And they usually get a cut of the proceeds, so they pressure govt. to not restrict them even if they're ridiculous amounts.
Inaccurate and misleading. First of all, anyone can represent themself in court. Second, and beyond that, do doctors have a monopoly? You bet. Do you get to perform surgery? And only CPAs can create certified financial returns. And only architects can create certified blueprints. What's the deal with government requiring extra education and licenses for people to perform some specific jobs - its outrageous!!
Lets get experts in every single country to agree and then we can definitely say that we had zilch Global Warming in the last 15 years.
Well, there's only two real sets of data that the scientists use to base their claims, and this guy was in charge of one of them. The guy in charge of the other (and who wrote the IPCC report) says there was no global warming the past 15 years, either. BTW, you won't get experts in every single country to agree. The Indians just pulled out of the international global warming scheme and started their own agency. They and the Chinese would never sign on to any world-wide agreement, and they have about 2.5B of the ~6.5B total people on the earth between them.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels Study claimed in 2009 that sea levels would rise by up to 82cm by the end of century – but the report's author now says true estimate is still unknown David Adam guardian.co.uk, Sunday 21 February 2010 18.00 GMT Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings. The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century. At the time, Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Bristol, said the study "strengthens the confidence with which one may interpret the IPCC results". The IPCC said that sea level would probably rise by 18cm-59cm by 2100, though stressed this was based on incomplete information about ice sheet melting and that the true rise could be higher. Many scientists criticised the IPCC approach as too conservative, and several papers since have suggested that sea level could rise more. Martin Vermeer of the Helsinki University of Technology, Finland and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany published a study in December that projected a rise of 0.75m to 1.9m by 2100. Siddall said that he did not know whether the retracted paper's estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate. Announcing the formal retraction of the paper from the journal, Siddall said: "It's one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science." He said there were two separate technical mistakes in the paper, which were pointed out by other scientists after it was published. A formal retraction was required, rather than a correction, because the errors undermined the study's conclusion. "Retraction is a regular part of the publication process," he said. "Science is a complicated game and there are set procedures in place that act as checks and balances." Nature Publishing Group, which publishes Nature Geoscience, said this was the first paper retracted from the journal since it was launched in 2007. The paper – entitled "Constraints on future sea-level rise from past sea-level change" – used fossil coral data and temperature records derived from ice-core measurements to reconstruct how sea level has fluctuated with temperature since the peak of the last ice age, and to project how it would rise with warming over the next few decades. In a statement the authors of the paper said: "Since publication of our paper we have become aware of two mistakes which impact the detailed estimation of future sea level rise. This means that we can no longer draw firm conclusions regarding 21st century sea level rise from this study without further work. "One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years. Because of these issues we have retracted the paper and will now invest in the further work needed to correct these mistakes." In the Nature Geoscience retraction, in which Siddall and his colleagues explain their errors, Vermeer and Rahmstorf are thanked for "bringing these issues to our attention".
Yeah, your name is Vermeer and/or Rahmsdorf, right? Interesting that the guys who pointed out the mistake estimate higher ocean levels than the retracted paper. barfo
Seriously, though, even if there was global warming, what are we gonna do about it? I'd venture to guess that it would be things science and technology are working on anyway.
I've always maintained that scientists are only guessing about both global warming and the true effect of man upon it. Nonetheless, whether global warming is true to any degree and whether or not man's activities play any part, it simply behooves us to live responsively. Not wanting to draw a bunch of childish flack, but I believe God created this planet and us. I further believe that man has been more or less given domain over the planet to tend it and use its resources wisely. To me, we've done a terrible job and many of the changes we're currently being asked to make have my support.
who do you think gives funding to these sciences and technology? people that want it to be fixed, right? if nobody thinks it's a problem and wants it to be fixed who is going to be willing to spend money on "imaginary problems"... see the problem with assuming it's not real?
If you live off of grants, then convincing governments to be spendy on your area of study/expertise is more important (these days) than the truth. And govt. exists to spend money on imaginary problems ;-)
What if we could prove that the earth was warming (or cooling) quickly by purely natural causes, threatening a huge rise in sea levels or a bad ice-age? Would we try to change its course or let it do its thing?
I think that second question has an interesting answer. If "we" were living about 70 years ago, I would say we change its course. Make the world fit our needs! But some of the newer environmentalists might say let the wind take us where ever it leads. I myself, assuming it was purely natural, could be in favor of both ways. But, part of me is a little insidious/devilish about population control, so that might sway my opinion.
