wrote:
On May 21, 2:24 pm, Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2009 10:41:34 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
Are you saying that the scientist that agree that global warming IS
occuring....aren't using sound science in their approach?
I'm saying that they are reaching conclusions based on faulty data,
personal bias, obtaining more "research" grants and an over arching
need to be relevant no tto mention joining the band wagon.

So yes - I'm saying that they are ignoring important evidence that
contradicts thier theories and conclusions. Which isn't sound science
- it's pop science.

Science of The Day I think it was once called.

Did you happen to see the latest National Geographic magazine's
article about the melting arctic ice sheets?
Sure did - the "Ice Baby" issue. Did you happen to read the part about
how the new mapping of the Artic sea floor is leading scientists to
conclude that this has happened before?

And that it's not quite as dramatic as you make it sound?

Oh, but you make it sound as if the article was stating that warming
has occured at the rate that it is now, and that's not true. Of course
there is a natural cycle. But those cycles are tame and mild compared
to what is happening now. And what about the correlation between
warming trend vs. pollution levels?

If you look at the record of CO2 and temperature rise we still have a
couple of more degrees C and PPM of CO2 before we hit the previous high
which occurred over 35,000 years ago.

From Mark Henderson, Science Correspondent, in Washington The
strongest evidence yet that global warming has been triggered by human
activity has emerged from a major study of rising temperatures in the
world’s oceans.

Using what to perform the measurements and what to report the
measurements. Hanson of NASA's models have been proved to fudge the data
to fit the desired outcome. Hanson's model adds a couple of degrees here
and there to make sure that global warming is increasing at an alarming
rate. It's all about funding the research.

The present trend of warmer sea temperatures, which have risen by an
average of half a degree Celsius (0.9F) over the past 40 years, can be
explained only if greenhouse gas emissions are responsible, new
research has revealed.

What do the studies that are not proponents of global warming attribute
the alleged increase in sea temperature to?

The results are so compelling that they should end controversy about
the causes of climate change, one of the scientists who led the study
said yesterday.

Therein lies the problem "the results are so compelling" to make people
skeptical of the results and want an unbiased second opinion. But, since
the pro global warming crowed keeps repeating the mantra that "the
science is settled" it is difficult to fund research to do the "second
opinion" studies.

"The debate about whether there is a global warming signal now is
over, at least for rational people," said Tim Barnett, of the Scripps
Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. "The models got
it right. If a politician stands up and says the uncertainty is too
great to believe these models, that is no longer tenable."

What model? Has the model been peer reviewed? Who performed the peer
review?

In the study, Dr Barnett’s team examined more than seven million
observations of temperature, salinity and other variables in the
world’s oceans, collected by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, and compared the patterns with those that are
predicted by computer models of various potential causes of climate
change

Let an agency outside the US federal government perform an independent
study. What harm could it cause. Five years is not going to amount to
much when talking about geological time.

Vandemaataram Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*_____________
jai hind _____________
Inqlaab zindabaad ____________
Karo ya maro