Reply to comment

So Eric we agree. We are both skeptics. I don't really think I have an agenda, other than requiring more proof and positing that maybe all the work isn't done yet. I really think that Galileo and Copernicus would be right with me. Don't ever accept a theory as fact without rigorous proof. I'm sorry but I haven't seen it. Yes, I can cite lots of studies disputing the causes of warming, or showing that it hasn't warmed in the last 8-10 years, or that it was warmer in the 1930's or much warmer in the different periods of the past. Would it make any difference in this discussion. Of course not. It's not possible for you or I to convince the other in these short messages. When I hear global warming scientists saying things like the last x number of years are just a pause in the global warming it makes me wonder about the science behind it. When I hear them blame everything bad that happens or could happen on it, it makes me wonder about the agenda behind it. When I read the above story and see that the true reason for it is to get more funding and staff for themselves I am skeptical about it. Quote from 2nd to last paragraph "and that they needed additional funding, staff and staff training to respond effectively to climate change."

It may surprise you to learn, I'm not against changes to reduce oil or coal usage. I am very much into conservation and minimizing my "footprint". Much more so than Al Gore, that's for sure. I believe in it to prevent pollution, reduce costs and reduce our dependence on other countries. I just don't believe that the case for CO2 caused global warming has been proven and in fact that there is more proof saying it isn't happening. The only group trying to prevent more study, trying stifle public discussion are the group of people who say climate change is caused by man made CO2. If that isn't an agenda, I don't know what it is.