I’d like to take this opportunity to respond to Dr. Paez’ response to my response to his article on Global Warming. My attempt was to show that selectively choosing points which supposedly support the denial of Global Warming only serves to distort the real science. My purpose was to show that his comments are neither scientifically nor completely factual, e.g. his reference to the Himalayan glacial meltdown. So some of his statements concerning my intolerance, vacillation, politics, and consistency cannot go unchallenged.
Nowhere in my response did I “inject” politics into the discussion.” I am politically independent disdaining both political parties and even began my article by stating that I agreed with Dr. Paez that politics should play no role in science. I am an avid skeptic on many things I read and hear, questioning anything that appears illogical or suspicious. I do not adhere to the belief that Global Warming/ Climate Change is solely manmade nor did I so indicate in my response. But human activities have had a hand in the process by, among other things, polluting the atmosphere with excess greenhouse gasses over and above the natural process. Climate change is a phenomenon of Earth’s natural geological history for millions of years, a fact which cannot be denied and has been revealed by an overwhelming amount of observable and experimental evidence; we are experiencing it today; but to what extent is debatable.
I did not link Dr. Giaever to any conservative think tanks since it was his choice to become a member of the two mentioned in my response; he linked himself. As for the IPCC they are not the primary players in GW/CC, but a part of a whole and I did not come to the conclusion that there has been no rigging of their data. What I wrote was that many investigations were conducted by independent investigators, institutions and hundreds of individual experts into the allegations. They, not I, came to the conclusion. As for cosmic radiation influencing GW/CC I must, again, write that only laboratory experiments have shown cloud formation due to cosmic ions. There is no evidence of any “huge influence” on atmospheric clouds due to cosmic radiation; no matter what Earth’s position in our galaxy. As for Mars and other planets’ global warming, again the mere fact that these planets are so different from Earth begs the question.
Yes, I understood Dr. Paez’ reference to rising sea levels and decreasing rotational speed. But to write that scientists are not allowed to view proof of same seemed a bit off. At least in my readings I have not, at this point in time, come across any such informa- tion. As for hurricanes my point was to show that the Pacific and Indian Oceans, contrary to Dr. Paez’ views, are not “relatively quiet” as compared to the Atlantic. They are, in fact, more violent regarding hurricanes than the Atlantic Ocean and yes, hurricane activity has been declining, but whatever the number of hurricanes, the Pacific/Indian Ocean area will have more violent ones. This is a fact of the regions’ climatology. And, by the way, fluctuations in energy activities of hurricanes, among other seemingly contradictive phenomenon, would be expected due to a warming climate.
Lastly, contrary to Dr. Paez’ comments, I am in no way influenced by “filtered” editorials of the NY Times (I do not read it) and ABC news. But I cannot testify as to Dr. Paez being influenced by filtered commentaries by Fox News or Limbaugh/Hannity, et.al.
As for science news, when I get a chance or I know of some article that would interest me, I do read a number of science magazines on the physical and natural sciences. I have no trouble understanding data and graph patterns (for some 32 years I taught my classes how to gather data and construct graphs) and I am certainly in no way subjective when it comes to science or any other topic, but I am skeptical when the information appears biased and/or illogical.