Wednesday, October 7 , 2015, 10:08 am | Fair 67º

Harris Sherline: Is Climate Change Real?

By Harris Sherline, Noozhawk Columnist |

President Barack Obama showed that he has bought into global warming hysteria when he declared in his State of the Union address: “For the sake of our children and our future, we must do more to combat climate change.”

He is not alone.

A 2008 article in The Guardian reported that professor Wieslaw Maslowski of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey and his team produced a forecast “which indicated that by 2013 there will be no ice in the Arctic, other than a few outcrops on islands near Greenland and Canada, between mid-July and mid-September.”

Maslowski said, “The crucial point is that ice is clearly not building up enough over winter to restore cover and that when you combine current estimates of ice thickness with the extent of the ice cap, you get a very clear indication that the Arctic is going to be ice-free in summer in five years.”

The article also quoted professor Peter Wadhams of the University of Cambridge in Britain, who noted: “Now the most detailed computer models suggest the Arctic’s summer ice is going to last for only a few more years ... . However, arctic ice did not disappear last summer ... .”

In a Nov. 24, 2012, New York Times article, “Is This the End?” James Atlas commented, “We’d seen it before, the Piazza San Marco in Venice submerged by the acqua alta; New Orleans underwater in the aftermath of Katrina; the wreckage-strewn beaches of Indonesia left behind by the tsunami of 2004. We just hadn’t seen it here (last summer’s Hurricane Irene did a lot of damage on the East Coast, but New York City was spared the worst). ‘Fear death by water,’ T. S. Eliot intoned in The Waste Land, ‘We do now.”

Respected climate scientist Richard Lindzen, who is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said in remarks quoted by the Climate Depot website: “Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st-century developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.”

A March 2012 posting reported that “... global warming alarmists ... claim that man is causing climate change. Fact is, they’re not even close. ... Many climate scientists believe that emissions of greenhouse gases are heating the Earth. Of course there are some who don’t. ... But when confining the question to geoscientists and engineers, it turns out that only 36 percent believe that human activities are causing Earth’s climate to warm. ... Members of this group, not unexpectedly, ‘Express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.’ ... However, another group believe that climate science ‘is a fraud and hoax and that regulation is futile, useless and impossible.’”

In 2008, The Guardian reported that a poll of Brits found that the public was not “convinced that climate change is caused by humans — and many others believe scientists are exaggerating the problem. ... There is growing concern that an economic depression and rising fuel and food prices are denting public interest in environmental issues. Some environmentalists blame the public’s doubts on (the) Channel 4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, and on recent books, including one by Lord Lawson, the former chancellor, that question the consensus on climate change.

“Because of purported global warming, the world supposedly ‘suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s.’ The U.N. cited one unpublished study to prove this. When the research eventually was published in 2008 after the IPCC report was released, the authors backpedaled: ‘We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses.’

“Getting facts wrong and citing dubious sources isn’t the worst of it. Rajendra K. Pachauri, the U.N.‘s climate chief, remained silent when he knew information was false and denied he had been aware of the Himalayan glaciers error before the recent climate-change summit in Copenhagen, which made a big deal about this nonexistent crisis. He only grudgingly came partly clean when Pallava Bagla, a writer for the journal Science, pointed to email correspondence from last autumn showing Mr. Pachauri already knew of the fraud.”

A 2010 Washington Post editorial made the following observations, “Record snowfall illustrates the obvious: The global warming fraud is without equal in modern science. The fundamental problems exposed about climate-change theory undermine the very basis of scientific inquiry. Huge numbers of researchers refuse to provide their data to other scientists. Some referenced data is found not to have existed. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007 report that global warming activists continually cite invented a large number of purported facts.

“Man-made global warming theory isn’t backed up by science; it’s a hoax. The fact that the world has been asked to spend tens of trillions of dollars on global warming solutions without being able to evaluate the data upon which the claims were made should have been the first warning that something was seriously wrong. The public and world leaders have been sold expensive snake oil by charlatans like Mr. Pachauri. It’s time to admit it’s all baloney and move on.”

My own conclusion is that the Earth has been experiencing both warming and cooling cycles since the beginning of time. The problem is that it has become a convenient tool for politicians to raise money and disparage political opponents who dare to disagree with them.

