Global Warming

As a trained environmental scientist, former physical scientist with the Bureau of Reclamation, and Biological consultant, I have a pretty good idea of the issues in global warming. I am not a climatologist or meteorologist though.

I could spend a lot of time and space discussing the relevant studies. The basic take-home messages would be: 1) Global warming is occurring, but at a low rate. 2) There is, however, no direct evidence that human activities have anything to do with it. 3) There is even less evidence that we could do anything to change it.

But I want to concentrate on how the pro- and anti- human-caused global warming forces present their message. The pro-warming forces use little science. At best they seize hold of an occasional, isolated study that has no larger bearing and then launch into a tirade. (Like the polar bear numbers being less in 1 area of the Arctic. Actually total polar bear numbers are increasing.) Their arguments are long on emotion and short on science. They tend to call their opponents unpleasant names - a sure sign of lack of evidence. And, most tellingly from my background as a scientist, they almost never even acknowledge contrary studies, nor do they try to refute or explain them. Now any good scientist realizes that you can't pick and choose only data that fits your model. But the pro-global warming forces do just that.

The anti-global warming forces almost always acknowledge opposing data and then try to explain or refute it. ( Like I did above with polar bears.) They rarely, if ever, call the pro-global warming forces names. They use phrases like "usually", "almost all", "rarely, if ever" and other non-absolute phrases because how can you say never to anything unless you're omniscient like God? And yet the pro-global warming forces almost always do this.If you have an open mind, think about what I'm saying.

Try not to be offended because I take a contrary position to your cherished belief. And note the tactics of both sides, and then decide for yourself which side is logical, which side is scientific-based, and more importantly which side is right. And it isn't the pro-global warming caused by humans' side.

Vincet Veritas, MEB