What you're describing is what I'd call ignorance. Fear of what you don't understand. Only the confident are comfortable with having their own weaknesses pointed out.
There IS a real trend at the moment that any work at all that contradicts "Doom, Doom, Doom" has trouble getting funding, and trouble getting published. The same phenomenon prevented odd results from being published in fusion research... the establishment can be hard to crack.
Really? Any evidence to back that up? I can cite counter-examples. Lindzen, for example, has no problems getting funding (his most recent article cites 3 sources - NSF, DOE, and NASA), whereas scientists who are more cautionary are having trouble (see recent/. article). Without evidence, it's your claim that's FUD, not sober reports such as the recent IPCC.
I'm glad that you're in favor of reducing our impact on the climate regardless of your personal belief on the strengths of anthropogenic global warming, but I do recommend that you read some climatology journals and try to get first hand information. I suggest that perhaps your current source of information is quite filtered and biased.
I'd prefer much less biased and sensationalist coverage of both the problem and the proposed solutions. Not necessarily here on/. I'm not an idiot, but specifically in the scientific community.
Are you aware of biased or sensationalist coverage in the scientific community? The press has problems with accuracy, of course, but I'm not aware of any problems in the scientific community itself. (No more than with other fields, that is. No community is perfect.)
Secondly, many of the scientists who supposedly signed it have claimed that they did not sign it.
Thirdly, "advanced degree" does not mean Ph.D.
Finally, combining "physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists" into one group suggests that they don't want to tell you how many of those were actually climatologists.
If you haven't already read the Wikipedia article on this petition, I suggest you do so:
Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition --- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers - a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.
So, in 2005, there was at least one active climate researcher who agreed with this petition. I suspect that is no longer the case. Those that might sign it, would focus on phrases such as "catastrophic".
They might say, "sure, I know that most global warming is anthropogenic, but I don't think it will be catastrophic." The reasons might have nothing to do with climatology, either. For example, take Pat Michael's logic:
Well, since the human warming got initiated, or began--which most people would view somewhere around the mid-1970s--the rate of global temperature rise has been remarkably constant. It's uncanny how constant it is. And it's about.17 degrees Celsius per decade, or about 1.7 degrees per century. That number is significantly low, and it suggests to me that this becomes a self-limiting issue in the following way: 100 years from now, the technology that runs our society, and powers our society, is going to be radically different than it is today. It will almost certainly be a more efficient, maybe not even a carbon-based fuel society.
Pat Michaels, by the way, is the climatologist recently in the news for taking all that money from coal companies. Notice his tactic here. He talks about what has happened, rather than what is projected to happen if CO2 concentrations continue to rise. Secondly, he invokes technological progress that has not yet happened as the solution to this problem. I.e., in order to solve the problem he goes outside of his domain of knowledge.
anyone saying there is consensus for man-caused global climate change (warming or cooloing)
Do you think there is not consensus amongst climatologists? Can you name one climatologist who still disputes this? (A climate scientist with a Ph.D., that is.) Just one, but keep in mind that the people you're probably thinking of have recently written articles that suggest they do not dispute that basic fact. (Lindzen, in fact, recently wonders why anyone thinks that it was ever "contested". His words: "At some level, it has never been widely contested.")
Less than 15 years ago, Rush Limbaugh was declaring that NASA was able to build satellites that could detect the influence of the full moon on temperature, but that they hadn't yet been able to detect global warming. Although one might be tempted to, it's not fair to call Rush "no one".
(1) As I said the first time you posted this exact same diatribe - which media are we not hearing this from?
(2) We have proxies. Those proxies can be checked against more recent data to help determine margins of error. No, proxies are not perfect, but they do allow us to gather remarkable information back 800,000 years.
(3) Yes, the Earth's magnetic field is decreasing. And, no, you're not a genius for "figuring out" that it might be related to climate change. There are lots of electrical engineers who no doubt know far more about climate science than you. If you disagree, you should publish a journal article in a peer-reviewed journal. Don't give me any conspiracy theory on that, either.
(4) Jupitor [sic] is not experiencing the "same" climate change as Earth. Jupiter takes a lot longer to go around the sun than Earth, so it's natural variations are also longer. According to your link, "We're sorry, but there is no SPACE.com Web page that matches your entry." If you're going to keep posting stuff that has been debunked, as least refresh your link list.
