If something has always existed, we shouldn't waste money protecting ourselves, trying to manage the situation. For example, crime and war.
I would say that if you have historical records that date back millions of years of carbon levels between x and y and all of a sudden they jump to z, that might be a problem. But my point is that "global warming" or "climate change" is a lost debate due to politics infecting it, and that it is affecting the overall conversation we should be having about pollution in general.
Look, I have a graph that says something different. I'm going with mine because it doesn't have stupid writing on it.
http://a-sceptical-mind.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-hockey-stick Eventually a US senate committee of inquiry was set up under the chairmanship of Edward Wegman a highly respected Professor of mathematics and statistics and in 2006 his report was published. You can download it here. The report examined the background to Mann’s Hockey Stick paper, the paper itself, the critique of it by McIntyre and McKitrick and took evidence from all the key players. Interestingly Wegman’s committee commissioned some original research into how the small world of climatology actually worked. The study of the social networking of the paleoclimatology world showed how closed it was and how often a small group of scientists both co-wrote and peer reviewed each others papers. For work that depended so much on making statistical claims about trends it was noted that it was surprising that no statisticians ever seemed to be involved in either the research work itself or its peer review. The key finding in the WEgman Report was that “Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported by the MBH98/99 [the technical name of Mann's original Hockey Stick paper]” The other conclusions of the Wegman Report are also very interesting; It listed the following conclusions: Conclusion 1. The politicization of academic scholarly work leads to confusing public debates. Scholarly papers published in peer reviewed journals are considered the archival record of research. There is usually no requirement to archive supplemental material such as code and data. Consequently, the supplementary material for academic work is often poorly documented and archived and is not sufficiently robust to withstand intense public debate. In the present example there was too much reliance on peer review, which seemed not to be sufficiently independent. Conclusion 2. Sharing of research materials, data, and results is haphazard and often grudgingly done. We were especially struck by Dr. Mann’s insistence that the code he developed was his intellectual property and that he could legally hold it personally without disclosing it to peers. When code and data are not shared and methodology is not fully disclosed, peers do not have the ability to replicate the work and thus independent verification is impossible. Conclusion 3. As statisticians, we were struck by the isolation of communities such as the paleoclimate community that rely heavily on statistical methods, yet do not seem to be interacting with the mainstream statistical community. The public policy implications of this debate are financially staggering and yet apparently no independent statistical expertise was sought or used. Conclusion 4. While the paleoclimate reconstruction has gathered much publicity because it reinforces a policy agenda, it does not provide insight and understanding of the physical mechanisms of climate change except to the extent that tree ring, ice cores and such give physical evidence such as the prevalence of green-house gases. What is needed is deeper understanding of the physical mechanisms of climate change. Generally the response of the IPCC, the supporters of the CO2 hypothesis and the broader coalition of climate campaigners to all this was a cross between a sneer and a yawn, and the Hockey Stick continued to be used widely as a campaigning and propaganda tool.
More information on the politicization of climate "science". I do find it hilarious when Alarmists on this board still try to use "consensus" as some meaningful scientific standard.
The empirical data says no. But the billions being spent on political cronies and their industries say yes. Solyndra. Remember that boondoggle. The investors made out like bandits. The workers lost their jobs.
Yes I believe in lies all the time. In fact, I go out of my way to do so. Believe in lies 4lyfe. Link? Honestly, I don't know. I'm not a climate scientist. I'm just saying that artificially increasing the carbon in the atmospheric carbon cycle may throw something out of whack.
More scientists than ever disagree with you conservatives. Your trick is to find local exceptions. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/16/us-climate-report-idUSBRE97F0KM20130816
I already disproved the last study. So your side created more. http://sportstwo.com/threads/243755...f-Global-Warming-Crisis?p=3085047#post3085047
I gave you 3 Watch this, it's only 5 minutes: [video=youtube;8BQpciw8suk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk&feature=related&app=desktop[/video]
The Berkeley professor believes he found a graphing trick. But it is so trivial compared to the weight of hundreds of other experiments, that the video opens with, "Keep in mind that Prof. Muller does believe that CO2 causes significant global warming." So he doesn't help your cause.
So he exposes the lie, and? The key line in the video is "this is science, we don't do that." Or maybe the part about "there's several people whose work I won't read anymore because of these practices."
And you accuse me of posting sources with spin?!?!?!?!?!?!? I don't have time to fact-check all everything in this clip but here's one quicky: Professor Richard Muller: "A quote came out of the emails, these leaked emails, that said "let's use Mike's trick to hide the decline". That's the words, "let's use Mike's trick to hide the decline". What was ACTUALLY written in the email: "I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline." Denny, do you vet your sources at all? Do you just do a quick google search and post the first link you find to support your argument?
