My Article for this post is from http://brneurosci.org/ and is titled Cold Facts of Global Warming, by T. J. Nelson. The article can be found here. Besides having a list of sources at the end of his article, Nelson shows that the article was written in 2003 and has been updated as recently as January 1, 2011. Furthermore, on researching "T. J. Nelson Global climate" one can discover that he has a PhD in Biophysics and that he has written a number of articles on this topic. Furthermore, although he may not offer more than one viewpoint in his article, Nelson does take a somewhat central course between the two extremes.
This article is very helpful because he takes the exaggerations that have bean made by the IPCC and other organizations and explains with very simple language how they have bean exaggerated. This is great because it dispels some "facts" that have bean spread by sub-scientists in the past couple years and helps the reader get down to the "cold facts". This should be interesting to anyone who is skeptical of the biased science that is coming out of universities and government organizations these days. , but that it does affect them
I agree with Nelson, his argument is directly between the two sides of the argument that I have bean reading lately. While he admits that CO2 has the potential to increase the average global temperature by 1.5 K, he also shows that doubling the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would take an extremely long time if the current trend continues and points to the fact that Global temperatures are not controlled by CO2, but that it does affect them. I agree, because while it is certainly obvious that adding somewhat significant amounts of a green house gas must affect the environment to some extent, I also can see that the predictions of many "scientists" are in their own benefit, due to the fact that a crisis will always receive government money, and that it stands to reason that factors other than man must affect the environment dramatically. Really what it boils down to is that Nelson's conclusion makes sense to me. Many of the facts made by both sides are true, but neither of them are, in my opinion, completely correct. In fact, I found all of Nelson's claims in other articles on both sides of the issue, but this is the first time I found points from both sides supported in the same article. Therefore, I see both sides as supporting his premises, just not his conclusions, causing me to agree with the sensible path his article takes.
P.S. Although I always thought of responses as being much easier than summaries, I thought that this response might have been harder than the summary. I guess I either wrote a bad summary without realizing it or this was a hard topic to summarize for me.
Once again, you have submitted a strong post. I appreciate how you are willing to track down author credentials through Google searches.
ReplyDeleteI also appreciate the way you are keeping an eye on how each article fits your project, not only with your personal project goals but also with the sources you've already uncovered.
Your observation that the response was unexpectedly difficult to write intrigues me. It's definitely not because your summary was bad. I'm wondering if a response in this case was difficult because this source has such a moderate tone. It would have been difficult to vehemently agree or disagree with him unless your own position is far to the either extreme on the issue, which your response reveals is not the case.