Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming

Is Anthropogenic Global Warming a scientific fact? Most pop-science alarmists would tend to say yes. Moderates tend to say, "Maybe. But I'm not sure." Other, more conservative (arguably more thorough) climate scientists would say, "Not so fast, huckster. You're jumping to conclusions!"

Who acknowledges that there is a warming trend but recently said, "...there is no credible evidence that [global warming] is due to mankind and carbon dioxide. We've been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years. It's been warming up for a long time"?

Which climatologist who is widely considered the "Father" of modern climatology said that the current trend in global warming alarmism is a "total misplacement of emphasis" and that there's "no really good scientific evidence" for it?

Which climate scientist who is now continuing to work for free - even after retirement - when asked why so many thousands of scientist are concerned about global warming, cleverly retorted, "why are so many thousands not concerned about it"?

The answer is Reid Bryson, Professor Emeritus and the founding chairman of the department of meteorology at the University of Wisconsin Madison.

Though the article I'm quoting from has the reporter ending the article with a contrary view, and therefore leaving the readers without a cross-examination, it is clear that the evidence isn't compelling enough to convince many scientists. That should tell us that there is something we're missing. Galen McKinley, another colleague of Bryson's who disagrees with his views summarizes the popular point of view by leaving us with, "if you saw smoke in your house, it would be irresponsible not to get your family out, right?"

First of all, if that's the case, then if I saw a wisp of smoke in the back of a crowded theater, I should shout "FIRE!" and risk a stampede before checking to make sure there's even any danger.

Secondly, the McKinley's analogy is so broken that there is no room for any other reaction other than an alarmist one. Anthropogenic global warming is the issue at hand. If there IS such a thing, then yes, of course drastic measures should be taken to prevent a future worldwide catastrophe. But if the mild warming trends that we're experiencing is more likely a natural cycle that the earth and the sun goes through, then what's the point of all the governmental mandates and economic restrictions? Most scientists are not arguing about the slight warming we're experiencing in certain regions. The argument is whether it is man-made warming or natural.

McKinley says if you see smoke you should get out of the house. But does it matter to him if the smoke is even dangerous? Does it matter if it's just a backyard barbeque?

Talk about alarmism. McKinley personifies that sentiment perfectly.
Read more here>>>