And here's a longer list of scientists on the opposing side
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming>
including Robert C. Balling, Jr., director of the Office of Climatology
and an associate professor of geography at Arizona State University...
It seems all is not settled between Arizona State and the University of
Arizona.
I like to consider myself a fan of the scientific method which to me
means that a theory must account for all the data points. It can't
ignore the outliers without thoroughly explaining them. To do so ain't
science in my book. One of the scientists mentioned here, Tim Patterson
paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in
Canada says: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and
Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2
levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million
years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period
in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could
anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2
levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
Now there's one of them pesky data point outliers. Who's burying their
head in the sand, I ask?
Chuck Norcutt
Johann Thorsson wrote:
> If anyone wants to learn about the current status of our knowledge from
> people who undeniably know what they are saying, then this link is a gold
> mine. Those who know this all and don't want to be mislead by contradicting
> or different information should probably not bother.
>
> http://podcasting.arizona.edu/globalclimatechange.html
>
> Johann, probably not an "actual scientists" (I am just ABT) but it is hard
> to disregard the people found in the url above.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|