Monday, March 19, 2007

Global Warming - A Different View

Those of you who know me know that I HATE politics. I am, however, fascinated in how ideals, whether from the left or right, are conveyed then twisted and molded to fit a certain political paradigm and that there are common everyday folks dumb enough to believe these edicts as the archetype of ultimate thinking.

Since we all hear about Global Warming through the media, which only provides the side of the argument that has "shock value" and thus higher ratings, I offer another side of this debate through this video.

Keep this in mind: I am a scientist so I look at science related topics with an unbiased eye. When I formulate a scientific hypothesis based on unbiased scientific data, the political ramifications of such a result don't even enter into the picture. For a more balanced perspective, I recently saw the Al Gore documentary. Again, I kept an open mind.

However, after close inspection, I found that Al Gore's documentary on Global Warming is filled with incomplete truths of it's own as illustrated in this video. In my opinion, this video gives the most scientific, unbiased look at Global Warming.

1 comment:

jonisverytall said...

I would like to suggest a book on Global Warming for your enjoyment and that of your readers. It is entitled, "Meltdown". With a subtite and an author that I can't remember, but it should not be difficult to find with a simple Amazon search. It looks critically at the "over-the-counter science" and the role the media has had in propogating a perceived "consensus" on this topic. It examines in detail the scientific studies that have been conducted and disects them to reveal substantial flaws and in some cases gaping holes. It attempts to be unbiased and look only at the facts; however, you may detect some anti-politician type sentiment throughout. It is published by a Libertarian group whose objective, they claim, is to bring truthfulness back to political policy making. I found it very intriguing and a worthwhile quick read to provide an alternative perspective on this politically charged topic. One example from the book illustrates how temperature samples that are being used by the NPCC are not weighted appropriately based on if they are "city" or "country" readings, instead being averaged together. When seperating these measurements, the author revealed that city temperatures are increasing substantially, while in many cases the temperatures from nearby country weather stations indicated no change and even a drop in average temperature. Perhaps you can inform us non-meterologists the phenomenom that explains this?