I'm saying that short term change is irrelevant to long term planetary climate timescales.
See the problem I have with this argument is that it ignores everything we know about physics, astronomy, etc for the naive hypothesis. When in reality our models have done a much much better job than the null hypothesis. By saying "short term change is irrelevant" are you really saying that atmospheric changes 10-100x faster than what occurred in the past doesn't mean a thing to you?
We're not going to turn into Venus.
Well I agree, but then again Venus is incredibly hot.
James Hansen put the noose around his own neck. He has every right to speak his mind, but as a Fed employee, he has to be prepared to face the consequences of doing that.
This is kind of an odd statement. So I'm guessing you feel the same about Rick Piltz as well?
I write a lot of budget justifications, so I'm pretty familiar with all the key words we're directed to put into them before they're sent up the chain, packaged up in Silver Spring, and sent to Congress. Global Warming is quite popular, especially on the sub-committee that reviews our budget.
I'm a bit confused as to what you actually do. Are you involved in research or are you more of a managerial position? What is your expertise in?