(5) Mars is also not experiencing the "same" climate change on Earth. Read the one link you posted (for this bullet) that actually works. It's experiencing climate change - which it should when it goes from summer to fall to winter to spring (which takes about a year and a half of Earth time). Of course, if Mars is experiencing the exact same climate change, then that kind of shoots down #3, right?
(6) And who is responsible for these livestock? Methane is an important factor. However, C13/C12 ratios (as well as simple math) determine that the vast majority of increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is due to fossil fuels. Luckily, methane has a much shorter "life span" in the atmosphere than CO2. Even so, why would it reduce our need to take action otherwise? Also, you realize that this "point" contradicts #4 and 5, right?
(7) Just like last time you posted this drivel and had it debunked, you stopped numbering at this point. Why can't you actually create new arguments?
(8) Just because slow climate change in the past was natural does not mean that the fast climate change now is natural. Just because cancer kills you, it doesn't mean that a bullet won't kill you as well. Do you understand your logical fallacy about bringing up past climate change? The basic science is:
(a) We've increased the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere from the range of about 180-280 ppmv (over the last 800,000 years, where 180 ppmv = ice age) to over 380 ppmv.
(b) CO2 absorbs infrared radiation.
(c) Absorbing infrared radiation leads to an increased thermal equilibrium point.
No fancy computer simulations are required to understand this basic science. As for cosmic rays, sounds like a BOFH excuse to me.
He was modded down as overrated before he had been modded as anything else. That made no sense to me, nor to the GP. I suspect the mods were, in fact, simply ignorant. If it had been set at 4 or 5, insightful, and the mods thought this a tad high, I'd agree with the rest of your sentiment.
which is to say, i got absolutely no meaning out of your first comment, so I'm not surprised it was marked overrated. if i didn't compulsively browse at -1 I'd be thankful that it got filtered.
There are several faith-based "sciences" that might not qualify as religion. These include, but are not limited to: crystals, pyramids, and trying to get funding from the NSF after recent budget cuts.
These are the people paying his salary, and if they don't want this going on, they can tell him to stop.
Most likely, they're not paying his salary and didn't even pay for his equipment. His grants are probably paying for the majority of his salary (as well as part of the salary of some liberal arts professors), and possibly for his computers. (Unfortunately, many computer science grants won't actually pay for computers, so that's no guarantee.)
He likely has several students in his class from countries, such as China, that have such censorship. If he can reach out to a few of these and give them the tools to combat that censorship, then he will have helped them make a difference when they return to China, if they are so inclined.
I'd guess that we're talking about 1 Joule of diesel + (trash with chemical energy of at least 5 Joules, probably much more) = 1.9 Joules of electricity. That would put you at around 30% efficiency (assuming ~5 J), which would still be pretty good.
Presumably, this reaction does not need diesel. I assume that with a bit of extra research they'll be able to feed the output energy back into input. Of course, in such a loop this would end up (with the same original assumptions) as 5 Joules trash energy in, 0.9 Joules electricity energy out, dropping it down to ~20% efficiency. But, hey, if you were just going to bury it anyway...
(And, no, this does not consider pollution effects, etc.)
The tide is changing. Last year was a watershed (IMNSHO) with a number of events. Bill O'Reilly embraced AGW as fact, ExxonMobil cut ties with CEI, and Lindzen and Michaels both made statements that said they backed up the basic science behind AGW (even if they think that the media is being alarmist about it). I predict we will see more of that this year. Pretty soon, there will be fewer people denying AGW than denying evolution. (Well, that is bad news in another way, but that's a whole different rant.)
Easy enough to do. What the article means is that for every joule the energy consumes it generates 1.9 joules. The joules it is consuming are not from the trash itself. It might be converting the trash at an efficiency of only 5% (making that number up, of course). It's just saying that it does, in fact, actually generate a net positive amount of energy while consuming the trash.
Somehow I suspect I haven't made this any clearer.
Consider the "Mr. Fusion" reference. We've created fusion generators that actually produce energy through fusion. However, so far, they've all produced less energy than it has actually required to run them, thus resulting in a net negative. All that 90% figure means is that this is a net positive.
