Obama administration breaks with the years of 'climate change denial'

[billvon 2,473]

> Because I happen to be more convinced with that science than with the
> science of climate change.

That's cool. Everyone has beliefs.

One of the reasons that I use that example is that the tobacco companies paid a lot of scientists to "prove" that smoking was not dangerous. They even formed something called the Tobacco Institute, which produced report after report proving that the lung cancer claims were all alarmism, the science was not settled, people get cancer all the time from other things, smokers really weren't getting cancer at higher levels, and even if they were no one could prove anything etc etc. They were successful for years before the Surgeon General started getting more forceful about the issue.

Then, when the tobacco companies finally gave up on the fake science issue, we saw the exact same people (Dr Singer, the late Dr Seitz et al) funded by the oil and coal companies doing exactly the same thing. They formed the Heartland Institute, which regularly releases papers claiming that climate change is all alarmism, the science is not settled, the climate changes all the time anyway, the earth isn't really warming, and even it is no one can prove it's due to people. They've enjoyed a lot of success of late.

The old Russian proverb applies here - "fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

>I'm more likely to believe my wife's story of trouble than a client's.

I'm more likely to believe my wife's "stories of trouble" as well. But when it comes to planet-wide climactic issues I tend to go with the experts.

>Incidentally, I can see arguments in favor of smoking. It does have a
>tendency to relax people. It does often help people be relaxed and
>focused - which definitely is positive. It also has a tendency to
>increase blood pressure, lung disease, etc.

It also enriches a lot of people who grow tobacco - which is why they spent so much trying to obscure the medical research on its effects in the 60's and 70's. They realized they could not win in a fair fight, so they used misinformation to tilt the field in their favor.

> We have proven ourselves to be fairly good at computing trajectories.
>Indeed, we've shown this simply through our experience in space flight.

To be fair, we are only good at trajectories when we have position and attitude sensors on the spacecraft itself. If and when we do see an asteroid that we think will hit, we will base that on a computation that has been tried hundreds of times before - and has been successful only once, and that success came way too late to stop it had it been a threat.

In other words, you'd be placing far more faith in a far less understood science. Which you have every right to do, of course.

>Still - most of those that would like to see changes because of the
>possibility/likelihood/probability/certainty of anthropogenic global
>warming have already been convinced, haven't they?

No. Most people really don't care much. If it doesn't affect them daily they don't worry about it.

>and learn the reasons why they deny and figure out what deniers
>are interested in. What are their interests? Why do they deny?

That's an excellent question, and there are some easy answers to that and some hard answers.

The easy answers:

Many people are paid to do so (i.e. the Heartland Institute staff.) That's a no-brainer.

Many people identify themselves with a political party, and take on that party's identities completely. Thus, someone who is a democrat opposes anything that restricts access to abortion, no matter how incidental to women's rights. Likewise, someone who is a republican may oppose any effort to mitigate climate change because if we do make any such efforts it means "their side lost." And who wants to be a loser?

Some people are easily convinced by specious arguments that the Heartland Institute et al creates. (To be fair, there are people who are convinced easily of _anything_ because they simply don't care enough about it to do any research.)

Some people are convinced that they personally will suffer if climate change mitigation is carried out. They fear the loss of a preferred job, or a loss in demand for their skill set (i.e. coal miners) or a change for the worse ("I will have to freeze in the dark!" "I want my SUV!")

Some people are afraid of the changes that AGW might bring. By denying their possibility they assuage their fears.

Some people fear that, if they do nothing _and_ they acknowledge AGW, they will be seen as "part of the problem" and that's not how they see themselves. By denying that the climate is changing due to our actions, they see themselves in a better light.

Many people feel that the money that might go towards mitigation could be used for other things (like giving them a tax cut, or paying for their pet project.) These people often accept that we are warming the planet, but they do not believe the effects will be very bad/expensive to deal with. This really isn't a position of denial, but rather indicative of a different set of political priorities.

>They are not typically the type to survey the best piece of virgin
>land to dump radioactive waste.

