no I don't say he is totally wrong - I think he did as accurate a work as possible at the time for which he received his Nobel.
We haven't discussed agw or climate change for about 5 years - at that time he used to talk about the levels rising and how amazing it was to see them every year --- at that stage he said - 'but, we don't know why'.
His career hasn't really been climate change - it has been CO2 measurement mainly - I really don't know what he is up to now.
He is also a smart guy - and I don't mean academically - I mean politically. I have another friend in the same vein - David Leaman - also a really nice bloke - I haven't seen him in a few years - but I learnt a lot from him about the politics of science ---------- he says there is always an agenda -------- now, boy, has he stepped on a few toes in his time.
So much of this stuff (the science) comes down to what is funded and what is asked for. And, a hell of a lot of work just disappears.
Like I have said many times --- I agree with someone who says science is a spiral toward the truth --- but anyone in the game realises that and that at some stage that spiral can tell us we have not necessarily been wrong with measurement - but what we infer and assume from it has been incorrect.
When we come to an extremely complex subject - like climate change -- I don't believe we have even scratched the surface.
I see the work that Dave did, Leaman also and a couple of other mates, not as well known but well respected in their fields --------- and I just sit back and think ------
these guys are good -- but, in one lifetime, one person can only put together one or two parts of the puzzle - and the puzzle in this case is enormous.
Then I note that major parts of the puzzle are untouched - or barely touched -- and this is the sort of puzzle that imo you really need all the parts down pat - just too many variables interact with each other.
I just think we fart around with the wrong stuff -- it was glaringly obvious that Copenhagen was going to be a dismal failure ----------- you didn't need to be a scientist to work that out - nor did you need to be much of a scientist to know that a carbon tax was going to be a huge waste of time, energy and money and, in the end would indeed hobble you from making progress.
We all know what we need - we need clean, cheap fuel.
The opposition to that are probably fuel companies.
The way NOT to get it is to go for negative reinforcement - it is always better to go for incentive.
For me, the whole system stinks ---------- lobbying, funding, political stance - backing what they think will give a return instead of pure research - research funding by vested interests ---------
what a recipe for disaster
what a recipe for missing the great discoveries
what foolishness
It all comes out of the oven with agenda - there is always an agenda.
And, these days - not only is there an agenda, a lot of work is done working under a set belief - I cannot believe what I have seen done in research.
Things that haven't panned out how people wanted them to pan out - and the numbers were just doctored. Then one finds new research 'confirms' it?????????
I have also been involved in environmental cases where scientists giving 'expert' opinion - out and out bloody lied - as clear as crystal - and I know it for certain because I was there working with them. These were government advisers.
I lost faith pretty dammed quickly.
anyway, bit of a rave, I hope you have a good arvo
