I'm more conservative tha many on tha subject. ther is no doubt that a pile of stupidiy, of scientific errors, of biased data and interpretation, exist on both side. It is surprising tha having suffered in LENr about pathologic consensu, funding propelled corruption of scientific method, ego-propelled denial of changing of data, that we are not more careful on that subject.
First consider the position of judith curry which is honest (like Duncan, Dawn Dominguez, celani, she is a traitor, having supported the mainstream vision, and finally admited facts). Her position is more or less that we have too much uncertainties, not even imagined, to have a serious opinion, and that todays mainstream confidence is a big lie. note on recent article on the master-key of AGW theory : the sensibility... big battle between integrating recent data, recent change in hypothesis after measurements... sensibility seems much lower in mainstream paper, reaching the skeptical level... yet IPCC, like SciAm, continue on the old data... http://judithcurry.com/2013/02/04/sensitivity-about-sensitivity/ this article, among - I agree- many bad critics on WUWT, is presenting a good reasoning : http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/30/global-warming-anthropogenic-or-not/ beside that questioning (WG1) whether AGW is real or not (note the A... the warming is more or less validated, even if there is some very strange tendency to correct always to more warming every version of report, and to round up or low the data to more warming...) , the question of impact (WG2) is nearly clear... it is judged as bullshit when presented to any specialist of the domain. Example is teh stern report that when analysed under the assumption IPCC, by an economist , is clearly judget as a big manipulation designe to justify a policy, and not as presented to deduce a policy. the report on disease, on wars, is also pure bullshit when presented to experts of malaria, of disease, of geostrategy... the WG3 about solution is pure lobbying that make all engineers not selling renewable, laughting out loud... even if AGW is real, this process is so crony that I understand that some reject even blatant fact. That is giving bad image to the skeptical camp, like magnetic motors fan are giving bad image to LENR. This AGW subject have became a bubble like I have seen earlier. the bubble is exploding partially because some supporters (those afraid of peak-oil happy with shale boom, those hoping for nuclear energy desperate of anti-nuclear lobbies so powerfull) are leaving. there is however strong lobbies, the Malthusians hoping that fighting CO2 will allow comfort and demography decrease, the renewable energy whose survival depend on WG3 bullshit scenarii... Balance today is endangered also because even rich countries cannot afford energy at 5-10 times more expensive, and population seems to see it, and industry which hoped to capture artificial growth from subsidized waste investments realize that mostly Chinese industry capture the benefit. LENR will disintegrate the balance of power because the price different will be even greater. It will motivate the majority to fight the ultra-motivated lobbies. surprisingly the fact that LENR produce no CO2 won't be a real argument, because it is long time since there is nobody honest in that domain. CO2 argument is not followed but exploited to defend a lobby, neo-religious or economic. However with LENr as cheap as expected, some lobby, including poor people, will refuse to submit to todays dominant lobbies. note that if people were honest about CO2 they will fight about soot, not CO2... note that this starts to happens in France where wood heating start to be criticized (health, soot) after some subsidies period. times are changing, underground first, like what i see about LENR. about LENR : be happy, it is moving underground. 2013/2/5 <[email protected]> > In reply to Craig's message of Mon, 04 Feb 2013 21:37:26 -0500: > Hi, > [snip] > >Since there is no logical way that temperature changes could drive solar > >activity, then solar activity is driving the temperature to some degree. > >That's the only thing that makes sense. CO2 may be affecting it > >somewhat, but it's not the only thing. > > > I agree that Solar activity also influences the temperature, which probably > explains the "drop" between maxima over the last 10 years. However the net > effect is rather like a staircase. The variation in Solar activity is > responsible for the steps on the staircase, while the CO2 increase > represents > the inclination of the staircase. > > In short, on average temperatures are going to continue to rise, however > with a > roughly 11 year periodicity superimposed upon it. > > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > > http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html > >
