Subscribe for 17¢ / day

I did agree with one thing in Ed Gulick's editorial on Montana coal:"Global climate change. This subject has become politicized." He goes on to say that "some corporate interests (are) pouring in millions of dollars to confuse and deceive the public and politicians." How is that different from our federal government pouring in billions of our taxpayer dollars to fund research supporting anthropological (manmade) global warming (AGW)? Try to get a federal grant (no matter how valid the premise) to debunk AGW.

I have a degree in physics and have spent many hours reading papers related to AGW research and have yet to find convincing scientific evidence that AGW is real. What I see in the scientific community is disagreement over how to interpret the existing data. Many computer models have been developed to predict future climate. Computer models are only as good as the algorithm on which they are operating. Many variables must be considered when developing the algorithm to predict future climate. "Tweaking" a variable can make a significant difference in the outcome (remember Climategate?).

Gulick references a Jan. 9 Gazette article featuring politically conservative scientists who had accepted "the broad scientific consensus on" AGW. The article featured Dr. Kerry Emanuel, a MIT climatologist who had changed his mind about AGW. An even better known MIT climatologist, Dr. Richard Lindzen, commented about his friend and colleague to the Boston Globe: Emanuel "would tell me that he really felt that it would be a mistake not to take advantage of the issue ... there is funding ... it could benefit the department." 

Joe Fowler

Subscribe to Breaking News

* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.

Roberts

Subscribe to Breaking News

* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.
0
0
0
0
0

Tags