posted on Oct, 31 2003 @ 02:15 PM
kukla, yeah, I'm very interested in a research project on it. I'm, not dismissing anything but I want truth more than political fodder. If there
is such a problem we can repair then I think its important to not bury our heads in the sand and pretend it isn't there but that is a double -edged
sword and if this is just a part of the planet's evolution and behavior, I don't think we should stiffle progress or even regress. The beef I have
with global warming theory is that most of its activists are , in the word's of Patrick Moore (founder of GreenPeace) "mainly political activists
with not very much actual science background who are using the rhetoric of environmentalism to push agendas that are more political than they are
Its not really that I begrudge anyone their cause even if I know its a psuedo-illusionary one, its that the actions these groups advocate can and do
have negative affects on the environment..and that I do care about. yeah, we can compare temps from yesrday to today and we can compare yesterday's
to the same day 10 years ago but what impressed me about Havard's project is their thorough investigation into fossils, tree rings, glacial cores.
To my knowledge, there has never been such a study done by scientist.
I have no knowledge of their tie-in with the petroleum industry and if you have bonified evidence, please present it. I'm not denying a relationship
between them and Enron but it seems that Enron touched quite a few people and organizations on both sides of the isle. Even Algore and Gray davis
both had interests with Enron and we can see contributions from them to Bill Clinton, and his dealings through Robert Rubin with them. No one (well
not many) knew what they were about then and a few, maybe only Mr. Rubin knew what was to come down the pike because he presided over the whole affair
but thats another subject and I'm wondering off topic here. Anyway, when i say proof, I don't mean an article by a political pundit who has just
tried to claim it enough to make it true. that ideology doesn't get it with me. Thats why Colonel and I butt heads so much. I demand proof other
than repetitive linquistics.
My point is, they released their findings and no one else has shown anything other than what the global warming model predicts. They speak of it as
if it were reflective of reality and after almost 20 years of inconsistencies, we still cannot get them to let that go. Its been disproven but its
not been accepted. You know how sometimes someone loses a loved one they really cared about and depended on and how they go into denial and keep
refering to them in the present sense. Well, Thats what we have with global warming theory.
I'm not kicking environmentlism, in fact I'm a proponent of it, I just think time, money and resources could be better utilized to stop illegal
dumping and sewage, research our mounting trash / landfill problem and so many other things we have to worry about and accept that there are certain
things we must accept about planet earth if we're going to live on it. Its' climate changed in the past, it hasn't stopped changing and probably
will never stop changing.
All I'm saying is, get politics and science in two different corners of the ring. I know its impossible but the influence of whether someone is
republican or democrat has no damn business in a laboratory. I feel strongly about it and I guess thats why everytime someone post something on this,
I go off. I have studied and researched it so extensively and it kills me to see us and a nation overlook so many other things to get us our
I'd love to do a research project on it but it really wouldn't be much more than me posting all my bookmarks in my GW folder because I've been at
this a long time since before I came to realize what it was all about. I began it out of general concern for the model's predicted outcome and of
course, like many of you, I thought I was hearing actual real findings and not just what findings should be according to the model. It took me some
time to distinguish between the two enough to simplify into into words for the lay person. That truth was one of the theories biggest and deepest
buried secrets then and it really stands to reason it was. The whole theory depends upon reality following that model and when one speaks of the
model, unless put on the spot about it, one doesn't tell that its from the model not actual data.
"Smithsonian astronomers Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, with co-authors Craig Idso and Sherwood Idso (Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and
Global Change) and David Legates (Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware), compiled and examined results from more than 240 research
papers published by thousands of researchers over the past four decades. Their report, covering a multitude of geophysical and biological climate
indicators, provides a detailed look at climate changes that occurred in different regions around the world over the last 1000 years. "
..but failed to take into account politics so the whole damn project was discounted...??
[Edited on 31-10-2003 by astrocreep]