I have only recently begun examining data collected and compiled by various
groups with good qualifications, including http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/gcag/ -
which presents information in a manner that supports experimentation.

It appears to this untrained observer that data over the past ~100 years
establish the reality of the "global warming" trend. One question is whether
humans contributed to the problem, but not even that is very important.

There are enough documented cycles in pre-human history to make it appear that
whether or not humans contributed to the current trend, our current cycle is
reasonably close to previous trends during which humans weren't around. If
that is so, the real issue is whether civilization can change what happens
next.

But the more I look, the more confusing is the information. Some of the
confusing data seem to come from highly qualified sources, and from highly
unqualified politicians who can never do more than mimic what they have heard.
What is the motivation of those who present clearly unfounded and misleading
claims and projections?

Lon Ranger

I have only recently begun examining data collected and compiled by various
groups with good qualifications, including
ttp://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/gcag/ - which presents information in a manner
that supports experimentation.

It appears to this untrained observer that data over the past ~100 years
establish the reality of the "global warming" trend. One question is
whether humans contributed to the problem, but not even that is very
important.

There are enough documented cycles in pre-human history to make it appear
that whether or not humans contributed to the current trend, our current
cycle is reasonably close to previous trends during which humans weren't
around. If that is so, the real issue is whether civilization can change
what happens next.

But the more I look, the more confusing is the information. Some of the
confusing data seem to come from highly qualified sources, and from highly
unqualified politicians who can never do more than mimic what they have
heard. What is the motivation of those who present clearly unfounded and
misleading claims and projections?

Lon Ranger

"e" <binarydotike@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:fugaa7$20e$1@registered.motzarella.org...
I have only recently begun examining data collected and compiled by
various groups with good qualifications, including
ttp://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/gcag/ - which presents information in a manner
that supports experimentation.

It appears to this untrained observer that data over the past ~100 years
establish the reality of the "global warming" trend. One question is
whether humans contributed to the problem, but not even that is very
important.

There are enough documented cycles in pre-human history to make it appear
that whether or not humans contributed to the current trend, our current
cycle is reasonably close to previous trends during which humans weren't
around. If that is so, the real issue is whether civilization can change
what happens next.

But the more I look, the more confusing is the information. Some of the
confusing data seem to come from highly qualified sources, and from
highly unqualified politicians who can never do more than mimic what they
have heard. What is the motivation of those who present clearly unfounded
and misleading claims and projections?

Lon Ranger


The motivation? Have a look.
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/pressAndInformationOffice/newsAndEvents/archives/2008/Grantham.htm

And the action from M. Stern in response:
http://contreinfo.info/article.php3?id_article=1928