Climategate

[denuseri]

Even with interspaced cooling periods the overall trend in the climatoligists data sugests a series of ever increasing high average temperature spikes of increasing duration and intensity to be occuring in recent history.

Geological findings have told us what extremes in atmospheric composition and temperature the planet has previously experienced as well as various durations of each and can provide workable models for possible effects postulated climate changes can mean for us and our posterity.

Where as meterological data apears to be sugesting something else entirely at present.

That warming is and has been occuring isnt nessesarally in question in my book.

What is in question and where I find the 'evidence" lacking or contravertibley hazy, is in the conclussion (not vertible evidence of repeatable peer reviewed experiments) that the warming is a direct or sole result of humanity's presence and or that the warming is going to continue unabated becuase of us if we dont change everything yesterday.

This does not mean that I am saying we don't or can't contribute to it, it simpley means I dont see any real proof as of yet that we are the sole cuase.

Eaither way I believe as previously stated several times in the thread, that we can and should reduce and change the way we pollute our enviroment and that we should expand technologically away from non-renewable scources of energy production and be ready for possible conditions that may occur if and when certian climatic thresholds are reached.

[steelish]

Even with interspaced cooling periods the overall trend in the climatoligists data sugests a series of ever increasing high average temperature spikes of increasing duration and intensity to be occuring in recent history.

Geological findings have told us what extremes in atmospheric composition and temperature the planet has previously experienced as well as various durations of each and can provide workable models for possible effects postulated climate changes can mean for us and our posterity.

Where as meterological data apears to be sugesting something else entirely at present.

That warming is and has been occuring isnt nessesarally in question in my book.

What is in question and where I find the 'evidence" lacking or contravertibley hazy, is in the conclussion (not vertible evidence of repeatable peer reviewed experiments) that the warming is a direct or sole result of humanity's presence and or that the warming is going to continue unabated becuase of us if we dont change everything yesterday.

This does not mean that I am saying we don't or can't contribute to it, it simpley means I dont see any real proof as of yet that we are the sole cuase.

Eaither way I believe as previously stated several times in the thread, that we can and should reduce and change the way we pollute our enviroment and that we should expand technologically away from non-renewable scources of energy production and be ready for possible conditions that may occur if and when certian climatic thresholds are reached.

And that is exactly how I feel as well.

That being said, I find it reprehensible that our government is using this platform as a way to "redistribute" the wealth. Many Americans, who are Socialist by nature, think this is a great idea and believe this is a way to pull third world countries "up". This won't happen. What will happen is America will be brought "down" a level or two towards the third world country level.

[DuncanONeil]

And that is exactly how I feel as well.

That being said, I find it reprehensible that our government is using this platform as a way to "redistribute" the wealth. Many Americans, who are Socialist by nature, think this is a great idea and believe this is a way to pull third world countries "up". This won't happen. What will happen is America will be brought "down" a level or two towards the third world country level.

"(A)s a way to "redistribute" the wealth", like Al Gore!!

[steelish]

"(A)s a way to "redistribute" the wealth", like Al Gore!!

Yes. Al Gore, Barak Obama, John Holdren, Van Jones, Anita Dunn, Harry Reid and many, many more

[Thorne]

What is in question and where I find the 'evidence" lacking or contravertibley hazy, is in the conclussion (not vertible evidence of repeatable peer reviewed experiments) that the warming is a direct or sole result of humanity's presence and or that the warming is going to continue unabated becuase of us if we dont change everything yesterday.

This does not mean that I am saying we don't or can't contribute to it, it simpley means I dont see any real proof as of yet that we are the sole cuase.

I'll go along with you here. I also don't think there's enough evidence to say we are the sole cause. The problem is far too complex to say that. There are things we still don't know about the climate and what effects certain things have upon it.

But I also feel that the evidence FOR global warming is strong, and the evidence that our CO2 emissions are adding to the problem is just as strong. Doing something about that is in all of our interests. Letting governments take the lead, though, is suicidal.

[DuncanONeil]

Eaither way I believe as previously stated several times in the thread, that we can and should reduce and change the way we pollute our enviroment and that we should expand technologically away from non-renewable scources of energy production and be ready for possible conditions that may occur if and when certian climatic thresholds are reached.

And even before it became politically popular to jump on this particular band wagon, not to mention gravy train, people were working hard on alternative energy means.
The Government rather than actually investing in these people are simply stamping their collective foot and saying you WILL use less of whatever I tell you because I know what is best!
Never mind that I know nothing of the subject! (i.e. 7,000,000 degrees at the Earth's core)