Replies

The counter by such noted scientists as Mr. Limbaugh is to say, "Not Our Fault, therefore No Global Warming."

I listened to an interview Limbaugh conducted yesterday with a noted former NASA scientist/meteorologist. The scientist essentially accepted that GW is a phenomenon, yet there is no hard scientific data to conclude the warming is primarily caused by man. Mr. Limbaugh had no problem accepting that.

Therefore, stating that Rush Limbaugh is spewing 'no Global Warming' propaganda is inaccurate (at least as of now).

Yes, many in the past who have been skeptical of the GW phenomenon, as presented by the likes of Al Gore, have countered with the idea that GW doesn't exist. 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.

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.

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.

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.

Thanks for your post.

The global warming topic is usually brought up in the wrong way. It may be advanced in an alarmist way, an accusatory way, and in a way that takes political sides. The people who advance the topic usually consider themselves liberal and vote Democrat. All this has led to a reaction. As a reaction, Rush Limbaugh or someone else may take issue with global warming. So we end up with global warming debates. All the while global warming is undefined. This enables some to shift from one definition to another.

When people ask me if I "believe in global warming," I answer that I believe in global warming after every ice age, and I believe in global cooling before every ice age. That usually stops the conversation.

We have had no end of "experts" who have made exaggerated claims. These include Malthus, Marx, Freud, Kinsey, and Erlich and many others. The oscillating predictions of global climate experts have been exaggerated also. Often these experts have their own terminology that is designed to impress and intimidate. I find that positions that have merit can be clearly presented and be persuasive to both the lay reader and the specialist. Knaves and those who are not fully competent have to hide behind jargon.

Global warming scare tactics may lead to the imposition of great and unnecessary costs on all of us. This should be resisted.

As for the science, the more I read the more convinced I become that mankind does not understand all the factors contributing to climate change. Economists of a socialist bent have had to step back from socialism over the past seventy years as they came to appreciate their ignorance. Climate experts of a socialist bent are simply decades behind economists in gaining a modicum of wisdom.