Replies

It's interesting how the pro-global warming folks reply with personal attacks on the authors instead of debating the science. The main argument is "follow the money", seemingly forgetting that argument works both ways.

If environmental scientists manage to convince people that we are on the verge of environmental catastrophe, the spending on environmental research will increase dramatically. Therefore environmental scientists have a financial stake in propagating environmental disaster scenarios. If you accept the argument that money from "Big Oil" means results that are biased against global warming theories, then you must accept the argument that money from pro-global warming groups means results that are biased toward global warming. I think either argument is overstated and irrelevant; if you simply debate the science, the source of funding will have no effect on your conclusions.

Please, just stick to debating the science.

First of all, what's really interesting is that you assumed that I am "pro-global warming" when in fact I'm not. My main objective in my posts were to point out that when making particular statements (and then backing it up with a link to an article on a particular website), that the source of the information should be kept in mind.

Secondly, I was not "attacking" the author. I was simply pointing out the fact that the author gets a lot of money from Big Oil, as well as funding the author's newsletter.

I would love to debate the pure science of the matter and I'm glad you asked to do so. And in order to get at the heart of the pure science, it is important when citing particular statistics that they come from sources outside of pro fossil fuel related organizations as well as pro environmental organizations in order to avoid any bias one way or the other on the factual data. That's what really bothers me about the majority of discussions concerning global warming...those from industry who say global warming isn't occurring use selected data and studies to back up their beliefs and those from pro environment groups do the same. We're getting nowhere...

The human race is only just beginning to understand the intricate forces that take place on this planet. Cycles that have been formed over the span of hundreds of thousands of years (ok, ok, billions). A myriad of influences dictate the frequency and severity of cyclonic storms: regional climate (which is determined by where we are on the paleo-climatic scale), water and carbon cycling, atmospheric physics and chemistry, and oceanic chemistry and circulation patterns (just to name a few). We are "too close" to the period of data that is being covered in the author's article. 60 years is too narrow of a view to adequately discern whether of not there is "Still No Connection"...we are to close to "see the forest for the trees". It is perhaps more truthful to say that there is still no connection because we don't have enough data to know one way or the other. However, as a producer of approximately one third of the world's industrial and agricultural carbon emissions, as well as having a heavy influence on the rest of the world, this country can not afford for our children's children's sake to be at each other's throats over this issue. Pro industry and pro environmentalist alike need to come together and put all of the bickering aside and strive to truly understand the science, not to debate the science.

With that being said, let's start the discussion on understanding the data and what we can do to truely know what exactly is occuring on our planet.