Your post is such an Inconvenient Truth. Be prepared for incessant badgering and ridicule for your comments. The GW crowd (at least the militant faction of it) doesn't seem to understand that they shoot themselves in the foot by their "holier than thou" attitude.
Personally, I feel this is an important topic and action should be taken in measured, rational way. The problem is dealing with people who adopt a cause and then look at enough websites to make themselves "experts".
What worthless and misguided research did you see? Where's the evidence? Why do you insist on making claims without any supporting evidence?
Have you ever contacted any othe climatologists with your "concerns"? Where can we read these, in what journal? Where is your work that refutes what they've shown? for example, you're claiming that their hard science isn't straight forward, so where have you found them wrong? Post your work that explains why you lost respect for climatologists.
Where have you seen that the process is "hostile" to outsiders? Where's the evidence?
Where is this data that supports your claim that there is raw data indicating that solar activity is heating all planets? I suggest that you read Global warming on Mars?.
I will go look at those sites, albeit with my "skeptical" eye. I found your declaration at the end very honorable, and I respect you for it.
My problem, and I think many others on my side, is that we don't respect climatologists. Academic resumes are not nearly as impressive to working engineers as they are to other academics and policy makers. Many of us saw a great deal of worthless and misguided research during our time in school and realize that just because a PhD or two have been part of it doesn't make it right. Especially in a field where the application of 'hard' science is not necessarily strait forward.
From a skeptic point of view it is sort of a 'perfect storm' in which the credibility of the source is questionable, the methodologies are suspect, the claims are over sensationalized, and all findings must be accepted without question or you will be branded a heretic. It is not that all of those climate researchers are incompetent or even wrong in their findings. But one cannot even question their methods, findings, or conclusions. The climate "scientific" process is the only one I know of that is not just closed, but openly hostile to outsiders.
Like I stated in a previous post, I have seen raw data pointing to planetary heating and cooling cycles, solar-system wide (Earth, Mars, and, I think, Venus), correlating to solar activity.I found the collection methods credible and pretty much made up my mind there then went on about my business.The data available from "climatologists" back then did not come from actual measurements, but extrapolations and/or 'modeled' data, which is simply ludicrous, scientifically.When respect is lost, it is very hard to earn back.
So, the global warming industry is comprised of those who accept the strong scientifically derived evidence that human behavior has a negative affect and so develop and implement policies to mitigate that effect?
As for the "lie", see the discussion at The IPCC is not infallible (shock!). You really should do a little research on your own before you perpetuate right-wing talking points. Is this how you "engineer", not researching anything?
As for the emails, there's nothing there as nothing in the science that they performed has been refuted nor has any manipulation been shown.
Is this all you have? Where're the published refutations? Where's the evidence of wrong-doing? All I see are unsubstantiated allegations, which is easy to do and the modus operandi of the denier community.
So are you referring to the typo over declines in the glaciers of the West Himalaya - 2350 vs 2035? Or are you referring to the World Glacier Monitoring Service reporting declines in 80% of the worlds glaciers?
My word. Can you see the rest of us from that high horse of yours? Self-righteous indignation is always a sign of groups that have lots to hide or no case to make, so thanks. LOL.
By global warming industry, I meen the loose agglomeration of people who, now the politicians have largely bought in on the grounds that it gives them extra control and excuses to raise taxes, can make a comfy living. Starting from the international climate change committee, working down to lots of QUANGOs (UK), University departments, people developing electric and hydrogen car technology when there is not the corresponding thrust to generate green electricity to power them and make them relevant. All those wonderful conferences. The list is long, and it's loose, but far more coherent than the old "military-industrial complex" we used to hear about.
To the examples- the blatant lie in the ICCC report exaggerating the erosion of glaciers. The chain of hacked e-mails from the English "University" demonstrating the suppression, selctuive publication and manipulation of evidence-read them, they're on the net. As an aside, in line with my obligations as a professional engineer, I have removed my name from reports for less. Finally, one I'm trying to make further headyway on understanding, the accusation that a positive trend was deliberately added into sea level data to give it a trend where there was none otherwise.
Reading your reponse makes the sceptics' case easier, and as I said, I'm not making a claim either way; when I support a cause, as I support the green actions we need to take here, I am always upset by dishonesty on the side of the cause.
Although plastics make up only about 11% of all US municipal solid waste, many are actually more energy-dense than coal. Converting these non-recycled plastics into energy with existing technologies could reduce US coal consumption, as well as boost domestic energy reserves, says a new study.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.