* About the author

I am not a meteorologist. I am educated as an engineer but I am currently a salesperson for a major software vendor. Since I am an engineer by training, I have a fairly good understanding of science and scientific methodology, which is my focus for this blog.

I hope you enjoy reading these posts and I hope that you return often. If you run a blog or website, feel free to link to this site or one of its articles.


PS I have another web site for a book that I started but never quite finished. If your job is to help your employer gain more revenue or market share (i.e. sales and marketing), please stop by my site on that topic http://www.thetrapper.com.

Please put any comments you would like to be public below. If you would like to write to me directly, use my Yahoo.com address which is soshaughnessey@ (you can fill in the rest by typing Yahoo and then adding .com).


  • Jim Clarke says:


    Keep up the good work! I am a meteorologist and have been following the debate for about 20 years. I have been skeptical of an impending AGW crisis for the last 17 years; an opinion strictly based on the available science and my on world view.
    I pay little attention to the media, advocacy groups and/or politicians.

    I have thought about creating a website not unlike this one, but my web skills are rudimentary. How much time do you devote to your site and your study of AGW? My wife feels I spend too much time on the subject already :-).

    Again, keep up the good work!

    Jim Clarke

  • Eddie john Cowper says:

    I enjoyed the read. thanks.

  • Tom George says:

    Thank you for your work. I have a website where I give both sides of the story for flat earth or round. It is such ‘balanced’ discussion as ours that truly leads mankind forward.

  • Jesse N. says:

    A section in your site that shows original research (Graphs, stats, results, etc.) might be very useful in such a debate. I’ve spent some very limited time looking for research on ice core sampling, sources of CO2, solar activity and such but at this point I just don’t have the time.

  • Dr. J says:

    As a paleoclimatologist I greatly appreciate your site, I just wish more sceintists would have similar ones to counteract the bias of the realclimate ones out there. However, as you may know in academia these days unless you have drunk the Kool-Aid on AGW being a fact and worshipping at the feet of the UN, very little open scientific debate and discussion is allowed.

  • admin says:

    Dr. J – Thank you for your kind words of encouragement. Let us hope that academia will once again allow true scientific debate to flourish on this subject. I typically believe that a centrist viewpoint in all things will win out in the end. Extremism is almost always a bad avenue to take.

  • Peter Ravenscroft says:

    Hi Sean,

    Superb site. Thanks, on behalf of one and all. It is good to see a sceptical commercial and engineering slant on the current great debate.

    I suspect we do not yet quite understand the entire natural world. So, maybe we are not controlling the global climate with our tailpipe emissions. Maybe it is just happening, see past ice ages and interglacials.

    We need to scratch our heads a bit before we jump. Sure, we should go for solar and stop wasting global resouirces, but maybe tree or fish or plankton loss are more important than carbon dioxide emissions. And maybe we should curb our numbers and all work softer. Etc.

    Keep going, mate.

    Peter Ravenscroft.

    Closeburn, Queensland, Australia.

  • George M. says:

    Hi Sean,

    you’ve got a really fantastic and informative blog,a pleasure to read! Keep up the good work 🙂
    Hope we can stop global warming (although i don’t beleive we have much time available…)

    Btw,thanks a lot for dropping by and commenting my little blog,but mostly for letting me know your site – i’ve put your site in my blogroll with great pleasure!

    All the best!

    George M.

  • admin says:

    Thank you George. I appreciate your praise.

