I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

Quickest program supplying online cash advance before payday.

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

I found you while searching google today. You’ll be happy toknowyour site was at the top of the results. Anyway. I added you to my Digg bookmarks. Good stuff!

Good post. I am looking into these issues on my blog.

Please keep these excellent posts coming.

“The most conclusive finding is that the 20th century is the most anomalous interval in the entire period of analysis, including significant positive extremes in the proxy records.”

Let me interpret that:
More ‘anomolous’ [Deviating from the normal or common order, form, or rule] than the ’significant positive extremes in the proxy records’ [i.e. the medieval warming period and Little Ice Age period].

My reading of that is: a) There is Climate Change and b) It is more significant than the other unusually significant climate changes that we have seen before over the past thousand years of civilisation.

If anything I see that statement as backing the central notion that global warming/climate change is occurring. ie. Global Warming/Climate Change is not a hoax as some claim.
And much other evidence produced by the scientific community supports the claim that the earth’s climate is changing.

The report doesn’t resolve the arguments as to:
1) The causes of the warming: a) CO2 emissions? vs b) Increased solar heating?
In other words ‘how significant is the influence of human activity?’

From what I’ve seen of this intense debate there is little chance that the main climatologist protagonists will agree on this. (It may even be a combination of CO2 emissions and solar activity.)

2) How prolonged or severe the period of global warming/climate change will be?
(But forecasting the future is notoriously fraught.)

But that wasn’t in the Wegman report’s remit.

But climate change is likely to have a significant impact on human society. That’s the only conclusion I can come to from reading that line. It needs publicising.

For example, there is the celebrated hurricane predictor William Gray – no right-winger (with no tainted funding) – who has recently thrown his scientific weight behind the ACW skeptics.
http://www.westword.com/Issues/2006-06-29/news/feature.html
Consistgent with Michael Crichton, Gray says government funding of his research was crowded out by the ACW stampeed, amounting to $29 billion between 2001-6.

More systematic evidence comes from the most recent in a periodic survey of over 500 climatologists in 2003, which found a definite leaning towards ACW, but no “consensus” about the subject.
http://w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/bray.html/BrayGKSSsite/BrayGKSS/WedPDFs/Science2.pdf

My own graduate environmental science instructors at the University of London’s Imperial College (UK’s MIT) are somewhat inclined to the theory that solar output predominates above any man-made climate forcings. Thus, sunspot activity tells us that current earth warming will peak in 6 years, followed by declines bottoming out in 2020-22.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm?list3134

In fact, what’s most discrediting here on this thread is the complete lack of skepticism of the self-interest of government funded federal lab climate scientists to keep finding ACW – somehow what’s good for the goose (skepticism of private industry funding) need not a be good for the gander (government funding)? This double-standard is self-indicting.

SO MUCH for any climate “consensus.”

Heh.

Wegman is a serious heavyweight statistician. His credentials are beyond repute http://www.galaxy.gmu.edu/stats/faculty/wegman.resume2.htm

What’s the deal here?

Jim

Amen brother! He is a digital brown shi ( ) t. Hows that? In addition a coward, a liar, a fraud, not nobel, incapable of being heroic, all the things he would love to beleive he is–not so. just a brown shi( )t worm. Hides behind parsed data, can not take an independent stand on anything. Ja, I am talking about you. you do have a serious problem. when the world adds 2 plus 2 and gets 4 and you get 5 seek help. Of course 10,000 French men can’t be wrong, is that your lame come back? I kind of like that myself.

Norway Bob, You have completely ignored the WSJ article. Your problem is that you have made a non scientific opion of reality. Can’t you get off the parseing of the scientific evidence? This what I deduce-You hate Al Gore, WTF why you can disagree but, why the hate? All you do is parse the data. Why do you hate Al Gore? Let’s start from that. Some child hood prevert played with your tally wacker or something?? Your a enigma. Love the dear leader, kiss neocon assess, have no self respect and claim they have friends–so sick. join MA the big fat sweaty loser–you retards are something else. Not a one of you is noble, brave, courages. honorable, descent, fair, loveing, kind, or in any respect a HUMAN. Norway Bob you “Suck” you are a digital brown shirt. Have a nice day. BYT, Ryan N.e.a.t is so much smarter than you I find you on the bottom of my shoe. really hope I have not pissed you off, I like you retards.