An interesting read. However, the result of his conclusions is only that the projections are not as high as they've been conveyed to be. He makes no statement whether or not it's still grounds for alarms, or if there's required actions that should be taken to try to pro-actively solve the problem, or even making a statement that there is a problem or not. Not once does he say that the reduced rate from his calculations are not grounds for alarm. And starting off with the Kerry statement makes him just seem personally offended, and butthurt over his statements, rather than his facts and arguments speaking for themselves.Originally Posted by stormcrow
Furthermore, by taking an observation measurement of only time = 100 years, it seems to be an insufficient amount of datapoints to extrapolate the short term, due to the increase in CO2 emmissions over even the last 50 years. While I understand we are considering earth measurements in the matter of millions of years, if we're specifically trying to correlate climate change with CO2 emmissions, about 99.99% of that data used only as the baseline, and not used to extrapolate the current trends we're observing.
He also doesn't seem to be interested in evaluating WHY the predictions are so far off from reality. Were extrapolated values of increased CO2 emmissions higher than what was actually produced? Is that due to successful work by politicians (oxymoron) in reducing CO2 emissions growth?
I'm not doubting his research, as I trust that he has the data to back up his results, it's more the way it was written just comes across weak, vindictive, and not as credible as it rightfully should be. I understand that a lot of that is going to be because of WSJ, character limits, etc. I'd love to hear more about his research and how he reached his conclusions if he has any public information available to read further.
Reply With Quote