  • C.J. Cota says:

    Hi Sean, I am a history buff and would like to share this bit of California History with you; I am sure it probably applied to all of the West Coast. Before the 1860’s the Californiano economy was based on agriculture with a large part of it composed of ranching. Beef and the sale of cattle hides was a main stay of the Southern California economy; that was well before grapes, oranges and other citrus fruits were introduced. In about 1865 a terrible drought took hold of the the State. Ranchers along the coast, what is now Orange County because of lack of water, were forced to drive their herds of cattle over the clifts into the Pacific Ocean so that they wouldn’t die on land and add to the loss by causing disease to the people. However on old German immigratt rancher bought a parcel of land in Thousand Palms Oasis east of Palm Springs, from a Civil War Veteran ( it is on record that he traded him a team of mules and a buckboard for some 25 acres, including the Oasis which included a spring that had been created by the San Andreas Fault (Who said earthquakes aren’t good?) and then drove his cattle over the mountains, (Now the Cleveland National Forest) to the oasis and water. He lost about half of his cattle, but that left him with 100% more than if he had driven them over the clifts at Dana Point. Following that almost a century later, in 1941 (That was the year I was born, so I cant’t remember that but I sometimes beleive what the meteorologists print – but not always!)California experianced the wettest year since records have been kept, and that was in this century. The only thing better than this historical story is Mule Train! as sung by the late Frankie Laine! But I think he was probably too young to be the Cilvil War Vet. Chuck

  • Nick says:

    The AGW position is this.

    Around 1950, there was suffient anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere to start producing warming. The statistical test that is used to so look at the rise post 1950, and compare that against the 1950 temperatures along with the variation in observed temperatures. The confidence level quoted is around 90%

    Now I think there is a hidden assumption buried in there. The main one being that temperatures in 1950 were trending sideways.

    Its clearly a false assumption, because temperatures had been rising since the mid 19th century.

    The real test should be to extrapolate the previous trend and test this against the actual temperatures. From eyeballing the graphs, this doesn’t give any evidence for a human impact.

    The alternative, is that the GW advocates produce evidence that whatever was warming the climate before, has stopped.

    I’ve not seen any details on either of these tests

  • Tom Kiser says:


    Global warming from what assumed temperatures?

    What is the baseline average temperature that is being assumed for the surface of the Earth if there was no atmosphere, thus no greenhouse effect of any kind?

    What is the baseline average temperature that is being assumed for the surface of the Earth if there was no Sun and the nearest “sun” was more than four light years distance from the Earth?

    It seems that those are the two must fundamental factors that anyone would need to know before beginning to assess the temperature difference that is being caused by the insolation energy from the Sun and then the greenhouse warming that would be riding on top of that baseline temperature.

    I have been unable to find even a hint that these two baseline temperatures are considered relevant.

    Or have I gone adrift by suggesting that there need to be natural standards to which the variables can be referenced if they are to be quantified and understood?

  • Leigh Bettenay says:

    Thanks for maintaining a very interesting site.

    As a geologist of more than 30 years practise, I have often been bemused as to how categorically we appear to be able to state the case for a fear of global warming, while at the same time being unable to reliably predict the weather in the next week. my position is concerned but not alarmed, and I wish I had time to become more informed.

    I do think there is room for being cautious about the possible effects that the earths burgeoning polulation and rapidly increasing urbainzed societies may have on all types of pollution, including atmospheric carbon. Further, I do NOT think that there is ANY dispute amongst informed scientists that the Earth is currently in a warming cycle. The issue is whether this has a signifant anthropogenic component of cause and, if so, what risk it has for us as a civilization.

    The recent article by Robinson et al 2007 puts a strong and scientific case that there is an anthropogenic increase in CO2 emissions, but that this has no measurable effect on any of the variables used to monitor climatic change. I will look with interest to see how this is evaluated by those scientists who support anthropogenic warming.

  • Hallo thanks for your concern about global warming ! iam an inventor of the electric car, lives in india. my concern is, no one willing to sponsor to develop this vehicle. now petroleum products prices are high.. iam expecting the good car compnay that willing to develop my ideas in to reality GOD created this beautiful world please save this.. thanks from STAN

  • Paul Spite says:

    Dear Sean,

    Carbon emissions have no discernable effect on climate, but our gullibility nets promoters of this “crisis” billions per year. Meanwhile they change nothing of their own lifestyles, though they also live on the planet they claim we are destroying. Claiming to want to save us from our folly, they seek to strip away our freedoms while destroying our economy. While the climate itself mocks their so-called linkages, and our economy is already on the edge of collapse, a Democratic Congress is still pushing for carbon cap legislation. What will it take to bring this farce to an end?

