Some people are eternally calling for infinite ammounts of information (and then always some more), they claim that that way we should gain more education, but at the same time they are forever determined to ignore it right away anyway, since for them the solution lies in pacifying their troubled mind and convince themselves that it is okay to live on like they use to do, since there is no need to be worried or to change something, and so: round and round the carussel goes, and except the same "reasonable argument" of why more information is needed, no other talking is ever being done - but this one talking ad nauseum.
Has anybody even cared to read and try to understand what the article I linked is about? It is about a change in methodology that allowed them first time ever to do a meta-analysis that compares observation data not with generalised data as usual models produce them, but to compare them explicitly on the basis of just those cells of models that correspondent with the cells of observed data. That way they were able to delete the influence of intemittend and third variables, allowing them to attribute changes of climate being found in studies to just one simple cause: the human variable. Other variables may exist, but theirninfluence is not decisive. It is a question of methodology and thus the important thing is a bit hidden and does not sound sensational, but in fact it is a complete new level of analysis quality.
The question wether or not the warming at the pole is man-caused, must no longer be asked.
You guys can carry on to just ignore the unwelcomed news and make demands for more study and information, but that does not make you any smarter, while the climate issue - caused by man!
- continues to unfold, completely unimpressed by your "reasonable scepticism".
the irony here is: the data you always demand - already is there. You just have not heared the shot, because you don't want to hear it. According to the motto: a problem I don't care about, is a problem that does not exist anymore. Out of sight - out of mind.
Beginning of this week there was a TV film, a 15-20 minute article in a TV-magazine about the lobbying industry at the EU headquarters in Brussel. The size of this lobbying is frightening, it
outclasses the whole political and bureaucratical administration of the EU in size.
Dozens of billions are spend by the industry for lobbying, to prevent any laws and regulations that a given company does not like. The anti-climate lobby is one of the biggest factions in lobbying, and one of the greatest spenders. Billions get spend on campaings and pseudo-scientific structures and institutions that are then used to replace the real scientific institutions, and to change the latter's scientific literature and data with propaganda material that gives the impression to be scientific, but is not, and is manipulative and suggestive instead. Lobbying itself has grown into one of the greatest businesses on this planet. No other administration gets as massively targetted by it than the EU, not in Asia, not the (also heavily targetted) US congress. And American companies and their lobbying representations are the major players in the game.
seeing these eternal round-and-round debates about doubting the human factor in climate change in order to prevent changes that would effect short termed profit interests, I must say that obviously it is billions very well spend, from the industry's position. I knew that it were several hundred millions per year being spent on it, but that it actually reaches into the several billions, was new for me.
Climate scepticism - in plain English: f#ck off, I do not want to change my way of life, it does not matter what happens when I'm gone.