One is a Meteorologist and the other a Geologist and Professor at a California University... their e-mails got to me a bit late to include in all the other topics but because they went to the trouble, thought I'd put em up... One guy addresses the "bitter partisanship in government" to which I have alluded before this, rather than combined study efforts.
Quote has been trimmed
Global warming argument bogus
The global warming debate is not about temperature. Climate always changes. Every 10 years, new statistics are generated for all U.S. cities based on the most recent 30 years of date.
The global warming debate is not about sober scientific understanding.
In the really big picture (eons of time), we only have a few moments of reliable standardized temperature statistics from which to draw relationships and mark trends. Paleoclimatological temperature data is indirectly inferred; modern comparisons do not conclusively prove anything.
The global warming debate is not about finding solutions to problems.
Anthropogenic warming proponents have already decided what the solutions are and are working backward to identify the problems.
No, in fact the great debate isn't a debate at all. It is a pronouncement; a declaration, a one-sided assumption that the world will agree with their fact-finding. Those who disagree with the fundamental theory of a looming manmade global warming catastrophe are subject to shame. They are called names, minimized and treated with d i s g u s t. Dr. Heidi Cullen of the Weather Channel would strip me of my CBM (certified broadcast meteorologist) status because of my opinion.
How did we get to this point where civility in a scientific discourse was so rashly abandoned? It is like the bitter partisanship in government today. Where did this rabid...