Craig:
I also have a PhD, I'm not an ignorant yahoo from under a rock.
Over the four decades I've been paying attention to this subject,
I've had the opportunity to work with people directly involved in
the discussion at several universities and Forestry Canada, where I
did a Post-Doc. I have not heard serious debate about either the
fact nor the consequences of global warming for a very long time
from climatologists or ecologists.
This is because under clintonistas, dissent was suppressed. It still
is. I know of University climatologists who called it hoya from the
beginning, and still do.
I have heard considerable discussion of magnitude of effects and
timing and self-correcting mechanisms, but amongst the academics
outside the fossil fuel industry, global climate change to a much
warmer planet and wilder weather is a done deal, and has been for a
couple decades. The only "debate" comes from outside academic
research facilities, primarily from organizations funded by the
fossil fuel industry.
Climate change is indeed cyclical, but there is a significant
difference between this warming cycle and the last one, specifically
that the CO2 content of the atmosphere is very much higher than it
has been as far back as the ice data from Greenland and Antarctica
goes.
I have heard some speculation that the CO2 level in the atmosphere
has not been this high since the last massive species die-off,
although I suspect that would be somewhat hard to clearly
demonstrate.
This is only true IF you believe the corrupt "data" and the corrupt
modelling software. The corruption has been exposed outside NA, but
is suppressed in the USA and evidently, Canada.
Again, GIGO. That proves nothing.
The last time we had very warm and dry conditions in the US, the
tall grass grasslands (think Kansas) extended into eastern Ohio.
Most of what is now short grass grasslands was desert, and the
desert areas in the southwest were as dry as the Sahara. What
would it be like with even more heat?
Beware material produced by people with a PAID agenda.
Peter, you are Absolutely right.
University scientists are, by and large, independent.
No More. They ALL depend on Gooberment agendas or the agenda of some
other organization. Nearly ALL university positions are bought and
paid for, as are the "results"
Ask Prof. Guiterrez, formerly of ISU, about "academic freedom"
Plenty of other examples. Almost all ag research is funded by the
big 3 or 4 chemical/seed companies, or with goobermnt money guided by
people who work, or worked for the Chem/seed companies or big pharma.
People who work for foundations funded by sources wishing to
perpetuate a highly profitable business are highly suspect.
You don't think albore has made money on this hoax?
A PhD does not make one immune to corruption, as the sludge
produced by any number of "think tanks" demonstrates quite nicely.
I don't know if you are old enough to have grown up in the 60's, or
missed that decade of insanity, but I personally learned to sift
through the propaganda generated by organizations dedicated to
enriching themselves at other people's expense and to verify data
and conclusions from a rational rather than emotional viewpoint.
Saves endless trouble. In this day and age when everything is
reversed you make me laugh when you accuse university scientist of
"faking data to get grants" by quoting people being paid by the Koch
brothers to muddy the water. Mirrors everywhere, and more than
enough smoke being blown.
The faked data is all there in the Telegraph articles, if you would
dare to read it.
Even published scientific papers have to be evaluated carefully,
Dead right again, Peter. In the publish or perish academic works
most of what is published is garbage. We were trained to pick it
apart. In nearly every case outside Ag, the statistics are
worthless. In ag, the results are what Big Chem or big pharma wants
to see. The whole system is corrupt, and I will stand up and call
it Hoya! If not the stat, then the methodology, or sample don't
stand up.
particularly when they are not based on precise data (and no
climate data is precise, climate is a chaotic system). One must
always consider the source, the source of funding, and the known or
possible agenda of anything that smacks of politics or social
behavior, they cannot be neatly quantified in the way physical
measurements are.
Absolutely! Peter you are absolutely RIGHT again. U East Anglia
faked the temp data. it is documented outside the USA. Only in the
USA is the myth sustained. Consider the source, the source of
funding, and the known or possible agenda of anything that smacks of
politics or social behavior.
Those elements are there in the faked East Anglia "data" and in the
"data" faked by the USA.
Those elements are there in the corrupt "modelling software." Again,
the corruption has been documented outside the USA.
Peter
_______________________________________
http://www.okiebenz.com
To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/
To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
All posts are the result of individual contributors and as such,
those individuals are responsible for the content of the post. The
list owner has no control over the content of the messages of each
contributor.
_______________________________________
http://www.okiebenz.com
To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/
To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
All posts are the result of individual contributors and as such, those
individuals are responsible for the content of the post. The list owner has no
control over the content of the messages of each contributor.