I think finding a single scientist that is skeptical about the primary cause of Global Warming as strictly human based CO2 generation, is easy to do with google.
But like I said, you already made up your mind. Don't bother then.
Which is my continual point in these matters that the science is bad, is corrupt and short sighted and ignorant because a DOGMA exists in the community right now. All other ideas are blocked out. That is too bad. You my friend are an excellent example, thanks for proving my point.
(a) You'll notice that I said a single climatologist. Yes, you can find ignorant scientists who disagree with this idea, but every climatologist someone brings up to try to dispute this actually agrees with the basic science. I've tried to find such a climatologist and failed. Presumably the same is true for you or else you'd be giving me the name of one instead of saying it was "easy to do" in order to deflect the argument.
(b) As for the poor quality of predictions, try looking up how well the 1991 IPCC report actually did.
(c) As for dogma (or DOGMA if you prefer), do me a favor. Save our posts to a file and then edit out our names so that you have only "person A" and "person B". Then ask a friend you respect to identify which post seems to be relying on dogma. Naturally, you should not include this post, since that'd kind of give away who is "person A" (or "person B").
Now, if you can't answer my question, just be honest about it. I've got to believe you don't know of a single climatologist who disputes that man-made contributions are a significant component of global warming. despite the fact that you imply there are lots of them to be found. Don't try to hide behind "find your own climatologist you've already tried to find and can't" and "DOGMA". That's all I'm asking, and frankly it doesn't seem like that much to ask for.
That's hardly a pissing contest. And, since I'm of the viewpoint that you won't find that individual (a climatologist who does not believe in AGW), I'm not sure how looking myself (and not finding anyone) would prove much.
As for your single experiment, it's good. It's simple to understand, and its hypothesis is well laid out. (The main problem is that you've laid it out as black and white. The reality is that there should be a small correlation. No one's denying that solar output isn't related to mean temperatures - it's just not the primary factor in our current dilemma.) However, I remember when people made similar claims 10 years ago about the Earth's temperature. The argument back then was, "hey, if it's global warming then in 10 years we should see it." Well, ten years later and we've had the 10 hottest years (not in order, of course) in recorded history. Now the goal posts have moved. That's what I'm skeptical about.
One other problem with the experiment is that if we wait until we get the results back to do anything, we've wasted an important 10 years. (This is just like saving for retirement - the earlier we start the easier it will be.) So, I propose doing your experiment while curbing CO2. Do you see a problem with that?
I definitely have no objection. On one hand, I doubt many in our target audience will find it there. On the other hand, it only takes one to make it worthwhile. Furthermore, I suppose many of our target audience's minions might find it there.;)
Most of the current work has been direct one-on-one with others who do brain modeling. Hence the Rice mention. It's a fairly small group, so it's not too hard to just talk to everyone who might be interested in using it.:) Also, it's still a fairly new project, and none of us are OSS afficiondos.
We have an open source project that models brain regions, that is extremely unlikely to ever be widely used by a general audience. However, if it were used by 25% of neuroscientists who run brain simulations, I'm sure we'd consider it successful.
I think the idea of this thread, and as I said before, without getting into a paper pissing contest of academic citations, I have been quite specific in that I do not believe the CO2 cycle and man are directly related in this problem.
I'm not looking to get into a paper pissing contest. (Quite frankly, it wouldn't be a fair fight.) I'm just asking that outside of your personal belief, can you name 1 climatologist who agrees with your belief? Give me a name, and I'll tell you what they're publishing now. If not, do you think that this implies that every single last climatologist is not part of some global cabal against science?
The models need better measurements, which means more funding for better space, ocean and land gear to measure not just CO2 but solar radiation and vulcanism and other problematic gases such as methane.
I agree with you here. More data is always better. That's not to say that the basic science (chemical reactions and such) are not very well understood already. That includes things like CO2, methane, and H20 cycles. For example, did you know that H2O commonly saturates in our atmosphere? When that happens, it is frequently followed by a meteorological phenomenon known as "rain".;)
I think the models used for atmospheric regulation are indeed on the right track. But with computers, GARBAGE IN equals GARBAGE out, and better more refined measurements of the dynamics of global climate change need to be more precisely measured to start improving atmospheric modeling before we take any steps.
