Dedicated to the balanced discussion of global warming
carbon offset / trading greenhouse kyoto climate model Inconvenient Truth bio fuel ipcc Glacier

* Dedicated to the balanced discussion of global warming

While I know that “balanced” is something that Fox News has perverted to mean “balanced from our point of view”, I really do intend to discuss all aspects of global warming on these pages.

The controversy over global warming is very intriguing to me. My basic tenet on this subject is that we do not know enough about weather and its history to make an accurate conclusion. In my opinion, global warming is an opinion (or more accurately: a hypothesis). Several scientists have formed the hypothesis that the globe is getting warmer and it is now up to the rest of the scientific community to validate or invalidate that hypothesis.

Interestingly, a second hypothesis has been formed based on the first hypothesis. This is almost always a bad thing but I don’t want to argue that point here. This second hypothesis assumes that the globe is warming and then assumes that the cause of this warming is human activity. I don’t know if this hypothesis is true either – I am still working on the first one!

To really compound the complexity of this issue, a third hypothesis has been formed. This third hypothesis is that the cause of global warming (first hypothesis) is caused by humans (second hypothesis) putting too much carbon dioxide into the air (third hypothesis). Having 3 stacked up hypotheses makes this a very complicated discussion. Most people have leaped to this third hypothesis because there is more CO2 in the air than we think was in the air a few decades ago. If this is true, it may be a leap of cause and effect analysis to say that man-made CO2 causes global warming (essentially wrapping up all three hypotheses into one small bundle).

The global warming conversation gets even more complicated when you include politics, economics, greed, and the self interests of the various governments, NGOs and companies. I am a fairly skeptical person so I question everyone’s self interest on this subject. I think that there is too much that is not understood on this subject so if someone has a strong feeling one way or another then they are either a lot smarter than me, a lot dumber than me, a lot more conniving than me, or some combination of the above.

I believe that many people are under-educated on this topic and should spend time researching it. I also believe that there are some people in this world that see global warming as a way to create more wealth and power for themselves. I also contend that there are people that don’t care about global warming as an issue but have found that it sells well, and therefore espouse it in books, periodicals, talk shows, TV shows, and movies.

This blog will try to balance all of the information on the subject. You will see that the categories are basically warmer, not warmer, or science (with the occasional ridiculous thrown in, just to have some fun). I will also have a few items that don’t fit into categories and these tend to be political. The format for the blog is a little bit of comment from me and then some excerpts from a somewhat credible source (you be the judge on its credibility). You can assume that the excerpts are not contiguous paragraphs and that I may have taken some things out of context but I try not to deceive. My goal is to help educate people that still want to be educated and to drive discussion on the 3 hypotheses above. I encourage you to follow these links to the original content and read the full reference.

12 Responses to “* Dedicated to the balanced discussion of global warming”

  1. Yea i think G.W isnt a myth at all i think its reall but sumtimesz i think itsz a myth

  2. LISTEN UP I WILL ONLY SAY THIS ONCE. There is “NO GLOBAL WARMING” not as stated by paid,grants and other off the wall want to make a name scientist. The views that the climate change is caused by automobiles and other gases dispersersed into the atmosphere is a “FARCE”. This is a ploy by AUTO makers and government officials to get your hard earned money. By buying more expensive auto’s and other manufactured goods which are suppose to help this global warming situation. The TRUTH is that the earth goes through a cycle every few thousand years of warmer and colder climate changes and we happen to be stuck in one of them. To listen to un-educated politicians and greedy manufactures is a DENT in your wallet and bank account. If all this is so then why haven’t they started producing and selling the auto’s that run on air, water,natural gases,electricity and cheaper fuels? Why? Because they want your money and to get it the SCARE tactics are needed and global warming is a good one.

  3. Sean,
    Thanks for visiting and commenting on my site (

    I guess, given the comment of Pete here, that the discussion is closed and it’s just a matter of car makers trying to sell more expensive cars (?) and the “paid, grants and other off the wall want to make a name scientist” (all one of them). Who’s going to feed the poor honest scientists that work for nothing? Pete? How about you?

    I think we need to at least begin with a well formed argument and go from there. There’s no need to be scared. There is a need to be informed and thoughtful.

    Well, Sean, I guess you’ve got your work cut out for you!

    Good luck.

