All involved are just people, they have to eat, have a roof over their heads, raise the next generation, and all have an ego that drives the attempt each in their own way to improve the way of life.

Ego is driven by beliefs and it is the narrowing of those beliefs that has enabled this mistake to arise.

It is the scientist’s goal to understand and explain, but keep in mind that creature comforts and financial security are just as important to them as any other person.

Follow the money (ie power and security) and you begin to see how all of this has spiraled out of control. Too many people have invested their lives in this to allow clear vision of the global warming theory.

It is human folly and egomania that drives us to believe we can have a permanent control over or be able to systematically alter mother nature. Impact yes, but the complexity of nature, its ability to surprise, heal and adapt that will keep all of us on the sideline for a little longer. We don’t even rate being a guide at this time.

It is a blessing that this is ocurring in a way, (the cup’s half full), who knows what knowledge will be gained out of this conflict in the longer run from the time and efforts from both sides of the fence. Continued study is the answer, not action, to best take advantage of the attention this issue has created.

The soft sciences created out of the hard sciences to address this situation have allowed, like an intelligent child without maturity, those involved to run amuck both in belief of their own credibility and accomplishments as compared to say physics.

Take away all the spin about fraud, scam, funding, egomania and what is left is a case of unabated scientific enthusiam.

Yes, gained or loss of reputation, employment/funding shifting, political success and failure, will occur. But the real challenge to scientists now will be internal.

In other words, it is best to go back to the lab and do a little more work, all of you, with a little less money, and come back when you have something better to work with, both sides.

We have the time, and still beileve in your abilities, but there is just too much mush and grey to move forward. And watch who you are getting into bed with, that is why to most of you, again both sides, are in the fix you find yourself in.

If you really believe that the past 9 years of temperature data indicate a cooling trend, you are beyond hope. Look at any global temperature data set. Here’s NASA’s data: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/. The past dozen years include 10 of the hottest 12 years on record (1999 and 2000 are the only ones that don’t make the cut – they rank 15 and 14 respectively). Make that 11 for 13 if you include the projected result for 2009 (a foregone conclusion at this point). You can look at the tabular data on the same page to see actual numbers. Pick any starting point you want, you get a similar statement.

Temperature data fluctuates from year to year, but the trend (look that word up) is up, up, up. You think by picking your starting point at a conveniently high record year you can claim there is a cooling trend. That’s not science, that’s wishing. If you want to get technical, you’ll have to make the cutoff 8 years ago if you want a “cooling trend” (with 9 or more years, you still an upward trend). But it’s ridiculous to speak of a trend at all with such a small number of data points. Any “trend” you notice (up or down) in this data over such a short period is in the noise (not discernable from year-to-year fluctuations) and therefore not a trend at all. If you want to see a trend you need to use enough data points that you have more signal than noise.

I know I used a lot of big scientific words, but try to grasp truth. There is no discernable cooling trend in the past decade!

It is possible (though very unlikely) that this decade does mark the beginning of a cooling trend – but there will be no way to make that assessment for another 10 to 20 years. There will always be short-scale ups and downs, but they do not hide the overall trend (there’s that pesky word again) of the past 130 years (as far as this dataset goes back), and that is up.

If you want to argue that the past century and a half (or longer) are just a short-scale up in a longer-scale trend or cycle, that is at least a valid argument to make. That’s why real scientists have spent so much time and effort in proving (to a high degree of certainty) that the current upward trend is a direct result of the burning of fossil fuels.

Talk about sheeples. I pity you that swallow the denier talking points without even looking for the truth.

and still you bleat on…

You just sound like a fool.
I’m not trying to “convince” you of anything. You are beyond reason.
You are one of those thick-skulled people… otherwise known as a complete waste of time.

Your mind is merely a product of the control matrix set up by those who would tax your exhalations.

There’s something wrong with you Jeb. If you can’t see what is sitting right in front of your face… there’s something wrong with you.

Sorry dude. Sorry for ya.