quantities of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere are the cause of global warming.

Incorrect. Carbon Dioxide cannot cause the globe to warm. Carbon Dioxide is matter. It is not energy. It does not introduce energy into the system. It does not cause temperatures to increase. It is an atmospheric insulator. It absorbs radiation from the sun, or in other terms, it prevents solar radiation from escaping the atmosphere. It does not cause radiation from the sun. It does not introduce into the environment new radiation. It, in and of itself will not increase temperature. No research as declared as much. The increase in radiant temperature is a result of solar energy. The debate is a matter of more carbon based insulators trapping that energy with in the atmosphere. And from here, how are the majority of these insulating gases being created, human or natural? The overall debate is one in which a scientist must conclude that the most insulating gases are man made and that this is what sustains high temperatures on the surface of this planet. That science is still up for debate. And as a note it must be acknowledged that hydrogen dioxide is the highest radiant energy insulator in the atmosphere. Higher than all carbon based insulators. Secondly, based on the work of Nobel laureate, Dr. Rowland, temperature increases precede increases in “green house” gases. This is very different than the assumption that an increase in “green house” gases precedes temperature increases.

A minority, however, is skeptical
Actually this is not true. No official tally has been conducted, but from my experience in my field of science, the number is 50/50 if not slightly leaning towards “skepticism.”

If the evidence indicates that global warming is progressive, is caused principally by our industrial processes, and will probably cause disastrous changes in our atmosphere before the end of the twenty-first century, then we do not have the time to verify precisely if this evidence is reliable.

This, in and of itself, is a reason to be skeptical. If a person were to knock on your door and say, “The world will end unless you buy my sweater. There is no time to test my accusation. By the time you get the test results back, the world will be over. Just buy my sweater now and save the planet” you would be within your right and reason to question his assertion.

It cracks me up that Al Gore must see himself as a modern day Noah. Unfortunately he is building no ark to back up his claim. His life style leaves a larger carbon foot print than some countries.

It is true that a majority of the scientists who study climatic tendencies in our atmosphere have arrived at the conclusion that the world’s climate is changing, and they have convinced a group of politicians, some of whom are politically powerful, of the truth of their conclusions.

A minority, however, is skeptical. Some believe that recent data that suggest that the average temperature of the atmosphere is going up can be explained by natural variations in solar radiation and that global warming is a temporary phenomenon. Others believe that the historical evidence indicating that the temperature of the atmosphere is going up at a dangerous rate is simply not reliable.

Such lacks of agreement are common in the sciences. They are reduced and eventually eliminated with the accumulation of new evidence and of more refined theories or even by completely new ones. Such debates can persist for a period of decades. Academics often throw invective at one another in these debates. But typically this does not mean much.

But the case of climate change is different. If the evidence indicates that global warming is progressive, is caused principally by our industrial processes, and will probably cause disastrous changes in our atmosphere before the end of the twenty-first century, then we do not have the time to verify precisely if this evidence is reliable. Such a process would be a question of many years of new investigations. And if the alarmist climatologists are right, such a delay would be tragic for all humanity.

The difficulty is that economic and climatologic systems are very complicated. They are not like celestial mechanics, which involves only the interaction of gravity and centrifugal force, and efforts to construct computerized models to describe these complicated systems simply cannot include all the factors that are influential in the evolution of these complicated systems.

All this does not necessarily indicate that the alarmist climatologists are not right. But it really means that if global warming is occurring, we cannot know exactly what will be the average temperature of our atmosphere in the year 2100 and what will be the average sea level of the world’s ocean in that year.

It also means that we cannot be confident that efforts by the industrialized countries to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will have a significant influence on the evolution of the world’s climate.

Alas, the reduction of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere would be very costly and would greatly change the lives of all the inhabitants of our planet–with the possibility (perhaps even the probability!) that all these efforts will be completely useless.

Harleigh Kyson Jr.

Add these folks to the gaggle of scam artists and opportunists who see the potential for serious money by fanning the hysteria of “earth’s destruction”, and honest scientific research and debate about “climate change” and its effects has been relegated to a precarious backseat.

How unfortunate, since such a subject should be the focus of reliable exploration and apart from the base politics and avarice that now seem to characterize it.