No. But many of them are the type that believes that people complaining about unsafe radioactive waste dumps are tree-hugging, stinking idiots - and thus will not object to sullying that virgin land, because they cannot be convinced that "their side" stands to suffer as well. To them, anything that hurts those tree-hugging hippies must be a good thing. We see them right here on this board.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Some people are convinced that they personally will suffer if climate change mitigation is carried out. They fear the loss of a preferred job, or a loss in demand for their skill set (i.e. coal miners) or a change for the worse ("I will have to freeze in the dark!" "I want my SUV!")

This is similar to my interests. My interests include being able to take care of my family. My interests include such things as a change for the worse, such as an increase in my taxes or monthly expenses. We can live okay right now but an increase in energy costs, an increase in taxes, or even a short-term decrease of employment can move us quickly from managing well to perhaps not even cutting it.

I thus fear what the increase in expenses can bring. I fear what it will do to others who are similarly situated. In a sense, the cost of doing nothing can be amortized and managed over the next 30-100 years as we adapt. On the other hand, if it is not anthropogenic, or even if the world cools or climate static, then doing nothing would have left us ahead.

Meanwhile, as I understand it, action must be bold and swift to have any hope of an effect. This means immediate outlay of large amounts of money and resources - which are finite.

For many, this may be fine and worthwhile in their judgment. For others it may not.

Thus I may in fact be operating from a position of not wanting to be fucked up by this. I may therefore be approaching this with a degree of skepticism to find any holes in research.

Others on the opposite end may be similarly slanted in ignoring the weaknesses of their claims. Mann's "hockey stick" doesn't show the medievel climate optimum - and important thing in terms of its trustworthiness to me. This same factor may be deemed as unimportant to me.

It's the Wizard of Oz. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain." In their minds, the wizard was discredited. Yet, he was the Wizard of Oz, just not nearly the image that was portrayed. A middle ground.

One may say that the Wizard was a fraud - a humbug. One may argue that the Wizard was the Wizard - the physical being was not as important.

In the same way, we may view this climate change. I'm trying to keep it real.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Amazon 7]

How many feet above sea level are you??

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

If it is worth 45 trillion dollars to prevent global warming because it is anthropogenic, then is it worth 45 trillion dollars if global warming is not affected or has little or no anthropogenic cause?

The potential effects, not the cause, of global warming are what pose the threat. Understanding that there is very likely a significant anthropogenic component to the warming gives us more insight into the kinds of things we can do to mitigate the dangers. That doesn't mean that the rate of warming would not require our attention if it were not caused by humans.

Quote

If I offer Joe $100,000 to stop smoking and he does, would I have a decent argument to say, "You got a million dollars worth of benefit from not smoking?" What if I offer him $100k to stop smoking and then I find out he never smoked to begin with?

??? I thought we were discussing global warming, not smoking.

Quote

Does each person assign the same value to things? I don't care how most excellent a wine is, I won't pay $800 for a bottle of it, even though there are plenty of people who will. I don't think any wine is that valuable.

The value of that action is not dependent upon the cause of the threat. The value of that action is the value of the perceived benefit to the actor!

Right. That was the point I made previously. I'm glad to see that you've come around and realized that the value of action does not depend on the cause of the threat.

Quote

Do we care about global warming?

If we didn't, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Quote

Why?

Because the rate of temperature increase is greater than warming periods of the past for which we have evidence. The ecosystem in which we live could be affected in such a manner that could threaten the survival or prosperity of our species.

Quote

Should every person be concerned about it?

Generally speaking, yes. Some people should be more concerned than others.

Quote

Quote

Discussion of that topic should take place, primarily, among scientists, with the aid of respected, peer refereed journals.

Cool. Then let us keep it among scientists and not among the public for discussion. That means that there should be no further discussion among the population - it doesn't affect them.

My statement certainly does not imply that there should be no further discussion among the population. You may not be aware of this, but scientists are part of the population also. You may also be surprised to learn that the scientific method may be applied by anyone, without restriction due to gender, race, nationality, religion, political ideology, sexual preference, eye color, height, weight, music preference, cooking ability, buoyancy, hair length, or any other classification. If scientific findings are to be credibly contradicted, the contradiction must also be obtained via the scientific method, with an equal or greater stringency in analysis of the data.

