I would have to spend multiple comments explaining how you brought up the ice core data in your charts (which largely depend on them) and I don't need the aggravation.
Your post said "read the scientific papers, not the journalism." I responded to it with an example of a scientific paper.
Everything you're posting here is from the "journalism." Go look. This random paper isn't a game-changer. It just shows that things aren't as simple as the charts in the newspapers and magazines. It's one of many science theories that are all over the map on this subject. But this paper isn't going to be cited in Scientific American, while the papers that toe the line will.
As you say yourself, this is about politics. They put forward a crisis, and the answer--as it always is--is enormous increases in the power and wealth accrued to government authorities. The science that toes the line prospers. The science that doesn't...well, those scientists don't make the papers, and they don't get any of the billions in government climate change money.
Since you refuse to see any politics except for that of private corporations, there's not much point in discussing that.
I used to actually pay to read scientific papers so I could try to put an informed view up here. No point to that any more either.
Current Events » in reply to You brought up ice cores, not me.
Don't bother.
The whole thread (31 posts)
- Continuing CO2 drumbeat.
- Here is how:
- The CO2 is increasing.