Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant99
I think that Microsoft and AT&T are now part of the anti-global warming consortium.
|
I thought I would include all the siginficant contributors or feared being called out for showing just those that fit the story. As it turns out, I wasn't that far off. Still showed how flawed your source was though, didn't it. I mean how much worse could it get? AEI has not only been caught paying for skewed data, but has advertised for scientists that would give them data to support their claims. Really sucks when you think your source is clean and it sneaks up and bites you in the ass hard.
Quote:
|
But much more to the point...do you disagree with his findings? And if so, why?
|
I'm not sure I can say I disagree with his findings, as I'm not sure there is enough data there to say anything is close to be conclusive. I do have some problems with his research and what he attempts to say about other's theories. Patterson restricts his research to a very small section of the planet (heck, of the continent) and makes his conclusions based on that. He doesn't take his research to other parts of the world that would have similar or dissimilar conditions to prove his thesis corect. He has essentially used one petry dish to prove his theory, and that is flawed. Conversely, ice core samples have been taken from both polar caps and glaciers all over the globe, and the findings have been consistent.
Something in the theory that has produced that I wonder if he thought about was the period of the great depression and the great wars. These are periods when the industrial might of the planet slumbered, reducing the gases in question. This could very well be why the temperature takes a dive in the period immediately after these events. As industry slowed, so did the production of gases and the impacts of that could be felt in the floowing 5-10 years after the fact. That theory (one of my own) would actually support the concept that the problem is indeed reversible and that we can help the planet heal itself.
There are definitely some interesting theories in the work of Patterson and others. Do I completely dismiss the work? No, not at all. I completely dismiss Patterson and HIS findings though. What is required now is another scientist to go and complete the same study and see if he ends up with the same findings. If that should happen, then the science is sound. But that is the problem. No one is doing similar research which makes his findings hard to verify as reliable. If someone would take this up, and attempt it in other parts of the world as well, the findings would be much more credible.