Here is an interesting read. It is a bit long at 50 pages. It is one of these things to print off and read in sections when time permits. Not sure if I agree with it, but certainly another view worth entertaining. It's in pdf format.
http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC-Feb%2020.pdf
Blech, while I agree with the title of the report I don't like it when a report starts off by putting down or discrediting another report, it starts to smell of self-interest and generally turns me off from reading whatever it is. I'll give this a read anyways though.
LOL, I don’t think it bothers me to the extent of a Belch.
I'll save a good expression for a good beer.:D
A lot, if not all, at one time or another, organizations, scientific papers etc. will challenge another idea which is diametrical to their own. Sometimes only in passing, other times in an all out attack. This is mostly an accepted procedure, and I suppose actually in a way serves a useful purpose.
However, there is a line not to cross. Unfortunately, every so often someone will venture into this territory. The rule is quite simple, one can attack the idea, but not the person.
As an example, if I were a theoretical physicists ; I could attack Ed Wittens ideas on string theory and do it with great gusto. But that is where it ends. I do not attack Ed Witten.
That being said, as the global warming issue continues and gathers more importance you will probably see much more of this sort of behavior.
The thing that is beginning to bother me is the so much of this is leaving the scientific area and going to the political and corporate arena. This is not good.
The thing is, I will totally agree with your ‘self-interest’ comment. That works for both the pro and con groups and interests.
Personally I do not think there is enough data yet to make any kind of conclusive call either way.
This is why I don’t discuss it very much. Something like talking about religion. One can discuss it for eons, but in the end you are no further ahead than when you started.
Global warming is something like a 24 hour forecast. Can weather be predicted with 100% accuracy in 24 hours. Surprisingly the answer is yes, that is if you have an infinite amount of stations reporting infinite data.
That certainly can not be done, so you have to settle for probabilities.
This is what I am thinking about Global warming. I really don’t know with any degree of certainty, because of the complex interactive nature of it all if we will ever know the whys and hows of it for a long tike to come.
One disturbing thing I am seeing now. Because of the powerful political, corporate and money issues now involved, the science is becoming skewed. Sometimes from the foolish to the sublime.
When I see the whole of ‘Global Warming’ attempted to be summed up in a couple of linear equations, something akin to Eienstein’s attempt at the ‘Unified Field Theory’, I just scratch my head and go to something else.