— Harris Sherline is a retired CPA and former chairman and CEO of Santa Ynez Valley Hospital. Click here to read previous columns. The opinions expressed are his own.

comments powered by Disqus

» on 02.24.13 @ 09:06 AM

One need only look at shipping records from 1700-1800’s to see a shipping channel across the arctic from west to east to know this article is accurate. Conditions beyond man cause global climate change. As with space travel, we all benefit from new technologies brought about by efforts to learn and improve our knowledge and wisdom regarding our planet. God has placed the care for Earth and all God’s creatures in our hands.

» on 02.24.13 @ 11:36 AM

Climate scientist Richard Lindzen, of MIT, whom you quote, is employed as a very well-paid consultant by the oil and coal industry.  While climate warming deniers like Mr. Sherline like to quote him, his credibility is suspect and he is not joined in his views by a large majority of mainstream meteorologists and academics.

As for the 2010 Washington Post editorial Sherline quotes, since I am a regular reader of the Post, I knew that your quotation had to be bogus.  Its three editorials on climate change in 2010 all support the view of man-caused global warming and support federal policies to slow it.  I invite readers to google these editorials as well as Mr. Sherline’s other quotations, likely from other dubious sources that are not based on the evidence.

Mr. Sherline, if you want to contribute your views to the Noozhawk, please do your readers the favor of making them evidence-based.  We are not stupid.

» on 02.24.13 @ 12:18 PM

Stop the fear mongering!
Climate blame reporting has done to journalism what naughty priests did for religion.
Not one single IPCC warning ever said any crisis “WILL” or “would” happen, they only said it “might” happen and “could” happen and “likely” happen….Why did you ignore this fact you lazy copy and paste clowns of journalism?
If it were a real crisis the entire world of science would have said so by now and you so called “journalists” would have reported by now that all of the crisis warnings are qualified with “maybes”. Help my planet could be on fire maybe?
Science didn’t do the lying, it was you news editors.

» on 02.24.13 @ 12:33 PM

The big problem that is supposed to be the major problem is CO2. But CO2 makes up less than 0.05% of the earth’s atmosphere even at the current “problematic” level which is still well below historic levels.

Another fact about CO2 that seems to always be ignored is that plants grow because of CO2. So more CO2 is good for plants which produce the oxygen that we breathe. All the angst about “carbon” emissions, unless we’re talking about particulate matter and not CO2, is a bit misguided.

And the main greenhouse gas (over 95%) is…    plain old water vapor.

I recall that during the ‘70s these same climate scientists were predicting a new ice age was on the way. How did that prediction work out?

» on 02.24.13 @ 01:04 PM

I’ve read hundreds of pages of climate science over the years.  The headline of this article led me to wonder how anyone could still be so stupid as to think that anthropogenic global warming wasn’t real and wasn’t a serious problem.

Then I read the comments to this article, and I realize that humans in general are too stupid to deserve to survive the disaster of climate change.

Last year’s drought will lead to increased food prices.  The impact on livestock will take 12-18 months to be felt.  This summer is going to highlight water shortages in the southwest.

I no longer argue with global warming deniers.  In just a few more years the effects of global warming are going to be evident and will change the way we all live to a degree that no one can imagine now.

» on 02.24.13 @ 01:28 PM

It’s called “science,” Harris. And despite more than 100 million dollars invested in misinformation, scientists across the planet continue to investigate the climate system and, to the best of their ability, model it’s future changes. You can rant against their findings if you like. You can make your own conclusions, too. You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts.

» on 02.24.13 @ 01:30 PM

Mr. Sherline, the natural systems that govern our planetary climate do not care about your confused opinions based on biased fragments of information. Overwhelming scientific evidence shows that our fossil-fuel burning human civilization is causing rapid changes in the climate resulting in exponentially increasing negative effects on the web of life that sustains us. The question about climate change is not, is it happening, the real question is - what are we going to do about this existential danger?

» on 02.24.13 @ 01:36 PM

Good point Art. What started the “crisis” was the inference that a slight increase in a weak and very small amount of one green house gas (GHG), like CO2, would cause just enough temperature rise in addition to the already natural rise of the current warming cycle, to induce a runaway feed back loop in the predominant and strong GHG water vapor (WV). If WV were to run away then global temperatures would spiral up and cook the surface.