  4. Whether it is right or wrong that man is causing global warming can anyone point me to the source data ? At a rough estimate there should be at least 10,000 stations monitoring temperatures and CO2 equivalent gas levels if the models are to mean anything. Even this is not really adequte for more than a finger in the wind certainty let alone a likely estimate. Just work out the spacing of the stations at this number if you are in any doubt.
    The results of any computer model worth a bean have to be compared with measured data but I cannot find this source data even at this modest level on the web. Are we believed to be below the intellect to assess actual data rather than rammed home propaganda?
    Mystified retired computer modeller.

  5. D Cage – check out and you will gain access to some of the public domain models and there are links there for the data as well.

    Also, read my post about another source of modeling.

  6. Regrettably these like all the other references I get pointed to are computer models. In any other branch of computer modelling these modes are compared against a set of results for actual measured data. This should include the location together with any relevant data of nearby inputs factors that could possibly distort the results of these measurements. This is the data I am seeking.
    To give an example in the field I am most familiar with.
    If we are to model the delay of a computer chip gate we measure some known ones together with the nearby capacitances and inductances at various temperatures and compare the results of the models with these reference values.
    It is the equivalent temperature and co2 measurement networks I am looking for the data from not any computer model as it is the quality of these models that I am trying to assess for myself.
    The main reason for this is that in the early sixties the anti acid rain cleanup scientists I met predicted an increase in global temperatures as a result of two main factors with a possible third that they did not know which way it would go.
    One that sulphur dioxide is an anti greenhouse gas, secondly that cleaner air changed the balance of day and night temperature also increasing the average and thirdly that the lack of particles in the air would alter cloud formation in a way they did not understand.
    Since at the time we were being scared by the threat of the next ice age no one was worried by this direction of change. They also beieved it would stabilise at its new level in about twenty five years.

  7. I am not aware of any source that will combine temperature measurements and the chemical concentration of the atmosphere at that location. You may want to look at Carbon Tracker to see if that helps you but I am suspicious that it won’t.

    I have talked about our lack of infrastructure to understand what is going on in our environment so many times on this site that my fingers hurt from typing it so much.

    I write about Carbon Tracker in two articles:

  8. So regrettably it looks more and more as if the reason I cannot find any data that is acquired on a more than it was conveniently handy from another project rather than collected to verify the data is that there is none. The data used seems to be very unprofessional and not one bit statistically sound as a basis for a scientific research project. To then use that as a basis for a policy that condemns many thousands of peolpe to an old age of cold and hunger for the good of the environment seems callous at best.
    As an exercise in statistics one lecturer on a course I attended made us produce a proof for the most ridiculous assumption we could find based on good statistical correlation. One student produced a sound statistical proof that AIDS was caused by driving a large popular 4X4, based on dealer sales and service data compared to the spread of AIDS in one region of Africa. So far global warming models are in the same league. Using non specific data, not gathered to study the proposition under study is of dubious value and without extreme caution yields spurious results.
    I stand by my original proposition that since we are subjected to huge levels of indoctrination about global warming but have to hunt for even a sub 12 year old level amount of raw data the proposition is in all probability invalid.
    Show me a search engine entry that will yield equal numbers of direct references to CO2 against temperature measurement projects and doom laden foreasts of global warming consequences and I may have more confidence in the integrity of both the scientists involved and the government leaders.

  9. What is a climatologist? A glorified meteorologist? We can’t hardly predict weather with all the sophisticated radars and complex computer models; so what makes us think we can begin to understand, much less predict, what is going or not going to happen concerning climate change. I saw a spin on the History channel (pro climate change-AKA global warming) that stated 3 things were for certain and agreed by leading climate scientist and world bodies. 1) Climate Change is real 2) It is caused by man & 3) It will be catastrophic to man I provide a solution 1) let the catastrophe happen, which could wipe out man. 2) This will effectively eliminate both 1 & 2 above; therefore we saved the planet.

  10. […] * Dedicated to the balanced discussion of global warming […]

  11. Global warming is becoming such an obvious problem that someone somewhere other than the US Preisdent needs to step up to help drive the bus!

  12. @Beautiful girls gallery

    That is such a stupid comment. It’s people like you who will believe anything the media says.

    I’m not even going to start tearing into it, it’s just that narrow minded it’s not funny.

Leave a Reply