However, I would point out to you that Mr. Caruba is operating from the premise that because the environmentalists are using global warming to push their agenda, the theory of global warming is therefore untrue.
This is a fallacy of logic. For example, because the democrats grabbed the poverty in some areas of the country and used it to justify welfare and big government solution, one should not conclude that there were no poor people in the United States.
What needs to be done is to ascertain the reliability of the data on both sides of the issue.
For example, on the second site the author makes the claim that tree rings are not reliable indicators because they only form in growth periods for the trees. The NOAA site factors in tree ring data as part of their compiled data. What differences would be seen in the graphs showing global warming trends if the tree ring data is removed? Would the trends be the same, or has tree ring data skewed the findings?
This is the type of information that needs to be looked at and discussed. I think a calmer approach would be the most helpful, and I do not think that Rush Limbaugh knows beans about science (and apparently very little about how to be successful in political strategy).
The NOAA site factors in tree ring data as part of their compiled data. What differences would be seen in the graphs showing global warming trends if the tree ring data is removed? Would the trends be the same, or has tree ring data skewed the findings?
I'm sorry, I misunderstood where you were at as far as your knowledge level and what level type of data that you wanted to look at. I'm not interested in reading years worth of scientific data to discern what the truth and I assumed (erroneously) that you were on the same page. But one of the great things about FR is that there is always someone who is willing to do something that the rest of us have no interest in doing. LOL!
My area of interest is the Constitution and Austrian economics (the only real free-market economics). That's where I focus my energy and how I filter my world-view. My approach to global warming is, common sense:
Even global warming advocates admit that the amount of "greenhouse gases" produced in the world by human activity is between 2% and 5% of the total produced in the world. The largest contributor is volcanoes. Geysers, marshes, and flatuance from cows (I kid you not) are other big contributors. So the question is; What can people, which produce 2-5% of the total, do to reverse this "problem?" Totaly leave the planet?
The second thing I look at is, what are the economic effects of doing what the global warming people say? Answer:
A Great Depression...Then comes the socialists/fascists telling us that capitalism doesn't work and we'll have to let the elites take over. Could the effects of having no snow in NH or being able to grow wheat in Greenland (like the Vikings did in the 13th Century heatwave) be worse than a Depression and living under the yoke of a collectivized economy?
That's where I'm coming from.
I think a calmer approach would be the most helpful, and I do not think that Rush Limbaugh knows beans about science (and apparently very little about how to be successful in political strategy).
I agree with you on Rush, I listen to him for entertainment (while I work).
Good luck with your research!