|
|  |
|
|
|
| |
| Jan 18, 2010 7:09 pm |
|
re: The Reality of Climate Change |
Thomas Holford
| |
> I was somewhat distressed leading up to COP15, at the misuse of this open forum, to support a propaganda effort to discredit the strong science behind climate change.
> . . . I'm not going to permit that to happen again.
> Essentially YOU, need to state your OWN personal point of view. To put your reputation on the line.
Hello. My name is Thomas G. Holford. And I am a Climate Change Skeptic.
I have a Bachelors Degree in Chemistry from Northwestern University, and I have completed graduate coursework in Chemistry at the California Institute of Technology. I have co-authored scientific research papers that have appeard in peer reviewed scientific journals.
> Then if you want to add supporting evidence from some source, by all means do so.
I have an extensive personal library of books and articles relating to global warming, I have compiled an extensive reading list of additional books on global warming (available on Amazon.com), and I have a vast number of links to websites and discussion lists that address global warming.
> I'm totally convinced that the anti-climate change propaganda we have recently been subjected to is malicious, dishonest, and destructive of both the environment and in the longer run the economy.
Could you please specify acceptable format and content for "anti-climate change propaganda" that you would deem to NOT be "malicious, dishonest, and destructive of both the envirnoment and . . . the economy".
OPENING STATEMENT on "The Reality of Climate Change"
No one disputes "the reality of climate change". The earth's climate is dynamic and has been continually changing over it's entire history. The same is true of other planets as well.
The essential issue, from my perspective, is: To what extent does human activity cause irreversible long team changes to the earth's climate.
And my answer is: as a practical matter, the effect of human activity on earth's climite is negligible.
The fact that local climatic effects, as a consequence of human activity, can be detected and measured does NOT prove that human caused climatic effects are significant. It only proves that detection and measurement techniques are highly sensitive, and that large, complex systems such as earth's climate can be perturbed from a stable state and require a finite time to return to stability.
> Even if the science was proven wrong in some way, the sorts of things humanity needs to do to adapt to climate change are things that are worthwhile anyway.
A. Many specific claims and assertions fo those advocating "human caused globally warming" have fail to be supported with a high degree of scientific confidence.
B. Humanity already knows who to adapt to changing environmental and climatic conditions, and has been doing so over its entire history.
> Here's little story about science getting it wrong.
Scientists DO get it wrong. It is my belief that the leading proponents of the theory of human caused global warming -- James Hansen, Michael Mann, Al Gore -- have gotten it wrong.
YOUR TURN
Please cite what you believe to be "the strong science behind climate change."
Keep in mind, the issue is NOT "climate change" per se, but the significance of human activity in causing permanent, irreversible GLOBAL WARMING.
T. Holford
Private Reply to Thomas Holford (new win) |
|
| |
|
