The House Energy and Commerce Committee has just reconvened for another long evening, having spent the day debating changes to mammoth climate-change legislation, still without reaching the bill's halfway point.
Or so says yesterday's Washington Post, served up fresh on my Kindle -House Panel Continues Debate on Climate-Change Bill
Congress also heard from Climate Change skeptics, which are a distinct but vocal minority. With such an overwhelming consensus among scientists working in fields of biology, climatology, geology, meteorology, etc., all stating that climate change is a real threat, that the average temperatures are rising globally and that Arctic ice and the world's glaciers are melting, and that humans are part of the problem -can there really be any skeptics that get taken seriously?
To be honest, I'm not an expert on climate change and haven't followed it more than a moderate degree. Assuming others participate, and using this thread as a vehicle for education, I intend to evaluate the issue objectively. I truly have no bias one side or the other. If the data are sufficient to sway one way or the other, thats where provisionally draw my conclusions.
If others have evidenced based arguments for one side of this or the other, please feel free to post them here. A google search for "climate change" yielded this image from Wikipedia, which is a graph based on the data compiled by Meehl et al. (2004). It correlates both modeled and observed temperature changes with the fluctuations in greenhouse gases.
In addition to the strong correlations of their data, there's the added support for the validity of climate modeling to accurately reflect observed temperatures, which seems to refute the common argument by global warming skeptics that climate modeling is inaccurate and too flawed to rely on.
Meehl, G.A., W.M. Washington, C.A. Ammann, J.M. Arblaster, T.M.L. Wigleym and C. Tebaldi (2004). "Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate". Journal of Climate