Quote

Quote

Debating that reality in public opinion forums is asinine.

Cool Contact the press. Contact publishers and realclimate. Get it passworded. The public has no business discussing this.

Might I suggest you take the time to explore the difference between the terms debate and discussion? By understanding the difference, you will be able to easily see why your reply doesn't accurately represent my statement.

Quote

It has a high degree of probability that it is anthropogenic. To what degree to we temper our choices with regard to that uncertainty?

See above, where you acknowledged that the value of action is not dependent upon cause of threat.

Quote

That is where the uncertainty falls into it. In my job we do it all the time. What is it worth? Not to me - to the client. And each person is different.

Not really (see above).

Quote

Quote

The evidence that Iraq had WMD's was hardly conclusive in early 2003

Even you admit that evidence of anthropogenic causes is not conclusive - but "high probability."

The evidence that gravity is a force inherent to massive objects is not known with absolute certainty, only with a high probability. I can't think of anything in science that is known to be true with absolute certainty. That's not how science works. Yet, oddly enough, we rarely see people arguing over the existence of gravity.

Quote

Absolutely! And I wholeheartedly agree! Even assuming there was evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of WMD production, I personally did not think that the threat was worthy of the cost of the response to that threat. There was a pretty solid consensus among those with the information (the POTUS, his advisors, Congress, military, etc) that the threat was real. Those who disagreed with the policy just didn't know what the policymakers knew.

Thus, I can disagree with the proposed policies. And some additional reasons are my concern with the true nature of the athropogenic effect.

Right. But the point is, no amount of public discussion would change the fact that SH lacked WMD. Whether or not he possessed such things was not a matter of opinion. On the other hand, public policy can be affected by public discussion and public opinion.

If I hear someone say that they are against government incentives to develop alternative energies because the monetary cost is too high, I can respect the opinion, even while wholeheartedly disagreeing with it. They are trying to discuss policy, not science.

OTOH, if I hear someone say that they are against government incentives to develop alternative energies because they believe the underlying science of climate change is uncertain, I just feel bad that there is yet another person who is too intellectually challenged to understand the difference between matters of fact and matters of opinion.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 2,473]

> We can live okay right now but an increase in energy costs, an
>increase in taxes, or even a short-term decrease of employment can
>move us quickly from managing well to perhaps not even cutting it.

Yep. And that's a big fear of most people, one the Heartland Institute plays to.

But again, history has lessons there. Every time a new pollution or safety law was applied to cars, the industry predicted that everyone would be dying and/or unable to afford cars. Some examples:

Iacocca: If the “EPA does not suspend the catalytic converter rule, it will cause Ford to shut down.” (1972)

Chrysler VP: Fuel economy standards might “outlaw a number of engine lines and car models including most full-size sedans and station wagons. It would restrict the industry to producing subcompact size cars—or even smaller ones—within five years.” (1974)

Ford executive: If CAFE becomes law, the move could result “in a Ford product line consisting either of all sub-Pinto sized vehicles…” (late 1970's)

Of course, catalytic converters became required and CAFE was passed. And by the 1980's we had the biggest, cheapest, highest performance cars ever seen on US roads. It turns out that things that they bemoaned - closed loop control of fuel injected cars, for example - ended up making cars more powerful and more efficient, new technology (airbags etc) made cars safer, and new materials (alloys, plastic) made them cheaper and more efficient per pound.

Nowadays we have the Heartland Institute telling people they won't be able to afford power, or gas, or cars if we let Al Gore's minions loose against the helpless citizens of the US. But I've got a net-positive house (generates more energy than it uses) - and I'm not freezing in the dark. Solar is cheaper than it's ever been. Wind power is growing. We have tightened regulations on diesel emissions, coal power plant emissions and car emissions. We have hybrid and pure-EV cars. And right now homes are pretty cheap, gas prices are low, and utilities are even dropping power prices. None of the doomsday scenarios have come to pass.

