There seem to be problems with the data in general. There’s evidence that NASA went back and modified the data after the fact. That’s something you should never do in a scientific process. Sure it’s fine apply adjustments to the data in a particular study but you should never change the underlying data. Are they just trying to fit the data to their wrong model or is there something actually wrong with the collection of the data.
I agree with that paragraph. Yes, to significantly reduce fossil fuel usage without alternative energy sources to replace them would be extremely (possibly disastrously) costly in many ways. But not as costly as catastrophic global warming. So it’s obviously very important to understand global warming and its causes, because if we’re wrong about it in either direction, it’s going to cost us dearly.
This is not an issue on which we can afford to have an agenda other than understanding as best we can global warming and its causes and its consequences.[/quote]
To what lengths are you willing to go to prevent or reduce CO2 emission. It seems like you’d have to being willing to go to war in order to force major global reductions in fossil fuel usage.
