Smart Student At LSU

Global Warming is a controversy in itself

Letter to the Editor

By Geography sophomore, Bryant Garcin

With all the worry about global warming and what might happen to the earth if the temperature rises one degree or so, we need to step back and have both sides of the argument present data so we, as a society, can accurately determine if the use of greenhouse gases is actually causing global warming.

Having one side of the argument dominating the rhetoric needs to change because both sides need to be able to present their point of view.

Having clear and accurate information about the truth behind global warming needs to be stated so we, as a society, can make an accurate decision and determine whether we as a society want to go “green” or continue the life that we have.

Although protecting the environment is very important and the environment needs to be protected for future generations, I question whether some extreme techniques in protecting the environment along with combating global warming is worth it until we get information that is not manipulated and both sides agree on the merit of the information.

Having a continuous debate with no clear answer and when one side of the argument is completely shut out in discussions about global warming, I believe we need to step back and analyze the information we have to determine if global warming is natural or caused by greenhouse gases.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Smart Student At LSU

  1. Charles Higley says:

    First, there is no debate when one side (AGW) does not have a real defensible position.

    Second, presenting the real science of both sides would be the ideal resolution of the “debate,” but that is the last thing the warmists want. They know that they could not and would not win a comparison of their junk science with real science. Why else would Al(icia) Gore refuse to debate anybody on the merits of the science? It’s just too easy to show how ALL of his claims derive from fraudulent, altered, or incomplete data, misrepresented concepts, and false assumptions.

    Third, if warmists had to stick to the real science and real world observations, they could not run around making absolutely absurd and stupid comments about apocalypse wot alarm the public and further their agenda. They can simply ignore all inconvenient data and observations and go on faith that warming is real.

    Unfortunately, the urge to support a wealthy agenda (lots of government funding) leads some organizations and researchers to get onboard with the warmists, even when doing so hands away their integrity and credibility.

    As an example of the corrupting effect of global warming-biased funding we have a recent WHO report. The WHO takes death numbers from various causes around the world and simply makes fractional attribution to global warming essentially out of thin air. They then tout these alarming numbers as fact. Of course, they operate from total (purposeful?) ignorance as they never checked to see if we are even warming. After all the famous (sadly so), super-honest (not even close), super-scientific (even farther from close) IPCC says we are warming, so it must be true.

    [The assumption of ongoing warming is a key error is numerous reports on the effects of (assumed) global warming. The authors do not check for themselves if warming is actually happening (or maybe they do not want to know). They see a population change or such and attribute it to warming without checking.]

    As we are cooling, and have been for 15 years, the WHO report HAS TO BE completely false. How is it that these people still have jobs? Lying at this level should be prosecutable and involve prison time.

    • suyts says:

      Agreed, the harm these people are doing is indefensible. I’ve looked, but I haven’t found one documented death attributed to “climate change” or “global warming”.

      On an aside, playing with NOAA’s graphing thingy, I find the U.S.’s temp history interesting. Sadly, this is only the U.S.’s, but nonetheless, ……
      use last 15 yrs., (from 1996) to present……..

  2. Mike Davis says:

    You are right! There is nothing to debate! There is no science to support the claims that warming is happening on a global scale! There is no science to support that any weather variations are out side of natural variations! There is no science to support CO2 causes warming!

  3. Dave G says:

    OMG, is there alittle hope? Maybe it will take a few phone calls from kids to parents “can you help me pay for my frozen pipes” I didn’t expect this? It’s suppose to be WARMING!! The rolling blackouts in Texas is a good example

  4. Andy Weiss says:

    We haven’t drank the Kool Aide, but young people have had it forced fed in large quantities. Some deprograming in necessary and an open debate would be a good step in that direction.

  5. This kid should be Obama’s new science adviser. James Holdren, Obama’s current science adviser, says that the only problem with AGW is that skeptics need to be “educated.”

  6. Philip Finck says:

    RE: NOAA’s graphing.

    When ever I see temperature graphs there is a linear regression 0ver the entire length of the data set. Then a `representative’ or arbitrary time interval is picked and the average temperature of the interval is chosen as the zero point. Then departures, either +ve or -ve are calculated. The departures invariably show more +’ve values in recent years and more -ve values in the older part of the data series. It is a foregone conclusion based on that methodology.

    Now this is done because it is ASSUMED that the long term linear trend in the temperatures represents the global warming signal due to increasing GHG’s over time. However, as has been pointed out many times, the actual increase in CO2 in the earlier part of the century is pretty small for the observed magnatude of warming across that interval of time. Paradoxically (sp), the amount of observed warming in the later part of the data set is minascule compared to the large increase in CO2 and in particular over the last 15 years.

    So what could this mean? First it challenges the theory that CO2 and other GHG’s are the main driver of temperature change. Equally interesting, by assuming that the linear temperature trend represents GHG’s, it makes the delta T plots a foregone conclusion which are then used, in a totally circular arguement, to say see, as GHG’s goes up so to does temperature.

    A better idea, in my own opinion, is not to make the assumption as it drives all of the further analysis and conclusions. In science, the less assumptions made is always better as an assumption will clearly affect the outcome or even predetermine the outcome. Replot the temperature data with respect to the corresponding linear temperature for each measurement, -ve or -ve. At the very least you would see a graphical representation of temperature variability around the linear projection, and common theory suggests that there should be more and more weather extremes as time progresses. That should be mirrored in the delta T plot normalized against the linear regression values.

    An alternative interpretation would be that the long term linear trend represents century scale climatic variation, and that any global warming signal caused by GGH’s would be represented by the residuals derived against the long term linear regression.

    An even better interpretation might come from doing this procedure using a polynomial fit as there is no reason to assume that temperature change on a century scale is linear, quite the opposite.

    Of course I don’t know what the result would look like so I am not making this suggestion knowing the outcome…….. unlike using the common method.

    I’m sure this has been done and plots are available? I just don’t recall seeing it.
    Anyone got references to publications where this has been done? Or a reason why it is invalid?

  7. MikeTheDenier says:

    This poor kid will probably get run off campus and be the target of horrible ridiule.

  8. Philip V says:

    CO2 does not drive heat, heat drives CO2. The rise in Co2 follows the rise in heat by about 800 years. 800 years ago we were going into the Medieval warm period and the temp was going up. (See the ice core, silt, and tree ring studies). If heat drives CO2 and not the other way around then the argument is over, you can not repeal the law of Physics. Point , Set, Match, and game over.

  9. NoMoreGore says:

    After 2012 elections, we need to purge all zealots. Taxpayers shouldn’t be paying for Tarot Card readers and Shaman.

  10. Trucker Bob says:

    Althoug his posting has only received two comments, his little letter seems to have him offside with fellow students.

    Fri Feb 11 2011 10:35
    For scientists, there is no controversy. 99% of climatologists agree that global warming is man made. Asking society to “accurately determine if the use of greenhouse gases is actually causing global warming” is essentially asking society to ignore the massive amount of evidence that scientists have accumulated and question their findings. NASA, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and many other organizations agree that global warming is man made, saying that there is “more than 90 percent probability that human activities over the past 250 years have warmed our planet.”

    For more info:
    Fri Feb 11 2011 10:10
    Keep learning, Bryant, because you’re clearly not getting it yet! You don’t even make a point in your letter – which side of the debate is “dominating the rhetoric”? You never tell us! You barely even make an argument, let alone back up any of your vague claims with facts. I give this letter an F+ PS: global warming is for real

    I really love their class, posting anonymously

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s