'ArtM72' pid='64841' datel Wrote:These articles almost write themselves. Parade these same three old guys out in a different venue to tell their tales of foe and once again out pops an article about a panel of scientists stating AGW is a hoax. Carbon phobia leading to world panic? Is that the evidence leading to one's scientific finding? Forgetfulness of the results from three separate, independent scientific agencies based on a global network of land, sea and sky temperature sensors? And the 'we make it ourselves so it must be ok guy'. Evidently a candidate for incontinence training.
I rarely get into these climate discussions...but....when one cites sea sensors my hackles rise. A long time ago....a few decades?..... I read an article in a science-oriented publication which was on research in the area of the South Pole. The part that stays with me was the description of how sensors, both on ice and in the sea, tended to be moved around or lost due to the harsh weather. The article blithely said that the absence of those badly-located and lost data sets meant that the researchers had to estimate what they thought the data would be. Shades of undergraduate science labs!!
This habit seems to have been alive if not robust years later as revealed in the emails of the personnel at the East Anglia center. In this case it seems to have been cherry-picking data.....and/or dropping data in order to favor the "model."
With these sorts of underpinnings of "scientific" opinion, a healthy skepticism is in order. Especially so when politicians of all stripes take up a similar call.
Pre-Kyoto, the "cui bono?" question revealed the over-arching intent of such treaties would be to transfer substantial wealth from developed countries to poor countries so that these struggling economies could afford to abandon their polluting ways. Clinton probably signed on to Kyoto for the feel-good factor because he knew the Senate would never ratify the treaty. Fast-forward to present and we have politicians favoring "accords" because they and the climate industry have figured out how to raid national treasuries and some corporate treasuries under the climate rubric. I think a ready analog is Eisenhower's perception of a "military-industrial complex" in the U.S. being a self-perpetuating force in the economy and in political issues around the world. An important difference in the US with the climate business, however, is the destruction of domestic industry without adequate substitution. But this hasn't dampened the enthusiasm of the many feeding off the "science" which has become self-perpetuating with the help of politicians and now traders who seem to be prime beneficiaries.
fwiw
katytrader