This source is credible because its author describes his position as an academic and gives a list of sources at the end of the article that could be used to check his statements. Admittedly, it would have been nice if the essay had been written more recently, but considering that it merely exposes the unscrupulous behavior of political scientists, I don't think that is a major problem. Admittedly, the information he provides goes against main-stream science, but since he is exposing the flaws of main-stream science, that is to be expected. Furthermore, he is not the first person to suggest that main-stream science may be twisting the facts to fit their agenda. The significance of this article for my project is that this article gives reason to doubt the "data" that has been used to prove that the concentration of CO2 has increased significantly along with the somewhat mild increase in temperature, suggesting a corollary. If CO2 has not increased significantly enough then it would be reasonable to conclude that CO2 has not caused Global Warming. Although this article does not prove that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have not increased sufficiently to cause global warming, it shows that the "proof" that it has is based on faulty reasoning warping of the data.
Dr. Jaworoski claims that using ice-core samples to determine historic atmospheric concentrations of CO2 is unreliable. He described the method by which the ice samples lose CO2 due to the presence of liquid water within the ice. Dr. Jaworoski further pointed out that originally the data from ice-core samples did not fit with the trends of data taken by more reliable methods in comparatively recent years. He then pointed out that researchers had arbitrarily moved the data 83 years foreword to fit the curve of the more recent data and support Global Warming. Dr. Jaworoski also mentioned a set of data in which the researchers chose to ignore high readings of CO2 in early years, so that their data would show that the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have increased dramatically in the past couple centuries. Dr. Jaworoski concluded that researchers and organizations have chosen to blatantly skew data that suggests that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have not increased as much as the Global Warming Theory requires.
Josh, you are right on target with this post. I appreciate that you recognize the source goes against mainstream data, but you are also correct in the assertion that your project demands that you look at some material. Do you plan to look at a source that says that man-made CO2 levels are on the rise so you can show your readers how that side defends their argument?
ReplyDeleteI appreciate how you took the article one graph at a time to present the argument as Dr. Jaworowski presents it to his own audience. What is great about this website as well is that it provides a link to the full paper on which the more brief web abstract is based.
One small adjustment: start to give me the name of your broader websites in "plain English" since you will need to find that information when it is time to create MLA citations.
ReplyDeleteI would like to find a source that defends the data, but it seems that most of the articles in favor of Global Warming merely assert that the data is unflawed, and that most scientists agree with it without giving any real defense of their data. It seems that, as with evolution, the main stream scientists have resorted to spinning the issue as if it is a done deal and dismissing those who question it as uneducated rabble. Although I’m sure there are many exceptions, I haven’t found any yet, even in scientific journals. Of course they may very well be right, but it would be nice if they’d tell us common folk why instead of asking us to exercise blind faith. (In the case of Global Warming, not evolution, I am certain that Evolution has completely insufficient scientific evidence, but I’m preaching to the choir here I guess.)
ReplyDelete