Report Abuse

You have chosen to report the following comment as abusive, offensive, or inappropriate.

I used to be a graduate atmospheric science student before I tired of the GW rhetoric spouted by my profs. <br> The fact is, we need MORE DATA. The data simply isn't RELIABLE before 1960 or so. What this means is we are using GOOD data for the last 50 years and "so so" data prior to that. Even a 1 degree error would debunk all analysis done prior to 1960. 50 years IS NOT ENOUGH DATA to use for modeling, so they use the "so so...maybe bad" data. Hence...there is absolutely NO WAY this debate could be over. Furthermore, the parameters used in the models are not entirely known either NOR are all the direct and indirect variables associated with different atmospheric particles (clouds and cloud particles, condensation nuclie, etc...)<br> <br> We might as well stop Volcanoes. Can't we just all continue our terrific technological advancement and eventually we'll have cleaner sources of energy anyway. What the hell do these people want???? We can't starve while developing technology PEOPLE!!!
By Playboy

Your name
Explanation
Security Code	* Please enter the code shown above