I'm sure tomorrow there will be a new scare - "solar power will kill your kids!" There's a lot of money in coal and oil, and solar/wind power frankly terrifies a lot of those people. They'll do anything to scare people into sticking with the dirtier technologies. But thus far their fears have been shown to be baseless.

> In a sense, the cost of doing nothing can be amortized and
> managed over the next 30-100 years as we adapt.

Yes, it can, in the same way that you can save money by not exercising and eating right; your body will adapt over the next few decades, and you can just deal with any potential problems later. Turns out to be a bad idea for most people though.

The question is - what can we do now that will make the changes less painful? If you are willing to help relocate a few million people when they can no longer live in their homes due to the change in sea level, then OK. Just be honest about that and don't complain when the bill comes due.

But if we can make that happen over 50 years instead of 10? It may cost a lot less. Heck, if things change that slowly, the move may happen naturally, as families gradually move away from the shoreline.

> Mann's "hockey stick" doesn't show the medievel climate optimum -
>and important thing in terms of its trustworthiness to me.

Since every other study shows the same hockey stick (even ones that include the regional effect called the "medieval climate optimum") it's a pretty robust set of data.

>It's the Wizard of Oz. "Pay no attention to that man behind the
>curtain."

I don't think the Wizard has much applicability here.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Mann's "hockey stick" doesn't show the medievel climate optimum -
>and important thing in terms of its trustworthiness to me.

Since every other study shows the same hockey stick (even ones that include the regional effect called the "medieval climate optimum") it's a pretty robust set of data.

And when you put Mann's bristlecone proxy into otherwise trendless data, the 'hockey stick' magically appears. Sounds more like bad weighting in Mann's calculations than robust data, to me.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,473]

>And when you put Mann's bristlecone proxy into otherwise trendless
>data, the 'hockey stick' magically appears.

It also "magically appears" with every other data set they've looked at. It's almost like it's . . . . data!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>And when you put Mann's bristlecone proxy into otherwise trendless
>data, the 'hockey stick' magically appears.

It also "magically appears" with every other data set they've looked at. It's almost like it's . . . . data!

I wouldn't be surprised at all, if they're using Mann's faulty calculations.

Quote

In a conventional PC analysis, if the data are in differing units it is common to “standardize” them by subtracting the mean of each column and dividing by the standard error. This re-centers and re-scales all the data to a mean of zero and a variance of 1. With tree ring data no such re-scaling is needed since the data are pre-scaled before archiving.
In Mann’s program, he applied a scaling, but with a difference. Rather than subtract the mean of the entire series length, he subtracted the mean of the 20th century portion, then divided by the standard error of the 20th century portion.11 Most of his proxy series do not look like hockey sticks, they look like flat static, and since they don’t change in the 20th century this procedure did not make much difference. The mean of the last section is roughly the same as the mean of the whole series (as is the standard error) so either way of standardizing yields more or less the same result. But some of the series trend upwards in the 20th century. For these, the Mann method has a huge effect. Since the mean of the 20th century portion is higher than the mean of the whole series, subtracting the 20th century mean ‘de-centers’ the series, shifting it off a zero mean. This, in turn, inflates the variance of these series.

PC algorithms choose weights to maximize the explained variance of a group of data series. If one series in the group has a relatively high variance, its weight in the PC1 gets inflated. The Mann algorithm did just this. It would, in effect, look through a data set and identify series with a 20th century trend, then load all the weight on them. In effect it ‘data-mines’ for hockey sticks.
Figure 5 gives an example of the effect. It shows 2 of the 90 full-length series in Mann’s data base. Both are part of the North America (“NOAMER”) proxy roster, whose PC1 is the most influential series on the hockey stick’s final shape. The top panel is a tree ring chronology from a stand of bristlecone pines at Sheep Mountain, California. The bottom panel is a tree ring chronology from Mayberry Slough, Arkansas. In the bottom panel, the mean over the last 80 years is roughly equal to the mean for the previous 500 years, but in the top panel the post-1900 mean is above that for the pre-1900 portion. Mann’s algorithm gives 390 times as much weight to the top series as to the bottom series in the PC1.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,473]

Attached is a plot of ten different data sets. The "hockey stick" exists in all of them! It must be a conspiracy!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Attached is a plot of ten different data sets. The "hockey stick" exists in all of them! It must be a conspiracy!