A common misconception is that global warming is so complex that computer models are required to understand any of it. Not true. Global warming science began in the late 50's/early 60's when your typical computer couldn't run very complicated models. It's basic physics/chemistry. The models are required to determine just how bad it is. What kind of feedback mechanisms are there, etc.
Quite frankly it isn't broken, WE are the problem. 6 Billion we to be exact.
I agree with you here, too. Although I'm not sure that you agree with yourself. Yes, the planet will almost definitely be just fine in a few million years. The question is more of how will humanity do? Will we be plunged into chaos, or will we figure out some way to mitigate the coming problems?
Still, my original question still stands. Can you name 1 climatologist who disputes the anthropogenic nature of global warming?
Are you aware of any climatologist (e.g., Pat Michaels, Richard Lindzen) that believes that humans are not largely responsible for global warming?
...AND...
If so, could you name one? Just one. (Feel free to mention Pat Michaels or Richard Lindzen, but be aware that I'll show you articles they've written to the contrary - although it might require me getting an e-mail address as those articles are often behind proxies. I'll be happy to give you journal/volume/number, however, if you'd prefer, or just give you something they've written in the popular media.)
...OR...
If not, do you subscribe to the theory that there is a vast Democratic conspiracy that every single last climatologist mysteriously subscribes to? An army perhaps for or against the Illuminati?
Slashdot Mirror
What you're describing is what I'd call ignorance. Fear of what you don't understand. Only the confident are comfortable with having their own weaknesses pointed out.
Really? Any evidence to back that up? I can cite counter-examples. Lindzen, for example, has no problems getting funding (his most recent article cites 3 sources - NSF, DOE, and NASA), whereas scientists who are more cautionary are having trouble (see recent /. article). Without evidence, it's your claim that's FUD, not sober reports such as the recent IPCC.
I'm glad that you're in favor of reducing our impact on the climate regardless of your personal belief on the strengths of anthropogenic global warming, but I do recommend that you read some climatology journals and try to get first hand information. I suggest that perhaps your current source of information is quite filtered and biased.
Are you aware of biased or sensationalist coverage in the scientific community? The press has problems with accuracy, of course, but I'm not aware of any problems in the scientific community itself. (No more than with other fields, that is. No community is perfect.)
If you haven't already read the Wikipedia article on this petition, I suggest you do so:
So, in 2005, there was at least one active climate researcher who agreed with this petition. I suspect that is no longer the case. Those that might sign it, would focus on phrases such as "catastrophic".
They might say, "sure, I know that most global warming is anthropogenic, but I don't think it will be catastrophic." The reasons might have nothing to do with climatology, either. For example, take Pat Michael's logic:
Pat Michaels, by the way, is the climatologist recently in the news for taking all that money from coal companies. Notice his tactic here. He talks about what has happened, rather than what is projected to happen if CO2 concentrations continue to rise. Secondly, he invokes technological progress that has not yet happened as the solution to this problem. I.e., in order to solve the problem he goes outside of his domain of knowledge.Do you think there is not consensus amongst climatologists? Can you name one climatologist who still disputes this? (A climate scientist with a Ph.D., that is.) Just one, but keep in mind that the people you're probably thinking of have recently written articles that suggest they do not dispute that basic fact. (Lindzen, in fact, recently wonders why anyone thinks that it was ever "contested". His words: "At some level, it has never been widely contested.")
Less than 15 years ago, Rush Limbaugh was declaring that NASA was able to build satellites that could detect the influence of the full moon on temperature, but that they hadn't yet been able to detect global warming. Although one might be tempted to, it's not fair to call Rush "no one".
(1) As I said the first time you posted this exact same diatribe - which media are we not hearing this from?
(2) We have proxies. Those proxies can be checked against more recent data to help determine margins of error. No, proxies are not perfect, but they do allow us to gather remarkable information back 800,000 years.
(3) Yes, the Earth's magnetic field is decreasing. And, no, you're not a genius for "figuring out" that it might be related to climate change. There are lots of electrical engineers who no doubt know far more about climate science than you. If you disagree, you should publish a journal article in a peer-reviewed journal. Don't give me any conspiracy theory on that, either.
