are you serious? if you dont want to be treated as an ignorant, don’t act it. what do they say?
it’s better to be quiet and be thought ignorant than to speak and be proven ignorant
something like that.
First, I am yet to see a completely definitive reason for ice ages: is it due to Milankovich cycles, or a combination of things? Second, whatever the cause, I’m extremely skeptical that man can do anything about it, unless he really wants to mess up the environment.
man most likely cannot stop natural changes, but he can cause his own changes. when a system is in equilibrium such as the time between ice ages or during an ice age or between meteor strikes or between volcanic eruptions, etc etc, man becomes the primary influence on the environment as he is the dominant creature.
he doesn’t even have to want to mess it up, by nature of his dominance, he will affect it.
the sunspot cycle has always occured to me as the most meaningful piece of evidence. Who knows, this could be the nail in the coffin?
you ask for objectivity and “neutrality” and yet you’ve already jumped to conclusions here yourself. *you* need to drop the bias.
and think about this. sun spot cycles are on periods of around 10-11 years and yet that has no correlation with the temperature variations over the same period. sun spots most likely do affect the environment, but the degree in which they do is not apparent.
but I do think it’s distracting resources from the ultimate resolution of the puzzle
no one’s stopping you.
think this issue of CO2-induced GW is to many just a proxy for the ongoing battle against burning fossil fuels
what on going battle? if fossil fuels had no pollution involved, no foreign wars attached, no limits to supply, do you think fossil fuels would still be “battled”? of course not. fossil fuels have draw backs, part of which *is* contribution to global warming.. duh. it’s like you’re telling people not to blame terrorists for their terrorist actions.
I hope that this IPCC fiasco falls flat on its face
oh yeah, no bias here, move along.
look again and start reading the views from the other side.
so far, it’s all bad. that steve m blog on “missing data” or whatnot was crap. he jumped to a conclusion without giving objective and unbiased analysis of the methods and methodology used.
My final question that I find worth asking, if at least rhetorical: if AGW is obviously true, then why isn’t the IPCC acting with the same routine scientific integrity expected of any science body? In science, results are supposed to speak for themselves.
