Climate Change

Been thinking about 'climate change' and 'global warming' or what is now in vogue, 'AGW' or Anthropogenic Global Warming. What ever the name, skeptics abound.

Days ago Drudge Report headlined PAPER: 'GLOBAL WARMING' BIGGEST SCIENCE SCANDAL EVER... with the link,http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/The-fiddling-with-temperature-…

Ok, lets take a look.

This report, more opinion piece, was presented by Christopher Booker, a British writer with a long history of published skepticism on AGW.

What is being said is that temperature data has been adjusted upwards to toe the global warming line.

That's fine, the man is entitled to his opinion, and he has facts to support it. Candidly, at one point in my life I probably shared his opinions. To a certain extent, I'm sure. Its said that a healthy mind is one that is open to change. I like to think I have a healthy brain, point in fact -- I have changed my position on AGW.

I'm not a skeptic.

Now with that being said, if the scientific community does an about face and declares that global warming is indeed a complete hoax, I'd have to seriously consider what they have to say.

So far, and in spite of these latest revelations presented in the link I provided, no one has come forth with a change of heart from the realm of professional scientists.

To be fair, I have found professionals who are skeptics. This one guy I looked into, Mr. Anthony Watts, runs a blog dedicated to his skepticism:http://wattsupwiththat.com/ .

He said, ‘In the business and trading world, people go to jail for such manipulations of data.’ This in regards to the above mentioned revelations in Mr. Booker's piece.

Not only has this guy voiced his opinion, but if his Wikipedia page is correct, he has even compelled scientists to review data he has had a problem with in the past. Yet still the scientific community continues to support AGW.

That's impressive for a guy without a degree in climate science, and I'm not trying to take anything away from him. But the reviews of the data, and in some cases he was vindicated -- there were errors, hasn't changed the minds of the professionals either.

I've said, I don't even know enough to know what I don't know, and that especially holds true for the weather. But I do know enough to rate scientists ahead of non scientists. To trust the scrutiny of peer review over the cacophony of comment sections.

To me, this is more an issue of jobs and economy, than trying to pinpoint what 'climate change' means empirically. Is it really colder? You decide.

Its a fact that the Chinese aren't dickering over climate change, they are aggressively pursuing green technology. State sponsored endeavors, of course. While in this country some reports state that the Senate has just now neared a filibuster proof pro-environmental coalition. It hasn't been tested yet, so its not certain that anything meaningful will be accomplished.

The implications of China leading the world in this sector should be alarming to us, to the U.S. They are not hung up on weather station data, that is for sure.