(4) Jupitor [sic] is not experiencing the "same" climate change as Earth. Jupiter takes a lot longer to go around the sun than Earth, so it's natural variations are also longer. According to your link, "We're sorry, but there is no SPACE.com Web page that matches your entry." If you're going to keep posting stuff that has been debunked, as least refresh your link list.
(5) Mars is also not experiencing the "same" climate change on Earth. Read the one link you posted (for this bullet) that actually works. It's experiencing climate change - which it should when it goes from summer to fall to winter to spring (which takes about a year and a half of Earth time). Of course, if Mars is experiencing the exact same climate change, then that kind of shoots down #3, right?
(6) And who is responsible for these livestock? Methane is an important factor. However, C13/C12 ratios (as well as simple math) determine that the vast majority of increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is due to fossil fuels. Luckily, methane has a much shorter "life span" in the atmosphere than CO2. Even so, why would it reduce our need to take action otherwise? Also, you realize that this "point" contradicts #4 and 5, right?
(7) Just like last time you posted this drivel and had it debunked, you stopped numbering at this point. Why can't you actually create new arguments?
(8) Just because slow climate change in the past was natural does not mean that the fast climate change now is natural. Just because cancer kills you, it doesn't mean that a bullet won't kill you as well. Do you understand your logical fallacy about bringing up past climate change? The basic science is:
(a) We've increased the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere from the range of about 180-280 ppmv (over the last 800,000 years, where 180 ppmv = ice age) to over 380 ppmv.
(b) CO2 absorbs infrared radiation.
(c) Absorbing infrared radiation leads to an increased thermal equilibrium point.
No fancy computer simulations are required to understand this basic science. As for cosmic rays, sounds like a BOFH excuse to me.
Why are you posting it again?
He was modded down as overrated before he had been modded as anything else. That made no sense to me, nor to the GP. I suspect the mods were, in fact, simply ignorant. If it had been set at 4 or 5, insightful, and the mods thought this a tad high, I'd agree with the rest of your sentiment.
Take it as a mod who was probably too ignorant about math and science to understand that what you were posting was not an attack on either.
There are several faith-based "sciences" that might not qualify as religion. These include, but are not limited to: crystals, pyramids, and trying to get funding from the NSF after recent budget cuts.
Most likely, they're not paying his salary and didn't even pay for his equipment. His grants are probably paying for the majority of his salary (as well as part of the salary of some liberal arts professors), and possibly for his computers. (Unfortunately, many computer science grants won't actually pay for computers, so that's no guarantee.)
He likely has several students in his class from countries, such as China, that have such censorship. If he can reach out to a few of these and give them the tools to combat that censorship, then he will have helped them make a difference when they return to China, if they are so inclined.
\home\me\optimize_linux_no_this_is_not_rm_rf
I'd guess that we're talking about 1 Joule of diesel + (trash with chemical energy of at least 5 Joules, probably much more) = 1.9 Joules of electricity. That would put you at around 30% efficiency (assuming ~5 J), which would still be pretty good.
Presumably, this reaction does not need diesel. I assume that with a bit of extra research they'll be able to feed the output energy back into input. Of course, in such a loop this would end up (with the same original assumptions) as 5 Joules trash energy in, 0.9 Joules electricity energy out, dropping it down to ~20% efficiency. But, hey, if you were just going to bury it anyway...
(And, no, this does not consider pollution effects, etc.)
The tide is changing. Last year was a watershed (IMNSHO) with a number of events. Bill O'Reilly embraced AGW as fact, ExxonMobil cut ties with CEI, and Lindzen and Michaels both made statements that said they backed up the basic science behind AGW (even if they think that the media is being alarmist about it). I predict we will see more of that this year. Pretty soon, there will be fewer people denying AGW than denying evolution. (Well, that is bad news in another way, but that's a whole different rant.)
Easy enough to do. What the article means is that for every joule the energy consumes it generates 1.9 joules. The joules it is consuming are not from the trash itself. It might be converting the trash at an efficiency of only 5% (making that number up, of course). It's just saying that it does, in fact, actually generate a net positive amount of energy while consuming the trash.
Somehow I suspect I haven't made this any clearer.
Consider the "Mr. Fusion" reference. We've created fusion generators that actually produce energy through fusion. However, so far, they've all produced less energy than it has actually required to run them, thus resulting in a net negative. All that 90% figure means is that this is a net positive.
