"100% Democrat" scientist comes out publicly against Obama on climate change

[truedelphi]

19. As someone who attempts to understand things from a scientific perspective,

I remain highly opposed to the idea that a certain number (or percentage) of published articles and studies PROVES anything.

All through the 1950's, 60's and even into the '70's, there were far more papers that were PROVING that cigarettes were totally safe for human consumption than papers showing the toxicity of cigarettes. (And in the fifties, there were even papers that showed that smoking cigarettes contributed to one's health!) Those many papers are now seen to be what they were - junk science brought about through the industry promoting the works of scientists willing to alter their results for the sake iof that industry.

In the mid-1990's, far more papers showed that the gas additive MTBE was safe, than the two papers that showed that it was very toxic, and should be removed from the gasoline. Around 1,100 papers showed tht MTBE was safe. Only the Calif. governor-appointed, Blue Ribbon Panel on MTBE and a paper from an Italian scientist showed that the substance was totally unacceptable. Luckily the governor listened to the Blue Ribbon Panel on the science, and the substance was eliminated (or significantly reduced) from the state's gasoline.

I do know that part of the reason for the spike in the temperature of cities across the globe starting in the mid-1980''s had to do with the fact that so many weather monitoring sites were moved from their historic locations to other locations. For instance, in the mid-1980's, the weather station that most reports from Chicago were based on was moved from a location near Lake Michigan to a point near O'Hare. This immediately jumped the stats in terms of Chicago's weather, making it appear as though Chicago's temps were suddenly radically higher. Yet if you try and point that out, you re denounced as being anti-science. (Traditionally, neighborhoods near Lake Michigan in Chicago had a much lower temperature than outlying neighborhoods. It is likely that temperatures in Illinois have been higher, but that doesn't mean we should not look into how much of an effect the removal of the weather stations from one location to another ended up causing.)

I want to go on record that I believe that Global Climate Change is being affected by human activities of both the present and the past, including the massive Black Op program that Scandinavian scientists say is currently contributing about 15% a year to the situation.

But like many of my friends, I don't want to have the government start to "help us" out with the situation - as industry controls our government. For instance, look at how Obama is credited with his sudden interest in banning coal. What a great environmentalist he is, say his supporters. Certainly banning coal is a good thing, but knowing how the system works, I would think that he did that due to his interest in promoting "natural gas" - despite the fact that fracking for natural gas is going to be the end of many eco systems inside the Continental USA. And Obama is highly connected with that industry, despite its hideous failures and its destruction of ur aquifers!