One thing I can't get my head around is whose hand is out for the money.
Always, follow the money.
--------It's political correctness gone mad!
Things could get interesting.
The smoking gun looks more like a tempest in a tea pot to me.
This was in the context of a temperature graph of proxy data (e.g from ice cores or tree rings) which didn't include the last 20 years, so they added instrumental data to the end of the series.
:owever, the climate change deniers have decided it really means adding to the temperature numbers themselves as part of a conspiracy to fake the figures, which is what they think is "explosive"--It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?
This comment has been deleted by yicky yacky
What did the "decline" refer to though? If it were just a lack of data then that's strange terminology?
So the only work available would be figurehead postings where doing real science isn't required.
Matched with some of the old "if you want to work in the public (or semi-public) sector, then you must be a corrupt grafter" polemic.
And it pissed me off.
If that doesn't fit in with your expectation then I'm sorry.
Apparently - if this is to be believed - some attempts have been made to prevent certain info from getting released in response to FOIA (Freedom Of Information Act) requests. This could include intentional destruction of correspondence. Why would that need to be done - if it were indeed done, that is?
"OMG conspiracy theorist!" Whatever.--If cigarette packs are required to have pictures of diseased lungs, college brochures should be required to have photos of grads working at Starbucks.
It's just more taxes to make us more & more poor... Are we serfs already?
Will people stand around while they charge us for a trace gas?
0.8% of the atmosphere is CO2. Carbon is VITAL TO LIFE.
The whole thing is a sham.
You'll never see the CO2 people taking action for real environmental disasters. In Tennessee there was a coal slurry spill, WORSE then the Valdez disaster.
I'm sure you've never heard of it, because nobody is reporting it.
IIRC they think it'd cost ~100million USD.
The Grace measurements suggest there was no net ice loss between 2002 and 2006. . . . But since then, East Antarctica has been losing 57 billion tonnes (Gt) per year. . . . The loss still looks small by contrast with West Antarctica, which is losing 132Gt per year.
But to be honest, I think this story about antarctic ice is far more interesting. But I'm perverse like that.