Brad,

>>I've read these previously, Jim-and it seems to me most of the negativity comes from inferences and "conspiracy theory" made by the denier community. It does not surprise me one bit to find isolated cases of scientists attempting to put the best face and maybe even selectively choose data to support a conclusion in a way the public can better understand. Scientists are humans too, and some may suffer from an excess of zeal.

Read the emails previously? I’m afraid I do not believe that. From our conversation for these past few days, it is readily apparent that you speak in the speech of platitudes (e.g. denier community, sheeple, isolated, excess of zeal, etc). These indicate that you are willing to accept BIASED science to support a preconceived conclusion and this is NOT SCIENCE at all – and neither is theirs.

I do agree with you on one thing, “scientists are human too…” and as a consequence are subject to the very same character flaws (e.g. greed, power, etc) as the industrialist scientists were for many decades…

Between 10,000-15,000 (Younger Dryas) years ago, the Greenland data indicates temperature fluctuations of approximately -60 deg. F to -25 deg F…A few thousand years later there was the 8,200 Year Event which on average, indicates temperatures there (Greenland) were around -25 deg F (with a minor plus/minus)…During both of these periods, there was ice on Greenland (and again during the Little Ice Age)…This information is significant to me for these reasons…

1. The earth was so toxic that no life existed for billions of years and once life began, it evolved over time and then humans began to colonize the earth to the point where civilizations of people actually began to modify the earth but, the earth’s systems still were evolving (Younger Dryas, the 8,200 Year Event, and the Little Ice Age)…

2. In all three instances of gloabl cooling (and corresponding warming afterwards), there were not enough people (nor industry producing GHG and/or CO2) on this plant to have affected the earth’s climate either way (warming or cooling effect) therefore,

3. Both the cooling and warming was part of the "normal" system processes of the earth itself…Without humans.

The earth has existed for billions of years before us and unless it is struck by a celestial body, will exist for billions of years after we are gone. Only the arrogance of man thinks that he can affect the earth (or predict/model the present and/or past and control its climate)…After all, when the Little Ice Age occurred, there was a severe impact on this planet (and the human genome project indicates this) but again, there were not enough people (nor industry produced GHG and/or CO2) to produce that cooling effect…But it happened anyway! Afterwards, with fewer people (and plants & animals), the earth warmed itself again…On its own!

I mean, in the overall time line of earth our existence amounts to only a few seconds – and there were numerous instances of dramatic changes in the earth’s temperatures and even its atmosphere without humans. Besides, in the overall scheme of life on earth, who says that dominant life in the future has to be human anyway? Only we humans could come up with such an absurdity. If the earth suddenly warmed/cooled itself by just 5 deg F (much greater temperature variations have occurred in the earth's past-without the impact of humans), what could we do about it? The answer is absolutely nothing. If that was to occur, we would be confronted with natural selection and the law of nature up-close and very personal (we are animals after all)…

When and if that occurs, NO GOVERNMENT ON THIS PLANET CAN PREVENT IT FROM HAPPENING NOR WHAT WOULD HAPPEN AFTER IT HAPPENED…The scale of genocide, in order to survive, would be incalculable and would be the closest thing to Armageddon that we humans could think of (short of nuclear winter) on earth…

>>This in no way taints the overall results from literally thousands of different investigations from scientists all over the world!! And it's truly baffling that we are asked to believe this utter garbage.

Back to reality, the two sentences above disagree with one another…

“This in no way taints the overall results from literally thousands of different investigations from scientists all over the world!” Really? Brad, I feel sorry for you and others like you because you have no idea about what is really going on behind the scenes…Very unfortunate indeed but in the end, you will be one of the last to know if I’m right (subject to debate which is what we were doing)…No worries…

>>At least they are not outright fabricating results, like the tame "scientists" employed by the fossil fuel and chemical industries have been doing for decades!

Really? Not only did they fabricate results Brad but, they actually DISREGRDED results that did NOT fit into their scientific and legislative agenda (which they were working simultaneously with the science)…If you do EITHER of these (fabricate or disregard) then you are NOT performing science.

If scientists funded by industries can bias or disreagrd actual results, so can the folks you believe in Brad…After all, it’s hard to bite the hand that feeds you (you might be unemployed)…The difference here is why…

One funder of science is the for profit corporations (and we know where that led on occasion) but, the folks that you willingly support are funded by both the domestic and international governmental agencies, “affiliated” government sanctioned enterprises (GSE’s), NGO’s, private foundations, etc. The difference between these two funding sources is the ramifications of their power in our society…

We can and have used the government to investigate private profiteering and then use the legal system to force correction and/or compliance…On the other hand, where do we go when it’s the government (and its own sanctioned and "affiliated" profiteers) that are doing this Brad? Private industries CANNOT force us to do anything but the government CAN force us to do everything by the force of law.

There are many economic/government systems throughout recorded history that operate in such a manner as this and they include socialist/communist “democracies”, monarchies and dictatorships…It’s nice to know that you’re so willing to accept such a politic of change and I’ve enjoyed our discussion “spirited” discussion…No worries

Later,
Jim.

-----
CSRAJim

[ Show Entire Thread ]