I don't recall making a claim there hadn't been any warming at all, Bill, so can you kindly stop throwing that red herring around? It's gotten to where it's really stinking up the place.

Attached is a comparison of data once Mann's info/calculations are corrected and Mann's hockey stick. Why is is that taking out the bristlecone data or correcting Mann's algorithms don't make the same pattern as Mann's hockey stick, Bill?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,473]

>I don't recall making a claim there hadn't been any warming at all . . .

You claimed that the hockey stick "magically appears" when people manipulate data. I posted a bunch of other data that shows that statement is false. It appears because it exists, not because of some magic manipulation.

(Again, unless you're going to start on the "secret climate change conspiracy" or something.)

[mnealtx 0]

You posted a lot of data that overlays each other, so it's impossible to say if mann's hockey stick is there or not. There's also no information that shows if they're using the bristlecone data or mann's faulty algorythms.

You know what, Bill? Fuck it - you're right, Mann is right and anyone that questions the Grand Church of the Consensus is wrong.

Happy?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,473]

>You posted a lot of data that overlays each other, so it's impossible to say
>if mann's hockey stick is there or not.

OK, we have a fundamental misunderstanding here then.

The significance of the "hockey stick" is not that it looks like a hockey stick; the sport implement used is not important. The significance is that in every data set they looked at, they saw natural climactic variations followed by a dramatic increase in temperatures. In mathematical terms, the first derivative (slope) of the low-pass-filtered data became very high. People called this a "hockey stick" purely because a hockey stick has a blade at one end that goes 'up.'

>There's also no information that shows if they're using the bristlecone data
>or mann's faulty algorythms.

Here are the sources for each of the plots. Mann's plots are blue, yellow, orange (different studies.) Some studies use proxies from glaciers and sedimentation rates so they exclude tree data inherently.

(dark blue 1000-1991): P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa, T.P. Barnett, and S.F.B. Tett (1998). , The Holocene, 8: 455-471.

(blue 1000-1980): M.E. Mann, R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes (1999). , Geophysical Research Letters, 26(6): 759-762.

(light blue 1000-1965): Crowley and Lowery (2000). , Ambio, 29: 51-54. Modified as published in Crowley (2000). , Science, 289: 270-277.

(lightest blue 1402-1960): K.R. Briffa, T.J. Osborn, F.H. Schweingruber, I.C. Harris, P.D. Jones, S.G. Shiyatov, S.G. and E.A. Vaganov (2001). , J. Geophys. Res., 106: 2929-2941. (Scots Pine data.)

(light green 831-1992): J. Esper, E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber (2002). , Science, 295(5563): 2250-2253. (Mixed data from 14 sites/different trees.)

(yellow 200-1980): M.E. Mann and P.D. Jones (2003). , Geophysical Research Letters, 30(15): 1820. doi:10.1029/2003GL017814.

(orange 200-1995): P.D. Jones and M.E. Mann (2004). , Reviews of Geophysics, 42: RG2002. doi:10.1029/2003RG000143

(red-orange 1500-1980): S. Huang (2004). , Geophys. Res Lett., 31: L13205. doi:10.1029/2004GL019781

(red 1-1979): A. Moberg, D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén (2005). , Nature, 443: 613-617. doi:10.1038/nature03265 (combining tree ring data with sedimentation records.)

(dark red 1600-1990): J.H. Oerlemans (2005). , Science, 308: 675-677. doi:10.1126/science.1107046 (data from glaciers.)

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Attached is a plot of ten different data sets. The "hockey stick" exists in all of them! It must be a conspiracy!

Can you tell me why the data/graph stops at 2004?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,473]

>Can you tell me why the data/graph stops at 2004?