Unfortunately for big fat liar Al “I sold my soul for petrodollars” Gore and many in the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) religion that didn’t happen. In fact temperatures have leveled off the last ten years even as CO2 rises and water vapor levels are dropping.

What the models did not and really could not project or predict was the effect of CO2 increases on plant life. Plants love CO2 and use this gas in our atmosphere to combine with water to make sugar using solar radiation as the energy input. It is speculated, but not yet confirmed, that the incident drop in WV is responsible for the lower temperature and that this is due to its consumption by plants. However one would expect to also see an incidental drop in CO2 as well. The rise may be due to the human addition of CO2 beyond plants ability to use it though.

All this points to the vast ignorance we have of our plant and the various systems on it. It screams for more study, better science and less meddling by industries, governments, activists and other non scientists. We clearly don’t know enough to say what should be done and yet we, as Sherline points out, are willing to send the industrialized civilization back to the Stone Age, based on speculation.

We had as much CO2 in the atmosphere as we do today 15 million years ago and did not go into a WV feed back loop. We had considerably more CO2 during one of this planets most prolific life growing periods 500 million years ago and still did not bake the planet. Clearly life is performing some modification to the planets climate that we don’t understand.

Perhaps we ought to try and do a better job understanding before we discredit science altogether with wild speculation not backed by verifiable data.

» on 02.24.13 @ 01:59 PM

“Brother Stein,”

I have also read hundreds of pages of data and reports on this topic. And, although my degrees are in a different science than climate science, I am not as convinced as you are that what we are experiencing is abnormal in geologic history. [And although it has been a few years since I was last tested, my IQ was in the mid 140s, not exactly in the “stupid” (your word) range.]

BTW, why do you think that people that come up with different conclusions than you “are too stupid to deserve to survive?” That isn’t exactly a very open and scientific approach to debate.

» on 02.24.13 @ 02:36 PM

What, there’s “right-wing science” and “left-wing science”?

O.K. right wingers, take the lead from your Mr. Cheney, who proposed his “1 percent doctrine” (which he put forth to justify going after WMDs).  As applied to man-made global warming, it would posit: “if there’s a credible 1% chance that it is a reality, proceed to deal with it”.  Hell, even if it turns out to be a “hoax”, the measures likely to be employed would have great benefits anyway.

» on 02.24.13 @ 04:43 PM

Blah, blah, blah, there you go again Harris.  Quoting facts?

So why did you not quote the recent measures on ant-artic ice cap thickness?  After all it shows a huge increase in the amount of ice there.  Geez, get it right will you.

You did not mention the decades long increase in volcanic activity world wide that produces more “green house” gases than all the industrial activity of a single industrial nation in one month let alone the entire year.  Get it right will you.

Blah, blah, blah. 

The problem is you are talking rational thinking vs. emotional chicken little.  And yes, you do have it right.

» on 02.24.13 @ 05:26 PM

World population reached a billion in 1804.  In 2012 world population reached seven billion . The deniers tell us -” no problem.  We ‘re going to defund Planned Parenthood .”
We keep the wheels turning for those 7 billion mostly using carbon based fuels.
  “Now the combustion of these fuels produces 90 million tons of global-warming pollution every day that is dumped into the atmosphere as if it is an open sewer. That heat-trapping pollution captures enough extra energy inside the atmosphere to equal the energy of 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs being set off every single day.”
There are sinister forces out there spending huge sums of money to protect their dirty industries with large scale misinformation campaigns. Looks as though their sleazy tactics are paying dividends as evidenced by some of the comments supporting Sherline’s shortsighted commentary.

» on 02.24.13 @ 08:03 PM

Another way to look at the question is just to reverse it.

Is Harris Sherline “real”, or is he really just a collection of cherry-picked, inaccurate anecdotal pull-quotes compiled from Fox “News” and related Internet sites?

Ninety-eight percent of trained scientists working on climate change data from
across a wide variety of fields, across the entire world, agree that there is some
major shifts taking place, and that human-related activities like burning green-
house gases are probably involved.

Is that incontrovertible proof, or unanimous agreement? No.

But, if someone told Sherline, or Noozhawk readers, that there was a 98% chance of rain tomorrow, would you take an umbrella when you went out the

If someone told you that you had a 98% chance of winning at a particular
machine at the Chumash casino, or in Vegas, would you put in a coin, and
pull the lever?

