Melanie: Can I make a sweeping suggestion?? If anyone is interested in information. Creditable information, don't listen or cite politically motivated websites in regards to scientific findings. Look to independent funded research.
Non biased....
Um, don't you think that perhaps government-sponsored groups just might be a bit political???!!! LOL.
Mel: Never trust a political or religious site. They are unscrupulous in representing their own agenda from all sides.
I agree. But as for websites that publish papers - DON'T SHOOT THE
MESSENGER! The REAL questions should be, do those actually writing such papers (being reported on) have the qualifications and can their findings and assertions be refuted with evidence? And don't extrapolate some supposed "consensus" to utilize as a supposed refutation of a specific assertion or noted inconsistency using verifiable data and methodologies.
So, Mel, instead of stereotyping people as being religious or political, let's examine what they have actually said, what their credentials are, and what evidence have they put forward. And you did none of that chiming in on this issue, per the paper I cited. The authors of this paper are not some biased website hacks or merely politically motivated, clueless people about the science surrounding this issue.
Look at the credentials of the Ph.Ds that wrote the study - pretty impressive guys:
Joseph S. D'Aleo, Ph.D, has been a professional meteorologist for over 30 years: First Director of Meteorology at the Weather Channel on cable TV; Chief Meteorologist at Weather Services International Corporation; Senior Editor of “Dr. Dewpoint” for WSI’s Intellicast.com; Taught Meteorology at Lyndon State College in Vermont: Contributing author to the Non-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC); Served as Chairman of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting; Is a member of the AMS Council; is a fellow of the AMS; and has been elected a Councilor for the AMS; A Certified Consulting Meteorologist; Has co-chaired national conferences for both the American Meteorological Society and the National Weather Association; Is currently co chief Meteorologist at Weatherbell.com; Is also Executive Director of the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project (ICECAP), an organization and website that bring together climate scientists to examine climate change; Is a policy expert at the Heartland Institute.
Craig D. Idso, Ph.D. in Geography from Arizona State University in 1998. His doctoral thesis was titled, Amplitude and phase changes in the seasonal atmospheric CO2 cycle in the Northern Hemisphere; Has published scientific journal, peer-reviewed articles on issues related to data quality, the growing season, the seasonal cycle of atmospheric CO2, world food supplies, coral reefs, and urban CO2 concentrations, the latter of which he investigated via a National Science Foundation grant as a faculty researcher in the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University. His main focus is on the environmental benefits of carbon dioxide. In addition, he has lectured in Meteorology at Arizona State University, and in Physical Geography at Mesa Community College and Chandler-Gilbert Community College; Is the former Director of Environmental Science at Peabody Energy and a science adviser to the Science and Public Policy Institute; Is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, Association of American Geographers, Ecological Society of America.
Dr. James P. Wallace III Jim Wallace & Associates, LLC Ph.D., Economics, Minor in Engineering, Brown University M.S., Mechanical Engineering, Brown University B.S., Aeronautical Engineering, Brown University
Oh, yeah, Mel - please refute what they wrote and assert with actual evidence. I'll patiently wait to see if you can.
Mel: In this regard I think you are totally off the mark.
Mel, I'm not sure what you refer to - as to my "being off the mark." I don't deny climate change. But I'm agnostic, for the moment, upon the causes and as to whether or not: We're merely or mostly just in a climatic cycle, whether the warming we've seen will continue, has subsided (per a cycle), or if it is man-induced, or is it the grave danger we've been led to believe (remember, many claims per the "unquestionable consensus" the Chicken Littles were screaming about 15 or 20 years ago have not come true), could we even change the impact, given the politics of individual countries financial and immediately considerations? I advocate continued research and monitoring, and cleaning up our environment.
But what I don't advocate, is forcing/taxing vast billions into some super-fund war chest run by international globalists - because A) I don't believe we
definitely know what we're dealing with, B) I'm hugely suspicious of the potential wrong use and dangerous power of such a funded international group - that might well be just an enormous waste of money spent unfruitfully on the problem - IF it truly is a problem, and that can be addressed, C) I know that data HAS been manipulated and that so much is based upon very questionable computer modeling, D) And when people begin foaming at the mouth over reasonable questions and cautions, or over pointed out manipulations and politics - then I think they are on an agenda that fails to ask very important questions. Clean up our industries and air - these are absolutely good goals. If we are but in a natural and uncaused (by man) cycle, then there is no currently compelling info to prove that not to be the case. Correlations that
seem connected are not necessarily so - particularly with the history of immense climate and temperature fluctuations/cycles of a 4.5 billion-year-old planet. Correlating data per the industrial revolution, beginning upon a serious level in somewhat less than a mere 200 years ago - which is such a small period of data that it really tells us nothing that may very well be any more than an actual correlation with a natural cycle of an ancient planet's climate history. Hate to tell you, but that is a fact! And those who point it out are not all ignorant Christians who view science only through the lens of politics.
Last things - for those who are convinced deniers of climate change - well, we've clearly seen significant changes in our climate - but how much, and for how long? For those denying that man hasn't contributed to climate change - we don't know that for a fact EITHER! It's entirely possible - but the questions are, to what "degree" (great pun, eh?) and is our contribution significant, dangerous, ongoing, or is it a cycle? Again, there's a big difference between a skeptic of what is claimed, and a denier, who asserts that a theorized thing is totally false and impossible. I'm a skeptic, but not a denier that the claims might
possibly be true. I think that's a reasonable outlook.