Because all the studies were published in 2005 or earlier.

[rushmc 18]

My previous question to you started me searching.

This link seems not agree with climate change proponants but, can you tell me where the flaw in the data is here?

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/06/20/finnish-finish-global-warming/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>Can you tell me why the data/graph stops at 2004?

Because all the studies were published in 2005 or earlier.

Ok, so I am going to post my search. I have to tell you I am surprised at the counter claims I found in this search.

Much to look at, including this one

http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?m=200903


Here is the google search that I used...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=global+warming+data+2004+to+2009&btnG=Search


I am starting to think (with just a quick scan), there may be reasons more papers supporting man made climate influence are not using more current and more complete info like the linked tree ring study.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,473]

>but, can you tell me where the flaw in the data is here?

?? I didn't see any data; just an editorial on a paper that does not exist on the web (yet.)

However, I have no reason to believe it's false. The minimal data shown shows cyclic changes in tree rings (indicating changes in temperature) with a periodicity of 10-100 years and then a larger increase in temperature from 1895-1994.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>but, can you tell me where the flaw in the data is here?

?? I didn't see any data; just an editorial on a paper that does not exist on the web (yet.)

However, I have no reason to believe it's false. The minimal data shown shows cyclic changes in tree rings (indicating changes in temperature) with a periodicity of 10-100 years and then a larger increase in temperature from 1895-1994.

Alright, I will go at it this way

Can you show me data (you aprove of) from 1999 to 2009?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,473]

>Can you show me data (you aprove of) from 1999 to 2009?

1) I don't disapprove of that data
2) Literally, no, because 2009 isn't over yet.

However, here is the NASA GISS temperature record up to 2008:

[winsor 191]

Quote

Attached is a plot of ten different data sets. The "hockey stick" exists in all of them! It must be a conspiracy!

Not at all, it can be accounted for by the economics of grants, cherry picking data, creative extrapolation and poorly constructed tests of correlation. This may be news to you, but the global temperature average is not a single-input single-output system.

This gives a nicely reasoned treatment of the subject.

This provides a theory of Global Climate Change equally as valid as anything Algore could concieve - from someone with much better technical credentials. It also provides hope that the situation off the Horn of Africa might straighten things out.

My issue is not with Global Warming or Climate Change per se; I just cannot abide Comic Book Science. I have spent enough time in technical academia to have personally witnessed Junk Science at its finest, in institutions with apparently impeccable credentials.

Politically motivated research is about as reliable as faith-based science - any resemblance to the truth obtained thereby is purely coincidental.


Blue skies,

Winsor

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>Can you show me data (you aprove of) from 1999 to 2009?

1) I don't disapprove of that data
2) Literally, no, because 2009 isn't over yet.

However, here is the NASA GISS temperature record up to 2008:

Sorry but, since Hansen is a big part of this "organizatin", I find it extreemly dificult to give any credibility to it.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,473]

>Sorry but, since Hansen is a big part of this "organizatin" . . .

So now NASA is in on the Great Global Warming Conspiracy? Seriously?

Well, I guess if you claim that everyone who does research into global warming who disagrees with you is in on the conspiracy - you can believe whatever you like.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>Sorry but, since Hansen is a big part of this "organizatin" . . .

So now NASA is in on the Great Global Warming Conspiracy? Seriously?

Well, I guess if you claim that everyone who does research into global warming who disagrees with you is in on the conspiracy - you can believe whatever you like.

I didnt say anything about NASA or a conspiracy. I commented about the liar Hansen.

Today, there is as much science that says you are wrong as there is that says you are correct in your positions.

So, the debate should go on. The greenies dont want that. As data is looked at and gathered none as of yet has established man made CO2 as a culprit.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,473]

>I didnt say anything about NASA or a conspiracy.

Uh, yes, you did. NASA is the organization which published the data I posted, and it is the organization you commented about.

>As data is looked at and gathered none as of yet has established
>man made CO2 as a culprit.

You're contradicting yourself again. You just said there was as much science that establishes that as science that does not. Which is it?