If someone told you you had a 98% chance of getting your dream job, would you
go to the interview?

If someone told you you had a 98% chance of getting into Harvard or CalTech,
would you spend $30 to send them an application?

Most people would. Paid lobbyists for Big Oil and Clean Coal, who make most
of their money producing these pollutants, might not.

And Harris Sherline, God Bless Him!, might not either, as he chooses to believe
in Rupert Murdoch, rather than forty years of overwhelming scientific evidence.

Good for you, Mr. Sherline. Keep those zingers coming.

Maybe next week, you can opine whether the earth is round, and how many
people still think God created it in six days, 5,700 years ago.

» on 02.24.13 @ 08:31 PM

I’ve talked with global warming deniers in the past.  One went to Cal Tech and is quite brilliant (he consulted for me on an engineering project).  The conversation usually goes like this:

“How much climate science have you read?”


“So, where do you get your information?”

“Fox News.”

» on 02.24.13 @ 11:04 PM

Brother Stein we went down this road before. There are AGW deniers and then there are GW deniers. Which one are you referring to? We are in a natural cycle of warming between ice ages, do you think we should be stabilizing, growing cooler or warming and why? What data do you have to support you hypothesis?

Publius 98% of the physics world thought Einstein was an idiot, they were wrong. Science does not give a crap about, agreement, consensus, majority or any of the other tools we humans use to feel good about a conclusion, Science cares about one thing, the truth. You think like a lawyer, where preponderance of testimony is better than preponderance of evidence.

Gramps, exponential? Big word for such a limited mind. The catastrophe predicted for small changes in a weak GHG like CO2 have not happened. Why Gramps? What do your Marxist overlords tell you about that?

Willie, what in the world are you babbling about? All humanity is part of the natural world. Everything we “dump” is natural including radioactive material and toxic chemicals. But CO2? Have you and your cabal of ignoramuses ever heard of the “carbon cycle”. Hint, life depends on it. Oh and just so we get it straight, we are “carbon” based life forms and whatever carbon we dig up, drill out and spew back into the atmosphere came from that atmosphere to begin with. We are in effect “recycling” it, just like every other life form.

» on 02.25.13 @ 10:41 AM

I no longer read the vitriolic postings of An50. Nothing lost there as his viewpoint never changes regardless of evolving science and politics.
  Knowing that he and like thinkers will deny until they drop , I invite them to test there theories about “everything is fine” with field trips to the world’s worst polluted cities. Beijing , Mexico City , New Delhi come to mind. Don’t forget to bring respirators.

» on 02.25.13 @ 11:55 AM

Wally, There is a vast difference between “everything is fine,” especially in the cities that you specifically mentioned, and “the sky is falling” rhetoric that is based upon data that different scientists interpret with differing conclusions.

There is no doubt that pollution of all types should be eradicated. I don’t think that there has been anyone disputing that.

Perhaps you should consider that when you accuse AN50 of his viewpoint never changing that you are also describing yourself.

» on 02.25.13 @ 12:24 PM

Historic U.S. Drought Projected To Persist For Months, Worsened By Thin Western Snowpack

» on 02.25.13 @ 01:02 PM

Sorry Willie didn’t mean to be so nasty. The irony is that what I was screaming about three years ago, the science community is now coming around to supporting, namely the moderating effect of the biosphere on global temperatures due to GHG concentrations. I speculated that no consideration was given the interaction between life and atmospheric chemistry unless it had to do with what humans put there only.

The current wisdom is now looking at this in earnest as an explanation to the leveling off of global temperatures even as CO2 continues to rise. Remember, water vapor is the main GHG and is quite a bit stronger than CO2. Water vapor is leveling off and in some cases dropping. This is the exact opposite of what was thought would happen Willie. The CO2 we are dumping is not enough to cause a runaway GH event. It was thought that it would cause water vapor to do the runaway and that is not happening. The idea that plant growth may be effecting temperature through the water vapor loop may have merit, though I would feel more comfortable with this explanation if we saw CO2 concentrations leveling off as well.

Stein Bro, please try to separate regional weather and short term climate models from the longer term global climate model. Neither of these take into account biosphere moderation effects and the correlation between long term global warming and perturbations in short term climate and weather are at best non existent.

