Global Warming Denial?

name = Mike
age = 51
citizen of = USA
Religious affiliation = None
Global Warming Input = After doing some initial research, I am convinced I need to do much more research. However, after even a small bit of investigation, I am finding credible scientific evidence of little Global Warming that can be scientifically, verifiably tied directly to an increase in CO2. Also, I find evidence of great numbers of highly respected scientists who do not support the notion of Global Warming as fact, but who believe there is a need for comparing computer modeling to actual measured data to come to reasonable scientific conclusions either supporting or refuting claims of Global Warming. In most cases, evidence does not support most claims of the Global Warming enthusiasts. Sounds like more open debate, with supporting evidence, needs to be put before the public. More facts, less hyperbole.

We responded:

Dear Mike,

Do you consider the State of NJ or the EPA as credible?

Or, how about the Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London?

In fact, all the evidence supplied under our "resources" section was reviewed by a credible scientist.

Please consider re-reading the research.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
help desk

ps I don't know of anyone that is a "Global Warming enthusiast." Do you?

Mike replied:

Personally, no, poor choice of words. Right about now a little spring warming would be welcome in Ohio though!

and

I admit I have just started doing my homework, and there is a tremendous amount more I need to research. Scientists can likely be found to take opposing positions on virtually any topic where hard scientific data is not conclusive and is open to interpretation and extrapolation. The evidence I've seen and heard from several sources leads me to be somewhat skeptical of Greenhouse gases being the primary source of Global Warming, but I prefer to examine all available info before coming to any conclusions. Sorry, way to wordy.

As for NJ and the EPA, what expertise in the science of climatology do they possess that would set them apart as more or less credible than other individual, group, or organization? I haven't seen a state or federal agency yet that isn't capable of making mistakes. Just my 2 cents worth.

We respond:
Heehe... that's kinda funny... that you are in Ohio... here is what a Dr. from Ohio State University says:

wasps in Canadian Arctic
potatoes in Greenland
mussels off Norway
grass in the Antarctic
glaciers visibly melting
ocean visibly rising

It was possible for me, until 2001 or so, to question if the world was warming due to human influences. Since then, the flood of data and research has convinced me that humanity is causing vast global changes, including a substantial contribution to global warming.

I try to remember that while the wealthy and the powerful debate, the land liquefies beneath villagers in Bangladesh

And, here is what I have to add:
About NJ and the EPA
You are correct. There is reason to question. For instance, you see the picture or the Statue of Liberty 'up to the armpit in water' on the NJ report. Did you notice Christine Todd-Whitman signed it?

After that President Bush made her head of the EPA... only to have her removed (after she raised her voice.)

Years later the EPA releases its first report on the matter... coincidentally the same day the Kyoto agreement goes into effect.

Soooo... I agree we should be skeptical of the US government. However, 141 other nations DID sign the Kyoto agreement... surely at least one other nation is credible?

But, if that isn't enough to convince you, how about these:

from the journal Nature --
human liability for global warming "could dwarf billion-dollar awards against tobacco companies."

from Tony Blair --
Anxiety that global warming's dire effects would arrive not just in his children's lifetime, but in his own, and would "radically alter human existence".

from the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA)
"The biggest survey to date of the Arctic climate, by 250 scientists."
"Arctic climate is now warming rapidly and much larger changes are projected"
"Polar bears are unlikely to survive as a species...."

from the Geological Society of London
"In a new study, scientists find that retreating glaciers in southern Alaska may be opening the way for future earthquakes."

from me
Credible scientist have told be to say goodbye to: polar bears, Argentina glaciers, the Coral on the Great Barrier Reef, Tasmanian Devils and the Bengal tiger to name a few... ALL as a result of humans and global warming.

Doesn't it make you sad that future generations won't get to see polar bears?

We could have prevented it.