Find answers, ask questions, and connect with our community around the world.

  • Unknown Member

    Deleted User
    February 16, 2010 at 6:54 am

    No, really: seems to me the approach of the AGW proponents has been similar to what Nobody described earlier about this thread: approach the data with an a priori conclusion one would [i]like[/i] to substantiate (for various reasons) and look for said proof — conveniently overlooking contradictory findings and overemphasizing supportive.

    Look, it can’t really be argued that the recent CO2 emissions don’t have an effect on the atmosphere, but there are other factors that may mediate or exacerbate –including only recently discovered, the role of the Sun — and so it would seem an almost impossible, or at least time-consuming and questionably-valuable use of our research dollars, to try to prove the relative risk from CO2.

    I see no reason not to pursue the science, just as we also spend dollars on deep-space research whose immediate value to humanity is unclear. I don’t think our policy and political will to pursue it ought to be tied quite so tightly to a field of research that is clearly still in its infancy, while meantime (and of course depending on who you accept data from, specifically in the case of the Himalayan glacier retreat timeline… it’s the developers who are funding and promoting research that downplays the retreat, and consequent prioritization that ought to follow).
    We have reasons to pursue ameliorization research and projects based simply on what we can observe real-time, without the need to rely on scientists from any corner of the debate.