Coral - March/April 2010

The two paragraphs from the article relevent to
Will’s quote are quoted here:
“Such forecasts must be qualified in two ways. First,
they apply only to the natural component of future
climatic trends—and not to anthropogenic effects such
as those due to the burning of fossil fuels. Second, they
describe only the long-term trends, because they are
linked to orbital variations with periods of 20,000
years and longer. ”
What the article showed, if it was actually read,
is that the scientific method works. Note the phrase,
So, Will was right, they did warn
about an ice age…over the long term
of 20,000 years, specifically exclud-
ing warming trends caused by hu-
mans. Well, even with our present
warming, we still may get an Ice Age
in 200 centuries.

validly on a number questions and topics, including some of the ecological aspects of global warming. However, if asked about the relative merits of the various theoretical formulations regarding black holes, I could respond, but you would be wise to listen skeptically.

CLIMATE VS. WEATHER

Then, there is the misconception of just exactly what is this thing called “climate,” and how changes in climate are manifested. There is a great deal of confusion about the difference between weather and climate. Probably the easiest way to look at this is to address the weather of the last couple of years in the good ol’ U.S. of A. The weather over a lot of the country was cooler in the last few years

FROZEN TROPICAL FISH FOOD SAN FRANCISCO BAY BRAND® NATURAL FORMULATED DIETS FROZEN TROPICAL FISH FOOD SAN FRANCISCO BAY BRAND® NATURAL FORMULATED DIETS

THANK YOU FOR SMOKING

The disinformation spread by Will and folks like him, is rather like the disinformation spread by the tobacco companies in the 1960s through the 1980s stating that, since the scientific studies involved with smoking and health effects were not experimental, but instead correlative, that they hadn’t proved that smoking caused cancer. In truth, that was true for some of the studies, but correlative research can prove things when it is coupled with sufficient ancillary information and research filling in all the causative blanks. The evidence, of course, became overwhelming and the tobacco firms finally capitulated.

Additionally, there are indeed scientists who profess not to accept the global warming scenarios. It is worth it for the reader to examine them to see who pays their bills and who their employers are. Similarly, it is well worth investigating their areas of expertise. Obviously, not every scientist can comment with any degree of authority on all fields of science.