[geeks] Global Warming causes...

[wa2egp at att.net]

> Two thirds of what scientists?
> 
> The ones who the media interviews?
> 
> No doubt.
> 
> In Tidewater, 2/3 of the police interviewed by the media report a  
> "consensus" that there is no gang activity.
> 
> The reason is simple: the cities and the news have a vested interest  
> in saying it isn't a problem, even though nearly all police officers  
> and a good number of citizens know otherwise.
> 
> Consensus via news media or published articles is a popularity  
> contest, not a metric.

Then what is?  How about peer-reviewed published articles?  Or
do we just make up whatever we want?

> I used to work in an atmospheric research data center, and I read a  
> lot of the publish reports.

I doubt you read them all.  Your sample may be selective.
 
> There was no consensus at all, and a good number of them reported  
> cosmic radiation, natural disasters, and orbit variation as larger  
> factors in global temperature.

Explain how.  Maybe some of those might be bogus alternative explanations
which have been shown to be just that.  Cosmic radiation (what type, I
don't know) sounds a little far fetched.  Orbital variation should have
been noticed by astronomers, even subtle ones.  I don't know what natural
disasters that would have happened more in the last hundred years than
before.  I find that unlikely.

> The main reason you don't hear about those other factors is that they  
> are not popular.  They don't sell ads, they aren't boogymen, they have  
> no emotional appeal, and it requires real work rather than knee jerk  
> reactionism to cope with it.

Or maybe they were found to be flawed. 
 
> People like to focus on things where they can say, "Let's fix it."
> 
> Factors out of our control, we aren't as willing to talk about.
> 
> In the end, we do precious little about either.

Hmmmm...I thought we managed to head off the ozone layer problem
before it got too far along.

Bob