Global Warming

Here is an article on global warming. Ok. There are many smarter people than I working on this issue, but I am, to be honest, reserving my judgement on it for now. And I'll give you a few reasons why later. disagreement.

The article is about a TV meteorologist who blogged suggesting that any TV forecaster who is skeptical about manmade global warming should lose their professional certification. Now I am a little concerned by this woman (and several others (on either side-but pro-global warming, in particular) in the past who seem to villify those who dare question the "facts".

As I said earlier, I am reserving my judgement about global warming as fact (much like evolution as fact-it can be disputed), and here are a few reasons. Now I must make a distinction: I am not talking simply about the earth warming up, but commenting on whether it is catastrophic, whether it is manmade, and whether we can do anything substantial to "fix" it.

1). I think Koukl has touched on something important when he says that the issue is not about the "facts" or research of science, but how they are interpreted. This rings similar to evolutionary debate. And like the evolutionary debate, some are trying to silence (name-call, discredit, etc) the skeptics or those who may interpret the data differently. This seems to be a problem, in my view.

2). Which leads me to the next reason: money. There is much more money for those who "believe" in man-made global warming than those who dare question this "inconvenient truth". I just read that some millionare is offering 20 million to any person or group who shows significant change decreasing global warming. How hard is it to find someone to finance a scientist following the data and coming up with a conclusion that global warming is not that big of a deal. That is not as catastrophic a story for news media. If it bleeds, it leads. I honestly think this money thing is one of the biggest motivators for scientists, politicians, et al to support global warming and one of my strongest reasons for my skepticism.

3). Some scientists suggest that there have been cyclical weather patterns for much of the earth's history. This includes multiple ice ages, thus multiple global rming ages, too. It seems hard to determine for sure that our current global warming is mostly a result of men when there weren't as many in the previous warmings.

4). this last one was kind of humorous. How is is that most weather people cannot make prediction for the next week with a super amount of accuracy, but we are to take as "gospel" what these climatologists suggest is going to happen 50 or 100 years from now?
And again, so what if they are wrong- they will have gotten all the money for research and whatever else and they'll be dead by the time we find out if it was really as catastrophic as some would like us to believe or just a normal cycle of an ever-changing climate.

And, folks, the money will have been spent. I wonder if the bottom line in this is the bottom line.

So, for now, I researve my final judgement on global warming, though I am leaning to the non-catastrophic version for now. there are many smart people on both sides, but I think I have given several good reasons why I am skeptical about global warming and how it is often portrayed. Time, I suppose, will tell. :-)

Derrick