know that this is Bjorn Lomborg's position and while he may actually think this is the case, those who take this approach for 'diplomatic' intent so as to appear 'reasonable' and therefore in a position to compromise may get invited to the right parties in Washington among those who are tinted Green by their poltics, but they will find themselves as much of an enemy of the ideological Greens as Chris Horner, the late Michael Crichton, et. al.
Agreed.
The only thing that is “without question” is that there has been some climate change... which is normal.
Though I think many of the alarmists will not agree that warming is “normal”.
What does seem to be true is that the data doesn’t matter. Or rather... what the data says is unimportant.
With any scientific study the important thing is how the data is interpreted. Since the real interpretation of the real data can not easily fit into a 30 second sound bite, the public will not be told the truth. In fact, I think that anything more than just one sentence is too much for the media to handle.
Therefore the lies will continue. Cap and trade will be forced down our throats and will have no effect on the climate.
These "globull warming" nitwits are worried about a 2F temperature rise over the next 100 years and claim that oceans will rise and life on earth will be devastated. I read the other day that the current cooling trend equates to 11F cooling per 100 years. If this trend continues folks in 100 years will be in deep trouble.....talk about devastation!
Speaking as a social studies educator with some 20 years experience now, it seems to me that the purveyors of climate change/global warming have been hysterically screaming "societal change before it's too late" in order to get by subterfuge what they can't from the electorate on a voluntary basis. This of course being the Utopian society that is envisaged by all socialists.
My question: How close have we come to stepping off that cliff and are we teetering so far now that even a quick reverse may not be enough to forestall the destruction of our sovereignty?