» on 02.25.13 @ 02:15 PM

DoD Climate Change Adaption Roadmap A - DoD Climate Change Adaption Roadmap_20120918.pdf

» on 02.25.13 @ 08:48 PM

Brother Stein, what is the purpose of these links? Non-sequitur comes to mind.

» on 02.26.13 @ 11:40 AM

AN50, if the Department of Defense is taking global warming seriously, I’m going to take notice.  Maybe you should, too.

» on 03.01.13 @ 01:33 PM

Like all government agencies they must follow policy set by their boss, who at this time is Barack Obama. Need I say more? Further more there is a big difference between preparing for the change in climate that will inevitably happen and wasting resources trying to play God with that same climate.

» on 03.01.13 @ 02:25 PM

Well that was lame, AN50.  “Obama did it.”  By your reasoning, nothing the military does or says is credible.  It has all been falsified.

» on 03.01.13 @ 08:52 PM

Whoa there cowboy. Read what I said. You are defending AGW, then using military preparedness for climate change as proof for it. I’m saying they are being vigilant which is what their boss, the White House, asked for.

BO may believe as you do that our changing climate is due to human causes, which I maintain is utter BS, but the military being prepared for ANY climate change by ANY cause is a good thing.

You act as though I have denied GW, I never have, only AGW. Even then I acknowledge that humans do influence climate, but so do other life forms on this planet and we are not the biggest influencer.

In order to cut through money, time and resource wasting BS on this issue, we need to separate the baloney being spread by those using climate as a means for political goals, and that includes some scientists unfortunately, from the real scientists doing due diligence and real and transparent peer review unfettered by governments or any institutions public or private.

That is a tall order Brother Stein and all the rest of you. Much of the research done nowadays is expensive and time consuming, that means the resources will most likely come from those very institutions with the most to gain/lose from the outcome.

We as citizens will have to become better educated and more vigilant, holding the institutions we pay for accountable for how they conduct their research. Keep the politicians out of it and when a guy like Al Gore is exposed for the fraud he is, hold him accountable. This guy got stinking rich hustling AGW, kind of like the race hustlers do as well. We have to stop allowing our selves to be used as tools by those with political agendas.

» on 03.02.13 @ 11:51 AM

Cowboy here.  No, you read what I wrote.  I did not use military preparedness for climate change as proof for it.  I said that the DoD’s preparations were something I was going to take notice of.  And your assertion that the group who did the study came to their conclusions solely because President Obama is their “boss” displays a naive ignorance of the chain of command.

Frankly, AN50, I have better things to do than argue with you, like read climate research.  If you want to discuss the science, I have many studies for you to read.  Otherwise, you can go back to you Fox News.

» on 03.04.13 @ 02:47 PM

Ok, we can get contentious and make dopy partisan slurs, like anyone not on board with AGW gets their science from Fox News or we can have that science debate which I have tried to do with you.

The matter of human contribution to GW is not “settled” as some have alluded to. Science is not consensus based as others have proffered. So please, do read, but if you are going to read half the story, the half that only props up what you already have consigned yourself to, then don’t bother with the debate, its pointless arguing with religious fanatics.

Good healthy skepticism and transparent peer review are the hallmarks of good science. So far I have seen little of this in the AGW fiasco. So hostile are the proponents to having their view challenged and so intimidating the responses that science itself is often thrown under the bus for ego gratification or grant harvesting.

I made some statements, concerning the water vapor loop, the carbon cycle and the effect of the biosphere. None of these are repellent to AGW nor are they necessarily supportive, but they do offer some explanations for what we see in the data which is counter intuitive to what the AGW is preaching, namely a leveling off of temperatures while CO2 continues to build.

If you are interested do some research on your own. I won’t pollute your thinking by directing you to web sites, better if you discover for your self and then we can have that debate.

I will say this, at least you have been willing to extend the conversation, most of the rest, right or left have all run away.

» on 03.04.13 @ 03:15 PM

AN50, I concur with your position, which is basically my position also.

As an engineer by education and profession, I have looked at a lot of data, not news reports, and find that the results are inconclusive regarding AGW.

But Algore has certainly made $millions with his Chicken Little, the sky is falling, preaching…....

