The problem is that when either party hijacks a scientific problem for their own purposes, the discussion gets dumbed down to a level that seems easily solved. That is rarely the case.

You can even break the diffuculty in understanding global climate by into the most simplistic terms.

What is the ideal global temperature?

Since the global temperatures have been both higher and lower than they were at the onset of the industrial revolution, what was the ideal temperature? The UN picked a temperature that was nothing more than throwing a dart. How can you regulate global climate without even knowing what the ideal temperature you are trying to achieve.

Perhaps, just maybe, perhaps all of this going green and alternative energy and reduce, reuse, recycle stuff actually worked and maybe that is why we’ve seen a decrease?

I’m not saying it is. But that’s at least as plausible as anything I’ve heard from the deniers.

And those two links you provided? Both to opinion pieces. Nice spin.

Yeah. Those goddang libruls sure have a problem”

LOL so your rationale is basically “those guys are hypocrites so I can be one”?

And it has always been my understanding that, yes, Rush Limbaugh did speak out against drug addicts at one time, but that was before he too became an addict. I believe he became addicted after being prescribed pills after a surgery. Once he became addicted he no longer spoke negative of addicts. It could be bad karma but not quite the same as being a hypocrite.

Oh, and the climategate hits keep on coming
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co.php?utm_source=sbhomepage&utm_medium=link&utm_content=channellink

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574559630382048494.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

And thanks for the Crichton link. I just finished reading State of Fear. Good stuff!

I’m going to cross-link both on my blog. Thanks again…

There are some very good scientists out there doing a lot of great work. However, their research is restricted by the validity and thoroughness of the temperature data they have received.

Just recently, when several groups have requested access to the raw temperature data through the FOIA process and laws, they were told that the data was “accidentally erased.” That does not provide a level of confidence in the data set.

It’s interesting how many on this board are the first to point out the corrupting influence money has within the university system (see Felner, et al). However, they somehow see to insulate science researchers from the same influences. Now I not saying they are all corrupt, they’re not, but to say they have no political or financial biases, is dishonest.

What we need is a blind funding mechanism for science that takes the desire to please the grant givers out of the process.

After Al Gore’s “the Earth’s core is millions of degrees” brilliantly insightful commentary on his scientific knowledge, I would suggest reading the words of someone who has a little more scientific knowledge than Al.

This is a wonderful summary given by the author Michael Crichton, when he gave a speech to National Press Club before his death in January of 2005. You will see this is not as simplistic a subject as the former Vice President would lead you to believe.

http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html

Science is hard! If we don’t understand it we don’t have to believe it.

(By his own standards, I’m still trying to figure out where Jake fits within his THF, since he’s been slinging turds in this thread far more than asserting [explaining?] what he believes.)

I had not caught the retired climatologist angle previously. It’s similar– on a less public scale– to what some judges, police, etc. think about the War on Drugs after they’ve retired.

Follow the money. Like most university and research scientists, climatologists primary goal in life is not to solve science’s questions, it’s to procure and secure their funding for as long as possible. The science is secondary.

If you look at the skeptics, there is a very high concentration of retired climatologists. the reason, they don’t need to get funded anymore.

Why do you think so many government entities and groups creatively over-estimated the “jobs created” by the stimulus dollars they received. Was it because they couldn’t count, or was it that they knew that the more jobs they said it would create, the more money they would receive.

While the debate that the earth warmed from 1970 though the late 1990s is certainly settled, man’s impact, if any, is absolutely debatable.

The reasons are simple and many:

1) The data set is too limited, both in coverage and more importantly, length of time observed.

2) The complexity of energy inputs and outputs for global temperature budgets are incredibility complex, interconnected, and very difficult to isolate for quantitative study.

3) The understanding of solar energy emissions, radiative heat, electromagnetic, solar winds, etc. are just starting to be comprehended.

4) The impacts of global water temperature currents are still in their infancy.

5) The coefficient variable given to temperature readings to account for localized heat island effects are highly variable. As you know, the temperature in the city is warmer than in the suburbs. As such, the increased infrastructure development around temperature stations over the years can cause a local rise in readings, not reflected by global increases.

6) Finally, we have very little, if any, reliable temperature data from a control group (ie other planets in solar system) to compare against changes in our temperatures. For example if se saw a similar rise in temperatures on Mars that correlated to rises on earth, than you could conclude that solar activity was the cause, since our CO2 levels would not impact Mars.

It may be a forgone conclusion in the simplistic terms that Al Gore deals with, but as I demonstrated above, the variables are so complex and the time that is has been studied so brief, that we have just started to scratch the surface if understanding something as complex as global temperatures.