ok Stan, fair enough, now then
perhaps you could share what type of report or article you would find as being troubling to the AGW claim?
we can't use newspaper articles, because obviously they are all "rags"
we can't use reports from other scientists because they are "hacks"
we can't use data that doesn't originate with those that support AGW
so what can we use?
is scientific american a suitable source? if not why not?
what publication would you find acceptable?
i am curious, perhaps you can enlighten me?
the thing is you see, is that you are more than capable of critical thinking skills in analyzing any reports that are anti AGW
but "seem" to lack the same when it comes to those that support AGW. that i find most curious and quite frankly beyond my
understanding.
good science is always met with opposition and skepticism even in the face of broad acceptance, there was a time when the popular
belief was that the world was flat, or the center of the universe, and all that...
one man stood out and said, no this isn't right, the world is not flat and it is not the center of the universe. he was ridiculed as being
a heretic and/or a lunatic. it took a while for everyone else to come to the light, but one has to wonder how long it might have taken
had he not taken a stand and asserted his claim?
i remember reading in scientific american about the approx 3k floating ocean temperature monitors that measure the oceans of the worlds
temperatures at various depths, they had data going back 20 years
the first 18 years iirc the oceans temps rose something on the order of 2 degree's C which is an alarming amount and i would bet we both could agree to that, however
the 19th year there was a slight decline followed by something like another decline of 1.8 degree's in the last year, which basically wiped out
the prior gains in average temperatures,
what concerns me is those researchers that as you say about reporters, form a theory or hypothesis then go out and try to find all the data they
can that supports their assertion but conveniently leave out any that might refute or mitigate their claims. we are starting to see this sort of thing reported on, and i for one find it criminal.
as i would expect that you too would take strong issue to any report that was based on the numbers of the first 18 years and excluded the last 2 years, that made a strong assertion that AGW is a fact and we need to alter our lifestyle now! pay out billions of dollars to various companies and countries for all sorts of reasons and damage our economies and way of life so that a hand full of elite's can make billions of dollars in profits.
i don't understand what is so difficult to grasp as being possible, we all know that the oil companies in the past, just as the tobacco and asbestos
etc companies twisted reports and data to make themselves filthy rich, why is it so difficult to accept the possibility that perhaps this AGW thing is
just another example using a different twist by many of the same people?
in fairness and trying to back off and not be so abrasive, i understand that this is your belief, but
from a background such as yours, shouldn't you be more critical of these reports and perhaps even allow more thought into the possibility
that this is just another cherade' much like the 70's iceage, Y2K, cold fusion etc.?
as they say "the best mark for a salesman is another salesman"
i truely hope this is not the case with you Stan.
in closing,
Stan you have your belief and I have mine, and that ought to be fair enough
all i am saying is this,
if we are to be forced to alter our way of life dramatically, suffer increased taxes and regulation, pay out billions if not trillions of dollars
and all that, would it not seem prudent to establish a commission to go back over all the data, all the computer modeling, statistics
reports, and other documents and check each and every facet for accuracy and statistical variance, while also taking a hard look
at any other possible explanations for any results before we turn over control to any group?
should be not check out the credibility of each of the researchers/scientists? and as we do in a court of law summarily dismiss those that have cooked the data, altered or hidden data, fudged computer models, are proven to have conspired to coverup decenting opinion or research via emails and the like?
this is not chump change we are talking about here, this is very serious amounts of money and power being turned over by we the people
to those that look to gain huge amounts of power, influence and wealth.
does this seem unreasonable?
if so maybe you have deeper pockets than i do? or maybe you like huge government control?
i don't know?
thanks
bob g