the point i was trying to make(as i generally respect your posts) is that you seem to be failing to see that those "scientists" that are proporting man made global warming, are driven by the corporations that stand to profit from it.
those against it more than likely stand to gain somewhere also, but the fact is that if man disappeared tonight, nothing would change(on a global scale).
the planet will continue the current cycle with or without us here. the planet went through these cycles before man(common sense would dictate this) it's going through cycles now, and it will continue to go through cycles when we're gone.(again, common sense would dictate this)
as for talking to researchers? it's been proven that information can(and most probably HAS) been skewed. if it serves for job security, and extra money, then they'll make the information appear as they need it to appear.
this can happen with anything. in any field.
although it's only local, i go by what i see outside. here at home, and in orlando, i see the same weather now, that i saw 30 years ago, with the exception, that it never got hot enough here to run my a/c this past summer.
my brother said he had his on in central florida, but he runs it if the temp goes above 70F.
as for the carbon trading crap? c'mon. it also was here before man, and will be when we're gone. how can they tax a natural substance?
I will say, a lot of the scientists I've spoken to recently are really concerned that we're currently seeing a "masking effect" from the sun. Solar output is at an all time minimum, and the current solar cycle hasn't ramped up....it seems the sun is on "pause", and is well below historical norms. The past two years have shown a definitive decrease, with output being so low, of atmospheric heating. (the so called big years of GW 1998-2000 showed the sun at a normal output range)
Oceanic heating hasn't slowed, and rose faster than prior years, probably due to lag/ time effects in the heating of water over air. I for one, have seen firsthand exactly how warm it's getting in the water. Molasses Reef in the FL Keys showed heat stress on corals down to 30 meters. Inshore, most corals bleached out and were overgrown with macroalgae. Those that didn't were the the most heat resistant genomes, when we tested. The upper crest of Hens and Chickens Reef (<5 meters) died. Sombrero Reef showed 5 weeks of temperatures in the 87-90F degree range@15m depth. Our highest reading, on a flat that had corals two years ago but was choked with algae this year, was 92 F. Corals start bleaching at ~84 or so, species dependent.
I've actually documented species population shifts and movement down the reef slope, of some less light dependent but less heat tolerant species. A reef tract system that's been intact and remarkably stable for ~15,000 years doesn't die in 20 if things aren't changing.
The only parameter that changed in the past 20 years (besides a high organic phosphate count in the mid 1990's that is back to a relative norm now) is the temperature. But, I must be careful to include that this is only a snapshot of the whole picture, and one cannot rely on singular local events to diagnose the situation. The combination of worldwide events does point to temperature forcing. Precip patterns have shifted, along with a measurable sea level rise. (ask Bangladesh and low lying Pacific Islands)
I've repeatedly said, if this solar cycle ever starts, and activity pulses up back into historical (
+- 10,000 years) norms (and sooner or later, it will), we will see exactly where we stand.
And again, I think CO
2 trading is a horrible idea. It allows, basically, the issue to be unresolved and for people to make money off it.
