Sometimes "politically correct" is just correct, and just a term people use to brush away the criticism of their personal prejudices. Sometimes "politically correct" is just wrong, and used by people to suppress a truth that invalidates a common prejudice. s'hard to keep straight.
I am not going to argue your repeated post yet again, it is unworthy of debate, having been destroyed by b-bob much earlier in the thread. The temperatures of Earth have been stable since 3000 years after the last ice age. If you have any data at all to disprove b-bob's SCIENTIFIC DATA, please post it without a repost of your already debunked garbage.
So, you take the colder temperatures in the last ice age and the cooling trend that wasn't (the last 10 years' data) and ignore the 12,000 years between? Talk about cherry picking data. Obviously not. You have so little data that you are forced to repost the same exact FICTIONAL post again and again, along with data for the last ten years. Then, you post an article from NASA that actually argues against the point you are trying to make, as pointed out by rocketsjudoka, which has taken your "argument" from weak to lame. The difference is that some of our opinions are based on scientific data and others' opinions are based on flawed assumptions, fictional pictures of the Earth, and ten years of data points, while ignoring the mountain of evidence that AGW is real. Doesn't matter a whit. We have contributed to the problem and now we have an opportunity to contribute to a solution. They haven't been "proven" any such thing. The data measurements, like any in nature, fluctuate up and down with various climactic cycles. There has been one trend that hasn't been disputed and that is that in the last century, there has been a pronounced warming trend that has gone on for the entire century, despite some ups and downs in smaller periods in the century. It isn't about "blindly deferring," it is about looking at data and drawing the inevitable conclusion. Yes, the scientists working to disprove AGW have to resort to things like small data samples (like the last ten years, ignoring the rest of the century) and fictional pictures of the Earth during the last ice age. There is a lot more money on the table (from the coal, oil, and gas industries) for scientists who support the anti-AGW agenda. The study of climate change has been going on globally for over two decades and the only side that has been pouring money into junk science are the moneyed interests that stand to lose when we start getting serious about lowering emissions and greenhouse gasses. Anyone who believes otherwise is either naive or in the pocket of the energy industry. Where are you getting thse projections and why does it matter? Lowering CO2 is but one of the benefits of cap and trade, the biggest one will be reducing and eventually eliminating our dependence on foreign oil. Eventually, the renewable energy industry will be a multi-trillion dollar industry and America should be at the forefron of that technology, and cleaning up our air can only be seen as a good thing. The NPV analysis is decidedly positive on this issue. I can explain this last sentence further if it is over your head.
They have been studying this issue for decades now, are the scientists just now starting to capitalize on the government largesse? You know as well as I do that the people funding junk science WRT AGW are the people in the energy industry. If not, you are truly naive or willfully blind.
And what about before the stimulus bill...when 99.9999% of the research had been done? Also, if the US government had such a vested interest in climate change policy, why has so little been done over the last 30-40 years? If there was that agenda (over multiple administrations of both parties) then why has there not been a mad rush. The government could manufacture the public's perception with a massice PR/ad blitz and then easily usher in whateer climate policy changes they wanted.
rimbaud, one of the first victories of the stimulus science initiative was the invention of a time machine that could carry "global warming: believe!" koolaid back to (edit: mental wear and tear brought on the worm hole) previous decades, infecting funding agencies and grant-review panels.
Wow, I made it into your sig? And in a color, no less. That has never happened to me in all my years on this beast. You should use your physics power to learn how the gov is using sonic emitters in sharks to amplify the yumminess of the global warming kool-aid. That would be time well spent for osmeone like you.
