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

"e" wrote in message
...
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

Very good for you! Keep an unbiased mind and question everything from all sides
of the issues. There's a lot of politics afoot as you will discover.

"e" a écrit dans le message de
...
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/pre...8/Grantham.htm

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

"Jean Ludovicy" a écrit dans le message de
...
"e" a écrit dans le message de
...
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/pre...8/Grantham.htm

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


Translated with Google:
http://translate.google.com/translat...=fr&i e=UTF-8