[GeoFib]

I strongly disagree. I have, in fact, both correctly diagnosed --and recommended successful courses of treatment for -- numerous and varied illnesses among friends and family members for which the medical establishment had no clue -- simply because I was willing to devote the time to do the research.

As an example, my wife was complaining of certain symptoms to her doctor. He listened, ran a few tests, and concluded he didn't know what the problem was. I then spent a few hours researching it, told her to "go back and tell him you think it's this." He ran more tests and concluded that it was as I diagnosed (it was not a common ailment). NOT an isolated example, that has happened more than half a dozen times now with my wife and others

Virtually everything in life can be understood with the application of both research and reasoning -- presuming it's something that can be understood at all. Certain physical disciplines also require practice (playing piano, for example). But science is not a physical discipline.

I resisted comment on the Mother thread for three days since my thoughts on the AGW issue were essentially redundant with other comments already posted. I took a bit of exception with some who seemed to be taking PL's comments out of context.

I do have a background in earth and atmospheric sciences (and envoronmental sciences) although not AGW, but it is a pet research project . It is an extremely complex system that has unquantifiable components (based on our current dataset), but I do feel that anyone willing to put in the base research should have an opinion on - their own opinion.

When I heard "settled science" years ago, of course my hackles went up (instant bias), and I had to start digging deeper. Someone on the weekend thread posted a chart of ice core data for CO2 (sorry for being to lazy to check and cite). I would encourage any with strong views on the subject to review a graph of the ice core data of temp and CO2 plotted together (readily available, and older studies are best). If CO2 is the driver of global temps, then we should be at record high temps now. Upon first inspection, the correlation between temp and CO2 is striking. Then, as you keep staring, another observation is readily apparent - temp appears to lead CO2. A reasoning person at this point wants to dig a little deeper? Maybe research the physical and chemical properties of CO2 and how CO2 interacts in the environment? Its part of my educational background, so I know that cold water absorbs more CO2 than warm water, but I encourage all to dig if they feel strongly about the matter. Learn, understand the issues. You don't have to be a qualified "scientist", just a reasoning person. DRG, I'm sure can tell you anything and everything you can imagine or want to know about the carbon cycle

At any rate, our myopic view from 60-100 years out is SO biased that we can't even begin to understand the issue. The earth is still recovering from a recent ice age (who says its over yet?) and both sides should be expecting considerably more warming to reach averages. "Alarmists", would of course like us to broil directly, while "Deniers" expect meandering or cooling. Looking at the data, the "hockey stick" is not without prescedent.

A couple of parting shots
PL'S comment about who ya gonna believe, big business or big gov't, is WAY on target. Also, a couple of other posters mentioned "follow the money" PdL, Wblscott?, others? Almost unlimited source of wealth redistribution and tax income......

Edit: I state AGW, but obviously I'm talking longer term and I feel that the background data is DIRECTLY applicable to our tiny snapshot in time