Free Republic

5OClock, Where'd you go?
I replied to your request for dialog. Finally someone wants to talk science and there's no takers? Let's get his party started!

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.

Goodness gracious...how could I have forgotten to include information on the author of the report, Patrick J. Michaels?
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=4

And while we're on the subject of people getting paid exorbitant amounts to further the particular viewpoints of fossil fuel industries...can anyone point me to any articles by drug dealers, telling us that crack is good for us?

"One can read reports such as listed at following site, to see where it can be shown that during the past 6000 years or so, there is evidence that it was warmer during the first half of the Holocene Climatic where surely mankind had little or no effect in increasing CO2 levels. http://www.co2science.org/scripts/Template/MainPage.jsp?Page=BrowseCatalogEnlarged&sProductCode=v8n37c2"

Of course co2science.org is going to disseminate propaganda claiming that there is nothing out of the ordinary going on...their on the take from Exxon-Mobil:
http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/nonprofits/center_for_the_study_of_carbon_dioxide_and_global_change.html
...and they collaborate with The George Marshall Institute who is also receiving giant checks from Big Oil:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=36

Any information provided by scientific foundations (whether it be from for-profit or non-profit orgs) needs to be taken with a wheel barrow full of salt if they are receiving money from industries who could care less about the environment. So if you're going to post links to examples that are furthering your point, at least do it from sites where money lines can't be traced.