» on 03.04.13 @ 11:10 PM

Another possibility is that I’m just plain wrong.  Can you point me to some science that the global warming observed in the last century isn’t manmade?

» on 03.05.13 @ 02:44 PM

Thanks Art. The debacle over Gore’s recent activity has destroyed any credibility this man ever had. I refer to him as a big fat liar. If AGW were to be concluded by real scientific research, imagine how difficult it would be to get anyone to believe published results given the damage this idiot has done. Unfortunately he has non-scientific Hollywood regurgitating his lunacy ad nauseum.

Brother Stein, the fact that we have been warming for 8000 years should be a clue. Much of the data being used to support AGW is only a couple hundred years old. This is but a blip on the climate record. Many naturally occurring events have dumped far more GHG far faster than human activity with far greater impact. Yet the AGW alarmists discount these events. That is a very curious attitude. If you look at data that extends back several thousand, hundreds of thousands and millions of years, the panic over the current rise seems way over blown, we have not even caught up to were we were in the last warming cycle before the last ice age. You can find this data doing a simple Google search, though I would strongly advise you avoid any sites with a particular bent, one way or the other. There are many, many out there. As I said and now Art as well, the data is inconclusive for AGW, that doesn’t mean AGW isn’t true, just that we don’t know enough to say for certain. As you search you will find this too.

» on 03.07.13 @ 02:41 PM

The reason I referred to Fox News is that I have a friend, an intelligent engineer, who is a global warming denier, and he gets all his information from Fox News.

Don’t worry about “polluting my thinking”.  I simply can’t find the information that you say is correct, so please direct me to some websites.  I’ve already done lots of research on my own.

» on 03.08.13 @ 01:56 AM

You’re full of crap mister. A highly intelligent engineer would not be a denier of GW (AGW maybe but not GW) or get all their information from Fox News, BS. And you sir have not looked or done any credible research or you wouldn’t be asking me to do it for you. Try again when you are serious.

» on 03.08.13 @ 03:59 PM

I was re-reading this string of posts and had to laugh when I read this from Publius. “Ninety-eight percent of trained scientists working on climate change data from across a wide variety of fields, across the entire world, agree that there is some major shifts taking place, and that human-related activities like burning green-house gases are probably involved.”

Really? A documented 98%?

And “burning green-house gases?” Did you know that of the green-house gases, water vapor is over 95%. Have you ever been able to burn water? And the CO2 that so many are wringing their hands about (less than 0.5% of the green house gases) won’t burn either.  :-)

» on 03.09.13 @ 01:52 PM

Yes Art classic regurgitation of talking points by Publius who is a drive by commentator. Once you challenge him that’s the last you will ever hear back.

The original theory for catastrophic AGW was that CO2 increases would trigger a run away in the water vapor loop. So far that has not occurred and the result is that we have seen global warming stabilize even though CO2 continues to rise.

» on 03.09.13 @ 03:33 PM

AN50, my problem is that I’m not seeing what you’re seeing.  I’m finding things like

Please do me the favor of showing me science that supports your assertions.  I’m not asking you to do my research for me.  I’m simply not seeing what you are seeing.  Help me out with a few links, please.

» on 03.09.13 @ 05:31 PM

Brother Stein, try where first thing you see is a graph, not the propaganda of the author. The graph says it all. Try searching by scientist rather than subject. Dr. S. Fred Singer is highly controversial; his ties to oil companies and the inconsistencies in funding make him a ripe target for the alarmist religion. But read what he says. He doesn’t deny GW just the hyperbole behind the AGW movement. Try to avoid sites, like the ones you revealed that rely on data that only goes back hundreds or thousands of years. Many good scientists are being swayed by having their blinders on to the bigger climate picture. Its all about what you want to find. I want the truth, where I left the AGW path was when I saw that their data was limited and highly politicized.

Remember everyone has an agenda, your job is to separate the fact from the bull.

» on 03.09.13 @ 11:07 PM

Thanks for the info, AN50.  I’ll take a look.  Oh, and I shared it with my “highly intelligent engineer” friend, too.  LOL!

» on 03.11.13 @ 05:49 PM

You’re welcome. When you have done a little searching around lets discuss what you find.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made through PayPal below, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments.

Thank you for your vital support.


Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.