    Your website leads me to believe we share the concerns about this attempt to sell out our country for profit and power. Would you help me promote a book I have written examining this hoax? It is intended to make readers angry over being played for patsies. If enough people read it, it would create a public backlash against that legislation, but through my own efforts, I have been unable to sufficiently publicize this work. Would you also pass this e-mail on to all your peers you think might agree and help?

    The book is entitled “A Climate Crisis a la Gore” and is organized as follows:

    • Introduction – the motivation behind the assembly of this information for public use.
    • Part 1 – Excerpted ideas from Mr. Gore’s book, The Assault on Reason. I use Mr. Gore’s own claims regarding the proper and reasonable way to enter an argument or evidence into the marketplace of ideas, the forum of reason, the real power behind democracy.
    • Part 2 – A claim by claim analysis of Mr. Gore’s documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. These are evaluated with simple logic, claims elsewhere in the documentary, Mr. Gore’s excerpted written principles of reasoning, and scientific research and findings regarding the subjects of his claims.
    • Part 3 – Discussion and disclosure of players and special interest groups creating the perception of a global climate crisis. The history of the movement is examined, motives behind involvement, dollar amounts of profit already being reaped by promoters, and what they stand to gain if America enacts carbon legislation.
    • Conclusion – The coming economic storm resulting from enacting this legislation and a plea to readers to contact legislators demanding such laws be reconsidered.

    Excerpts can be reviewed and the book ordered at Amazon.com by entering the title, ISBN# (978-1-4196-8684-9) or by following the link http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Crisis-Gore-perception-warming/dp/1419686844/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202424474&sr=8-1 If you are willing to inform your readers of its contents and availability, an informed (and angry) population of voters might be a real, and maybe the only, check and balance system capable of stopping Congress.


    Paul Spite

  • goodspkr says:

    I am also an engineer by degree although I haven’t done any in a while. I’m a business and motivational speaker now (hence the goodspkr name) and am putting together a program to go into the schools. It will be Political Science, the science and politics of global warming. So I’ve worked hard to understand the science behind this.

    I want kids to have some kind of understanding what people are talking about. And then show them how this is politized and how people can mislead you and yet still be telling the truth.

    My basic conclusion is that AGW as it is put forward by Al Gore and others it a congame.

    Certainly we are causing some increase in warming, but nothing that will cause major problems.

    It is my position that those who say we have no effect on the climate are missing the point perhaps not as much as those that say we are having a disastrous effect, but make their case weaker because a greenhouse gas will warm the planet.

  • Brent Hargreaves says:

    Hi there, and thank you for helping the AGW debate along.
    I’m a graduate engineer, and have made determined attempts to obtain the source data behind the AGW hypothesis. My current thinking is that the debate resembles a political or religious debate rather than a scientific exercise intended to confirm or refute the hypothesis. Doubt it and you’re a heretic!! I reckon that the AGW scare is just the latest incarnation of “apocalypticism”: mankind perversely needs to fear some great danger.
    To return to the subject of factual data, may I recommend an excellent paper by Swiss scientist Hanspeter Holzhauser entitled “Fluctuation of the Great Aletsch glacier during the last 3500 years.” Using a variety of methods, he has identified the advance and retreat of this glacier. It has been retreating since 1859/1860, the last peak.
    Roman ruins have been successively swallowed up and then “spat out” by this oscillating phenomenon.

  • Nice article! You can find all kinds of global warming statistics on our site.

  • stockbroker says:

    For a great narrative – see John Lawrence Allen – http://globalwarming-factorfiction.com

  • Tia says:

    Hi there, how’s it going? Just shared this post with a colleague,
    we had a good laugh.Great delivery. Solid arguments.
    Keep up the great effort.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *