apvbguy wrote:The article I offered was written by people who do not seem to have any political axes to grind. Is their theory right? I don't know but if you were interested in learning and if you actually had an open mind, and actually read the article I linked to, and noticed the authors and their credentials you would be rebutting their assessments instead of telling me it was junk science and you wouldn't be righting it off so quickly.
"Written by people who do not seem to have any political axes to grind?" Are you kidding me? Both those authors are deeply involved with right-wing think tanks that are highly motivated to disseminate doubt about settled climate science due to the source of their funding. There is no better definition of a political axe. William Harper may be a physics professor, but he is also chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute, a politically conservative think tank, which received $715,000 funding from Exxon-Mobil from 1998-2008. Harrison Schmitt is a former astronaut, but he is also a member of the Board of Directors of the Heartland Institute, another politically active conservative think tank that has accepted over $600,000 from Exxon-Mobil between 1998 and 2005. Follow the money.
You should read Merchants of Doubt
by Oreskes and Conway if you want to understand the full breadth and history of the Denial Machine created by powerful commercial interests to blunt the impact of scientific consensus on their business. Sowing seeds of doubt by buying a few scientists to raise questions about research conclusions has always been their primary tactic.
If you want scientific information, you shouldn't depend on the WSJ, owned by Rupert Murdoch, who has long expressed his personal, political and business biases through his newspapers and Fox television news. Try the National Science Foundation
instead, where reporting is based on peer-reviewed scientific research. There is always doubt about scientific research, the whole methodology of science is based on questioning knowledge, but the vast majority of climate scientists worldwide, from a wide range of political systems and views, agree that AGW is real and C02 is part of the problem, along with methane and particulate matter.
La Jolla, CA
2011 SLe #1317 del. 4/1/11
1st bar lost at 31,953 miles
2nd bar lost at 38,685 miles
3rd bar lost at 50,711 miles
4th bar lost at 59,758 miles after 64 months
Battery replaced at 61,307 miles.