(b) As for the poor quality of predictions, try looking up how well the 1991 IPCC report actually did.
(c) As for dogma (or DOGMA if you prefer), do me a favor. Save our posts to a file and then edit out our names so that you have only "person A" and "person B". Then ask a friend you respect to identify which post seems to be relying on dogma. Naturally, you should not include this post, since that'd kind of give away who is "person A" (or "person B").
Now, if you can't answer my question, just be honest about it. I've got to believe you don't know of a single climatologist who disputes that man-made contributions are a significant component of global warming. despite the fact that you imply there are lots of them to be found. Don't try to hide behind "find your own climatologist you've already tried to find and can't" and "DOGMA". That's all I'm asking, and frankly it doesn't seem like that much to ask for.
That's hardly a pissing contest. And, since I'm of the viewpoint that you won't find that individual (a climatologist who does not believe in AGW), I'm not sure how looking myself (and not finding anyone) would prove much.
As for your single experiment, it's good. It's simple to understand, and its hypothesis is well laid out. (The main problem is that you've laid it out as black and white. The reality is that there should be a small correlation. No one's denying that solar output isn't related to mean temperatures - it's just not the primary factor in our current dilemma.) However, I remember when people made similar claims 10 years ago about the Earth's temperature. The argument back then was, "hey, if it's global warming then in 10 years we should see it." Well, ten years later and we've had the 10 hottest years (not in order, of course) in recorded history. Now the goal posts have moved. That's what I'm skeptical about.
One other problem with the experiment is that if we wait until we get the results back to do anything, we've wasted an important 10 years. (This is just like saving for retirement - the earlier we start the easier it will be.) So, I propose doing your experiment while curbing CO2. Do you see a problem with that?
I definitely have no objection. On one hand, I doubt many in our target audience will find it there. On the other hand, it only takes one to make it worthwhile. Furthermore, I suppose many of our target audience's minions might find it there. ;)
Most of the current work has been direct one-on-one with others who do brain modeling. Hence the Rice mention. It's a fairly small group, so it's not too hard to just talk to everyone who might be interested in using it. :) Also, it's still a fairly new project, and none of us are OSS afficiondos.
We have an open source project that models brain regions, that is extremely unlikely to ever be widely used by a general audience. However, if it were used by 25% of neuroscientists who run brain simulations, I'm sure we'd consider it successful.
I'm not looking to get into a paper pissing contest. (Quite frankly, it wouldn't be a fair fight.) I'm just asking that outside of your personal belief, can you name 1 climatologist who agrees with your belief? Give me a name, and I'll tell you what they're publishing now. If not, do you think that this implies that every single last climatologist is not part of some global cabal against science?
I agree with you here. More data is always better. That's not to say that the basic science (chemical reactions and such) are not very well understood already. That includes things like CO2, methane, and H20 cycles. For example, did you know that H2O commonly saturates in our atmosphere? When that happens, it is frequently followed by a meteorological phenomenon known as "rain". ;)
A common misconception is that global warming is so complex that computer models are required to understand any of it. Not true. Global warming science began in the late 50's/early 60's when your typical computer couldn't run very complicated models. It's basic physics/chemistry. The models are required to determine just how bad it is. What kind of feedback mechanisms are there, etc.
I agree with you here, too. Although I'm not sure that you agree with yourself. Yes, the planet will almost definitely be just fine in a few million years. The question is more of how will humanity do? Will we be plunged into chaos, or will we figure out some way to mitigate the coming problems?
Still, my original question still stands. Can you name 1 climatologist who disputes the anthropogenic nature of global warming?
Are you aware of any climatologist (e.g., Pat Michaels, Richard Lindzen) that believes that humans are not largely responsible for global warming?
...AND...
If so, could you name one? Just one. (Feel free to mention Pat Michaels or Richard Lindzen, but be aware that I'll show you articles they've written to the contrary - although it might require me getting an e-mail address as those articles are often behind proxies. I'll be happy to give you journal/volume/number, however, if you'd prefer, or just give you something they've written in the popular media.)
...OR...
If not, do you subscribe to the theory that there is a vast Democratic conspiracy that every single last climatologist mysteriously subscribes to? An army perhaps for or against the Illuminati?