Messages

I recently got an email message form Skeptic magazine, specifically on the subject of Global Warming. One article seems to be claiming that Global Warming is basically like pseudo science, and the other documenting the research from the '50's as authentic, and that current Global Warming is in fact a result of Human activity or is Human induced. I tend to agree with the later conclusion. In my mind, discounting Human activity in this regard is almost like claiming that Parents activities with their children have very little impact, if any, on their later or ongoing development.

What the solution may be, is probably open to discussion, but is the science proving Human induced Global Warming really that horrible and completely without merit? I don't think so.

http://www.skeptic.co...

http://www.skeptic.co...

I read the articles on e-skeptic too. I believe it was the first article where the author really spent the whole time discussing the flaws with computer models for predicting global warming. This one I found very interesting and also a bit confounding. He made a lot of valid points about how the computer modeling for climate change is very flawed and thus its accuracy on predictions cannot be considered valid, although I found it interesting that he seemed to say that due to the flawed computer models global warming wasn't occurring? I may have misunderstood what he was getting at but that is definitely what I thought the author meant. Which is strange considering some of the actual empirical observation say from the Antarctic ice core samples and many other pieces of observable and recorded data. The second article's author did bring about these points as well. That author also brought up the flaws in the computer model. I certainly felt more in agreement with the second article. The actual discuss of real data being collected and analyzed is far more convincing to me that a discussion of flawed computer models.

The global warming debate (if it can actually be called that at this point) interests me and confuses me. It seems the major sticking points of the people against global warming seem to be focused human causation. This seems a awful fine sticking point because regardless of human causation or not climate change is occurring and if humans don't try to counter it we will be the ones to suffer.

I admit I have not read all the studies so I may be missing some vital information but the data I have read about does seem very solid. The ice core samples in Antarctica seem to definitely support some human induced warming.

I think for many people the issue of science proving human induced global warming makes them angry because they do not want to be told to change their ways.

Good points Heather.

I believe that the best approach is to always keep the door open for the scientific process to continue and be open for new discoveries, on the subject. It does seem to be a problem, as far as I know, that cutting down rain forests to grow corn, or what have you, kind of defeats the purpose. The solution to the problem of Global Warming concerns me far more than someones assertion that a particular computer model has problems, therefore, Global Warming has nothing to do with human activity. I saw a presentation recently, in which it was stated that Al Gore was basically dishonest or even a liar and doing so for his own personal gain. That is just ad hom attacks, which I don't think has anything to do with good science. Even the best of scientists make honest mistake, however, in this case I have my doubts that Al Gore is just a Global Warming dogmatist. I recently heard him in a radio interview, and it seemed like he was willing to be open to any and all questions, and open to continued improvements as to science tools and understanding.

I would like nothing better than to have the whole thing proven wrong, and a natural reversal of Global Warming to occur, so that Polar Bears won't lose their habitat and have to invade humans for food, or fight it out with the Grizzly bears. Course, I guess we can't control everything.

Well said. I would also like for it to be wrong for many of the same reasons. I guess if wishes were fishes we would have a lot of fish.

I have heard the same arguments about Al Gore and I find my conclusions match yours. I am confused how promoting global warming awareness could be used for personal gain. Although, I guess he did win the Noble Peace Prize so maybe that was his diabolical plan all along?