Your point is well taken, polluting the planet is not good, however, the scientific data supporting the climate change argument are dubious at best. Anecdotal evidence does seem to support a link, however, long term data series are inconclusive.
We heavily-invest in (and therefore fully-support) BP, job well done in the Gulf spill!
We also salute President Barak Obama for earmarking over 100 billion in new cash-injected seed-financing for a select handful of oil drilling corporations of whom we're financially-tied via Wall Street.
Only preferred corporations on the President's "Strategic UN-IPCC List" have been awarded contracts as they are more capable of safely fulfilling the needs of Obama's massive new offshore drilling directives.
The fact remains that we cannot go on abusing the environment and milking it for all that it's worth without having to face any consequences. Just like how we have to face the consequences of spending on credit (primarily in the US and the rest of the developed world) now, believe in el nino or not, our actions today determine the impacts in the future.
What's even more ironic is your mentioning that financial data is "good". There are so many things wrong about that statement I really can't fit it all in here. But your implication that climate data is somehow not as "good" as financial data is so obviously wrong that I feel ashamed bringing it up. Any person on the street can tell you that Venice is disappearing without sophisticated meteorological instruments, but how do you expect me to swallow financial data coming out of the Street/Fed?
John, I agree with you that "global warming" has been highly politicized, but that does not completely discredit the entire field of the observational climate change. I happen to be a physicist, but forget about mathematical models for a moment. Do you deny that the population of the world is growing exponentially? Or that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas? or that sea levels are rising, coral reefs are being bleached?
Also, the comment about it being virtually impossible math to model winds, water temp, surface velocities is a strange one. The math is called computational fluid dynamics.
A very simplistic take on "Climategate" to be sure. While special interest groups for global warming may be making "millions" from the politics of climate change, we also know that special interest groups from Big Oil are also making millions from delaying action climate change.
To say that there is no science to climate change because of a these few leaked emails (which don't say much) is misleading.
Your point is well taken, polluting the planet is not good, however, the scientific data supporting the climate change argument are dubious at best. Anecdotal evidence does seem to support a link, however, long term data series are inconclusive.
StephensonFiles 1 month ago
Delusion
8arth 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We heavily-invest in (and therefore fully-support) BP, job well done in the Gulf spill!
We also salute President Barak Obama for earmarking over 100 billion in new cash-injected seed-financing for a select handful of oil drilling corporations of whom we're financially-tied via Wall Street.
Only preferred corporations on the President's "Strategic UN-IPCC List" have been awarded contracts as they are more capable of safely fulfilling the needs of Obama's massive new offshore drilling directives.
CorporateRule 9 months ago 2
The fact remains that we cannot go on abusing the environment and milking it for all that it's worth without having to face any consequences. Just like how we have to face the consequences of spending on credit (primarily in the US and the rest of the developed world) now, believe in el nino or not, our actions today determine the impacts in the future.
avocadomilk2010 1 year ago
What's even more ironic is your mentioning that financial data is "good". There are so many things wrong about that statement I really can't fit it all in here. But your implication that climate data is somehow not as "good" as financial data is so obviously wrong that I feel ashamed bringing it up. Any person on the street can tell you that Venice is disappearing without sophisticated meteorological instruments, but how do you expect me to swallow financial data coming out of the Street/Fed?
avocadomilk2010 1 year ago
John, I agree with you that "global warming" has been highly politicized, but that does not completely discredit the entire field of the observational climate change. I happen to be a physicist, but forget about mathematical models for a moment. Do you deny that the population of the world is growing exponentially? Or that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas? or that sea levels are rising, coral reefs are being bleached?
avocadomilk2010 1 year ago
Also, the comment about it being virtually impossible math to model winds, water temp, surface velocities is a strange one. The math is called computational fluid dynamics.
wheelnebula 1 year ago
A very simplistic take on "Climategate" to be sure. While special interest groups for global warming may be making "millions" from the politics of climate change, we also know that special interest groups from Big Oil are also making millions from delaying action climate change.
To say that there is no science to climate change because of a these few leaked emails (which don't say much) is misleading.
wheelnebula 1 year ago
Awesome stuff John, thanks!
Great book too!.
richfisherman 2 years ago
Well said John...Does this mean that Al Gore didn't invent the internet too ?
haselcheck 2 years ago