VII. ATHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING: CLIMATE CHANGE
There may not be a more controversial subject to research than AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming).
The more I search for answers from various climate groups the more one thing becomes very clear. It’s all theory! No one has any proof positive about climate change (whether it exist or not; are we in some sort of cycle; what is the dominating driving force; is mankind destroying the planet; etc. etc. etc).
A great deal of bickering amongst the climate scientist seems to get in the way of generating a consensus path all of them can prove right or if wrong than move on to the next avenue. The one thing that should be remembered in the field of science is there are no failed pathways to a solution, only a redirected course.
One thread that seems to run throughout that community is the clamor for funding. While there may be a number of base line considerations within (politics, choosing sides, personality conflicts, friendships, etc.) other influences outside (funding, awards, peer acceptance, etc.) too are equally pressing.
What I look for while researching a subject for blogging are experts who work actively in the field under consideration and their willingness to speak out clearly. There is such a person in one Dr. Roy W. Spencer. What makes Dr. Spencer unique is his ability to answer back with scientific reasoning to any of his critics following an article, a "paper” posting or his books on this subject.
While I can’t speak scientifically to global warming logic tells me if fossil fuel burning is the cause of "mankind’s destruction of the earth” than what explains the great warming cycles of the past prior to the discovery of oil.
The only thing that I see being talked about as a solution is to assess some sort of tax onto the citizens of the more developed countries in the world. These talks are being conducted in all of the law making bodies of the most prosperous nations on earth. Unfortunately those dollars would be turned over to the U. N. and its IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) group. This clique squanders money faster than even the biggest pork barrel spending package that has gone through our congress (35 billion to date).
One of the main concerns regarding the IPCC is it’s refusal to publish any peer paper suggesting a different reason or theory from what their computer models predict will happen over the next few years. So far all of the models (20+) have been completely wrong, yet the spending continues. Readjusting the input data and than coming up with a new prediction from the models continues to be the only course of action taken thus far. These models are generally disregarded by the responsible climate scientist community as being flawed results based on an equally faulty premise of politically motivated input data (garbage in, garbage out).
Dr. Spencer’s article (Global Warming 101: see article 1 below) giving an overview of AGW is a very good place to begin for anyone that is truly interested in getting started on understanding this complex subject. In fact his entire web site is filled with some of the best information and research results that I have ever read. The clarity in answering his critics as well as the willingness to allow both comments and interaction with all of those who care to critique his books, published papers and articles shows how confident he is with the results of his research and findings.
It is possible that man's progress to a better lifestyle may bring some type of ruin to a part or parts of our plant, maybe. All of the data gathered thus far by both sides of this issue show conclusively there are not abnormal amounts of CO2 being produced on earth. The one thing that seems clear to me though, the more CO2 in the atmosphere the more plants have to turn into oxygen. The more oxygen, the better life can be for all people.
Click for: Comments/Feedback orBack to Categories
