Replies

I listened to an interview Limbaugh conducted yesterday with a noted former NASA scientist/meteorologist.

Roy Spencer has been a conservate favorite for a long time. First because his satellite data (analyzed with John Christy) didn't show any warming; then, after discovery of several methodological errors, a reanalysis of the data showed significant warming (other groups analyzing the same data find an even stronger signal than Spencer and Christy). So now, he has, begrudgingly but with scientific honesty dogging him, gone over to the position that the Earth is warming, any future warming will be moderate, and the human contribution is still uncertain.

This position (in bold)) is now the refuge of skeptics who are trying to remain honest about what the data is increasingly indicating, without entirely abandoning their skepticism.

I believe, however, that as more information from responsible scientists, climatologists and meteorologists comes out, we've come to realize that while there is something that is causing the earth to warm at this time, little has to do with man's affect on our environment.

The position of the majority of climate scientists who aren't trying to preserve their skeptical bona fides is that the human contribution (atmospheric greenhouse gases) is the dominant factor currently affecting climate.

Please give those of us not blessed to be among the scientific community credit for due diligence in developing an understanding of a complex issue, and advancing our position as the situation changes.

Absolutely: and if you do so, it's important to know the backgrounds (and history) of individuals espousing a given position. I hope I was helpful.

"The position of the majority of climate scientists who aren't trying to preserve their skeptical bona fides is that the human contribution (atmospheric greenhouse gases) is the dominant factor currently affecting climate."

HUH?

The 'scientist' that support global warming almost always are getting money from it.

The earth probably is warming. If you look at the data you will see that the earths temperature has varied wildly throughout history.

But perhaps I'm wrong. As soon as one of those people pushing new taxes and massive govt control gives up their mansion and private jet I will consider listening.

...if you do so, it's important to know the backgrounds (and history) of individuals espousing a given position. I hope I was helpful.

Absolutely.

The position of the majority of climate scientists who aren't trying to preserve their skeptical bona fides is that the human contribution (atmospheric greenhouse gases) is the dominant factor currently affecting climate.

Does the fact that Dr. Spencer has altered his viewpoint mean his bona fides are questionable? I wouldn't think so; only that his methodology may have been erroneous but now is being corrected. And does this mean that all those who are skeptical of GW use faulty models to promote their beliefs?

There is also much skepticism of the methodology used by those who promote man-made Global Warming. And Dr. Spencer addressed that issue in his discussion with Rush Limbaugh. In effect, the models used by virtually anyone, when collecting data on global temperature fluctuation, by nature, is likely inexact. So, I guess, the question is: "Do we really have the ability to correctly gauge what is causing this current warming"? And if the answer is 'no', then how do we know how to react?

Color me skeptical until I can feel confident all the facts are in.