Cherubini, the fallacy of your interpretation of the graph has been pointed out several times on this list. What part of the explanations did you not understand? You certainly have no reason to extrapolate that the temperatures will not rise in the future on the basis of one short period in the graph. That short period is only a few years out of a very long trend of increasing temperature. I could just as easily pick out one of the periods when the temperature rose dramatically more than at other times, and say that the temperature might increase at that rate in the future. Good grief!!
So far as jobs being generated, institutions are going to want to study things that exist. Makes sense to me. David McNeely ---- Paul Cherubini <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jul 5, 2012, at 11:54 AM, Beth wrote: > > > given the claim that so much money is involved in > > advancing claims of anthropogenic causes for climate change, > > I am interested to know the facts figures and comparisons > > behind this claim that it's simply about salaries and 'influence'. > > Consider the job postings to Ecolog-L the past 2 years. > At least half of them involve the study or mitigation of > (assumed) CO2 driven anthropogenic climate change. > > That wasn't the case 10 years ago. So like Rob said, > "enormous wealth is being generated based on > consequences of the belief that anthropogenic CO2 > emissions cause climate change." > > If the warming trend line of this NOAA graph > http://tinyurl.com/6ca5gzt continues to stay relatively flat > for another 5 years then more and more people will > become anthropogenic doubters which in turn could > deminish the creation of climate change jobs and > threaten existing ones. > > Paul Cherubini > El Dorado, Calif. -- David McNeely
