So there are hundreds of papers out there that question AGW despite the fact that authors of such papers would be in trouble with the establishment?
Sounds like a typical conspiracy theory to me.
yes, it is all a vast conspiracy theory, regardless of the facts presented. And you wonder why you have not heard of the otehr side rebutting them? They have been, but the sycophantic press will not carry the other side! Even India is scooping the US media! It is a sad day for the American MSM, but you dont live here. You SHOULD at least have access to other sources. Why have you not availed yourself of them? Even the English Press is turning against pachauri and Jones.
But yes, let's just throw out the facts as another conspiracy theory. The only problem is - the facts remain. What to do about the facts? nasty thing the facts. They get in the way of a good snow job.
Universities seem to say the opposite. Why would so many lie?
Show one. Show one that has done its own research into this and their findings. Please link to one that has not just accepted the work of East Anglia, NCDC, or the met and done their own version of AGW.
I am one of those who maintain that the world getting warmer 600 years ago was probably not caused by CO2 emissions from 20th century industry.
Today, it is possible or even likely that it is.
Regardless of WHAT is causing the current warming (even if there is one since local temperature variations do not a global warming make), the results of the MWP show that the disaster scenarios portrayed by the AGW group just are plain false. Greenland was warmer in the recent past. It is called climate for a reason. it changes. This whole scandal is not arguing we are not warming, only that it is not unprececented, and to date, we do not know what is wrong!
Think of the planet as a body. it has a fever. Why? if you treat it for a bacterial infection when it is a virus, you are doing nothing except perhaps harm. So what do we have? A virus or a Bacteria? the Truth (not the hype) is we do not know! And the problem is we cannot know as long as the charlatans are running the propaganda mill! They are not promoting science! They are promoting a religion and retarding science!
The fact is that although global warming can happen and has happened naturally, everything today points to it not happening naturally and predictions of rising sea levels make such changes bad for us, whether they are occuring or can occur naturally or not.
No, all the studies you have looked at points to that. But the truth is much more complex. from monkeying the recording stations (eliminating 75% of the stations since 1990 - mostly in the cooler areas) to attempted elimination of the MWP and LIA (look at the now debunked hockey stick), to more errors than a high school students term paper (IPCC AR4). But if you want to find the truth, it does take some digging, instead of blind belief in a bunch of faux scientitsts that have been caught with their pants down.
If global warming melts too much ice, we will have to do something about regardless of whether we caused global warming or not.
Yes, and when the warming spell is over (as they do all end eventually) it will refreeze. The earth is not a static environment, In just the past 1000 years we have seen the ice caps and temperatures grown and shrink without man doing a thing. It is the height of arrogance to think that these parasites on this planet are now running the host. Indeed, if you look at solar activity, you find a much higher correlation between warming and solar activity than between CO2 and warming. Mostly because history has shown that CO2 is a LAGGING indicator, not a leading one. It has the capacity to promote warming - of a few tenths of a degree! but once it has done its work, the negative feedbacks take over and moderate it! That is why when Co2 was in the thousands of PPM (instead of the low hundreds), the earth did not spiral into a new venus.
The sad fact of the matter is - we can't and should not "do somethign about it" at least until we understand what "it" is and what we can do about it. Indeed, if it is totally natural, then "doing something" about it will be harming the the parasites on the patient instead of curing the patient. Not all bacteria in the human body is bad, and removing all of it will kill the body.
There is another question of whether we can do anything useful and a third question of whether what the Kyoto treaty proposed was useful (I think not because I don't think the climate cares whether a given CO2 molecule was produced by Americans or Indians).
Well, if you listen to the AGW crowd, there is something we can do about it. Revert back to stone knives and bear skins. That will reduce our carbon foot print. But not do much for what should be the ultimate goal - life on earth. Kyoto was DOA to start with. All it did was ensure that:
1. nations cheat. Polutants have gone up in violation of the treaty in virtually every country that signed it. And in almost all of them by a higher percentage than in the US who did not sign it.
2. organized Crime is getting rich - Yep! That $130billion carbon EU credit market is chocked full of vigorish for organized crimes as has been documented.
3. And you are right. The earth does not care where a molecule of polutant comes from. So as some nations sacrafice their soverignity for the sake of the planet, others just grab the money and go. Instead of lifting up all nations to a first world level, this movement guarantees to drop all nations to 3rd world status. but then Al Gore and gang will get rich in the process.
