My point is that any religon you have to believe. The only proof is that which seems to come from man/ or was it another source (I personally like the magic smoke vision thing).
But since we have been fighting wars, off and on for thousands of years, over religon. And we haven't come to a conclusion. Are we to do the same with AGW?
Soon enough, if we don't kill ourselves first, we will be having a debate over if we should mine the moon or Mars.
If we classify AGW as a religon, can we assume there is a god that watches over it? Or is this a godless religon, with no commandments, just save the earth direction.
Don't the Chineese reject religon? If so do they also reject AGW?
Urgh, not the war religion thing again. So many of the 'religious' wars are actually different cultures/races etc., the religion is just one aspect and often just the excuse.
Greg, there's a huge amount of elasticisty in the demand for fuels, but you're right: the more they cost, the more people work and innovate and expend capital and make purchasing decisions in an effort to avoid or reduce the high cost.
That's the market working.
All the elasticity means is that you need even MORE tax to achieve the desired effect.
Use the tax revenue to help people kick the monkey off their backs and they'll be more willing to make the necessary changes in their choices, their lifestyle etc.
People like the convenience that cheap energy gives them. They don't particularly care to pay huge fractions of their income on fuels. Once they've made the change to conservation, they get the savings every onward.
Without the market feedback, the comments about the virtues of conservation is just lip service.
Greg...you're comment about social security was meant as a joke but incredibly accurate!!
Global warming has been going on since the last ice age...so what! The climate data interpretations are BS...humans aren't causing it...farting cows aren't causing it...it will happen without regard to "us".
With all the small effects, and the reported tempeture differences being so small, only careful evaluations can be sure of any true warming or cooling.
And we have recently witnessed much greater verability in tempetures, which make accurate tempeture readings more difficult.
So how do we actually know there is a tempeture change, or someone is fudging the data? And how do we really determine what is causing the change?
I believe there are to many things going on to make a determination. So the goverment needs to tax us into caves just in case there is a change in tempeture that might be caused by humans.
(one interesting morning, and sarcasim helps).
Cranky - I suggest that you follow wattsupwiththat.com because they are going through the CRU data and code and their findings on the datasets (and actual station information and history) is amazing. Only time will show the truth and by the sounds of it the current administration isn't going to allow that to happen.
The wattsup site seems to be finding problems wherever it looks, but I suspect that is an unconscious bias, they only write up where they find a problem.
It certainly looks as though one particular tree ring researcher had an agenda. Resampling of the SAME TREES as he used shows he selected which cores to analyse with an end in sight.
Cheers
Greg Locock
I rarely exceed 1.79 x 10^12 furlongs per fortnight
Greg, kind of hard not to find issues with the way things have been handled at UEA. It's just now the skeptics are finally getting their time in the spotlight after being suppressed and sidelined from journals for over a decade.
Tree rings? What makes a ring bigger or smaller? Lets see, the length of the growing season, water, tempeture, co2 level, soil nutretents, so which are you really measuring?
I'm not an expert on this but it looks like there are several things that can affect this. I mean a deer that dies near will supply soil nutretents for several years.
Call me a sceptic, but this dosen't seem like an exact science. And this should be different with different locations and species. So sample size will affect the stistical results.
Which means there should be a confidance factor with each clame.
i take your point ... but presumably with many sampling points it'd take a lot of deer with a very co-ordinated plan to upset the record. how good a proxy is tree ring data for temperature ? i don't know, sounds fishy, sounds distinctly fishy where some of the data goes to a single tree in the gaspe (part of quebec) ... back to that deer point
Where there is raw data it is quite interesting.
Watts Up with that fetures video by a boy and his dad.
They went through the US statiosna and picked pairs of stations within 6o km of each other, one urban and one rural.
Did this across the US.
Then they looked at the data.
The ruban stations show a continuing rise. The rural stations show pretty much no warming from 1880 or whenever (see the vid for exact info).
WUWT also looks at the Darwin data in Australia. No evident warming in the raw data but a step up function in the "value added" data.
The New Zealand data shows virtually no evidence of warming of the long term in the raw data but in the "value added" data - a graph started by Dr Jim Salinger when he was at UEA we have evident warming.
It seems that in many cases the abnormal temperature rises are an artefact of the corrections applied.
JMW, the news of this info needs to spread like wildfire. MSM isn't going to pick it up, or at the very least they haven't heard of it. The other problem is that this is backyard scientists and they will never get the light of day because it's not 'peer-reviewed'.
when will people see that "backyard scientists", "videos by a boy and his dad", and blog run by the former weatherman of Fox news are all valid forms of scientific research? What's up with that?
Keep following Watts Up With That - as I said in the pub - seems hard to find raw rural data that isn't flat or showing a general cooling despite the "value added" data showing pronounced warming.
That's a funny thing to say given the recent emails, where the 'scientists' were so convinced they were on the right track that they manipulated the data to support their theories, and suppressed counter-arguments in the serious reviews.
Cheers
Greg Locock
I rarely exceed 1.79 x 10^12 furlongs per fortnight
