latecommer

Why conside AGW a scam? It is just an unproven hypothesis and must be seen as that and no more. That is the way science works, and I trust all real scientists are attempting to validate or falsify this hypothesis. The theory of cycles has a lot of validation in a study of paleo-climate, and is still the only "scientific" theory we have. Unless I have missed the validating evidence for AGW somewhere? I question if we can ever determine a true "global" temperature, and even if it is important to do so. While it is most likely true that man has added CO2 to the atmosphere, it is still at a very low point compared to the geolgical past, and the benifits of the added CO2 are about the only things we can varify to this point. As satallite readings has varified, there has been a "greening " of the Earth in the last couple of decades, and what better candidate is there than the small increase in carbon in the atmosphere? I know of no other. My problem with the global warming position is basic.... When did we decide that this climate we have today is the best possible climate we can have? Personally I am hoping for a warmer climate and a higher level of CO2 to help ease the hunger found in underdevloped reagions of the Earth. After all, colder is more dangerous to life than warmer, as can be evidenced by the fact that human beings as well as the majority of animals evolved in conditions that some seem to feel would be dangerous for today. I am, by training, a paleogeologist with emphasis in paleoclimatolgy and have long studied the cycles that have happened over the eons. That study leads to one thing for me. It is natural to warmup in an interglacial. We will continue a warming trend until half known cycles are revealed to be leading us into the next glaciation. I feel that we are presently at the top of the "bell curve" of this trend and, as is usual in that configuration, we are in a flat climate position. But I also believe that the quiet solar source of all our energy gives a warning to prepare for another climate minimum such as the Dalton period. Nothing is new under the Sun.

Climate change is happening...but then again it always has and always will. Man is not the cause for global climate change. That idea is the "new kid on the block" hypothesis, and as science is done, it must be varified by other scientists. It has not been and in my opinion will not be for many reasons. I am a paleogeologist with studies in paleoclimatology, which for the layperson simply is; I study past climates and past physical, geological processes. Our global climate is dynamic and chaotic...it is always changing and not in a linear way. This is why weather forcasts are so often wrong, and why climate models (general circulation models) are not evidence of human change, not predictors of future weather, and can never possibly be. At present we do not know enough about the thousands of variables that would need to be inputed into the models, and even if we did it would not be effective because of the chaotic nature of climate. What we do know are quite a few things such as...it has been hotter with less atmospheric CO2, and with much more co2, it has been colder with more co2, and with less co2. The standard theory of climate is one that has evolved over several hundred years and is understood to include cycles from the decadal to the millinial scale. This theory is a work in progress, but has been useful enough that using this, and not climate models, several scientists have predicted the current cooling and inactive Sun as long as 20 years ago...something that GC models have failed to do. The idea that man is causing global warming is simply not a scientifc one until there is validation of the hypothesis...since it is impossible to validate this idea (or so it appears after 25 years and billions of dollars in efforts) it is necessarily then a political idea. Nothing wrong with that unless it tries to pretend it is science. (which unfortunatly it does) This appears to be a situation where science is being used to acheive political and economic goals. Goals that IMO, are not ones we would want without the dishonest presentation of scare tactics. For instance: the term tipping point.... There are no tipping points in climate that are not geological, or possibly extraterrestrial, in nature (such as the closing of the Istmus of Panama which changed ocean climates). The atmosphere always is actively attempting to achieve equalibrium and is very robust in acheiving that end. The Earth has spent more than 4 billion years within a range of about 10 degrees C. regardless of the the composition of the atmoshperic gases, and has proven that it is not subject to "tipping points". Like the term "consensus", tipping point is simply not a science term. When a scientist uses it he is speaking of politics and if he presents it as science he is not a scientist in the strick use of the term. Beware of those who claim to be scientists and speak of these.